Helping Marine Comebacks

15791011

Comments

  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    So, you're saying you want kills to be irrelevant, and place more importance on resource control.
    mattji104
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    Well to be honest, it's THE key point in NS1 & 2 since ... the beginning. There is no mercy for the RTs, nothing is granted on this area. This game is a RTS/FPS. I like to put it before FPS. I wouldn't lower myself playing COD or CS.

    Kills are just a mean to save Base/RTs. Base and Hives are the critical elements.

    The resources (PRES) are precisely what provide the good fights. The game i described was like that, precisely because no one could kill RTs to critically damage the opponent economy. Both teams were sitting at least on 3 RTs . I mean; can you rememeber a game where the Aliens drop 4 or 5 hives ? and finally, in the end, nobody is frustrated (winner and losers) ? I think i'm lucky to have one.

    If both team can secure a balanced RTs amount (not 70%/30%(or less) like today) and make it last enough time to make mid game last longer. Everybody will be happy. All players will have their 'shottie' (or big gun), fade, lerk, whatever. It will need many little adjustments but not to design the entire game again.

    How many times a player would re-buy ? Up to the dev to 'fine tune' it. When no one can re-buy anything (no more money) the end will be faster than any marine turtle scenario or Tunnel/bile bomb rush sequence.

    Because today you save PRES, buy something and hope not to die too fast. You also hope that somebody won't keep your lost shotgun (only on pub) and leave you with nothing. With a "re-buy for a cheaper price" system, you get used to spend PRES to re-buy, so you just do. Most players will just get emptied and won't go gorge, or won't be able to turtle as they lost their stuff far away.

    The game today is like a sequence of events. It tends to remove the choice of strategy for aliens. I mean at high level 'shade' is risky to say the least. Crag is chosen when the aliens know they will take hard hits. Shift when lag is high. And then the aliens try to get the 2 'naturals' up (before or after the spurs/shells is irrelevant) and cross the fingers. If something bad happens (flash fade), usually nobody can buy again the same. Eventually you see a Fade die and he goes Lerk. But everybody knows GG will called soon if the lerks don't make it... Usually they don't.

    If the game was
    -balanced around 50%/50% map control (with slower alien economy of course).
    -allowing to secure RTs for some time in early game. Cyst/spore and something for marine like nano-shield for X mins on Rts. (Right now it's my first target. If you kill the "money" you kill hopes.)

    ->
    -Rookies would probably feel better. They would train to get better at alien life forms and other things. More time as something else than skulk/grunt would clearly please them.
    -Everybody would have a longer mid game and good fights. Less unforgiving.
    -Bile bomb rush wouldn't be the last resort for aliens. I expect it more in mid game (if nothing is changed about bile bomb of course).


    So in this scenario :
    -Kills won't be irrelevant. It will just need more kills (fade or else) to get on top. more kills, more fights. Maybe good fights ? At least better than ONE fight and that's it.
    -Resource control will be of the same importance with just a protection at the beginning to ensure a proper mid game. It implies many funny things if you start to think about it.
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,191 admin
    unrendered wrote: »
    adding additional factors/randomness that makes the lower skilled player win without deserving so is one of the worst things you can add to a game. Especially a competitive one...
    By definition, Random is a flip of a coin - walking into an alien base with a flamethrower (with less player dmg) and staying alive while the enemy team focuses on you is not a flip of the coin, just like the many other similar mechanics..

    Calling it random just makes you look like you haven't read this thread or just don't understand it, given the amount of explanation I've provided.
    No offense, but please don't post unhelpful one sentence replies in this thread if you can't be bothered to absorb what's being written and actually engage in the discussion.

    I've already posted 4 separate times why allowing additional mechanics is a good thing - and in a hypothetical example why having just one is an extremely poor thing.
    You could always respond to the meat of that argument with an actual counter point instead of just repeating the hyperbole of posts prior.


    mattji104 wrote: »
    A. I'm not saying remove them, at all
    You've suggested removing powernodes and cysts and tunnels not requiring infestation in almost every post you've made in these 7 pages.
    mattji104 wrote: »
    B. You still haven't answered my questions.
    I didn't see one question directed towards me from you except for the rhetorical and obvious one about a marine team with 200 tres that loses to a gorge because the team wasn't situationally aware?
    mattji104 wrote: »
    C. I keep saying that it will allow the game to require less comeback mechanics. There's more that needs to be done than JUST allowing building to function without them
    Yes, you do keep saying that - but without explaining why and without explaining how that solves the actual issue of snowballing. If anything your suggestions yet again reward the first team to be in the lead.
    It's akin to saying "My suggestion will require less government spending on welfare programs" because your suggestion includes killing off the poor. You aren't exactly fixing something as much as you are making it so much worse that the original symptom no longer matters. If I am incorrect, please explain in clear detail.



    Regarding stability vs. unstability per moultano's directed question:
    I have been observing that the micro factors that contribute to losses that competitive players here dislike are strikingly similar to the early game micro factors that contribute to a predictable outcome.
    In other words, winning an early engagement and blocking that lane often take less time and has more of an impact on who will win the round, than a losing team exploiting a vulnerability such as marines piling through a PG into a hive room, which doesn't always work out well. Yet one is considered the proper way to play, and the other is associated with a perception of unfairness or being undeserved despite the mistakes the winning team made to allow them.

    Makes me think @twiliteblue 's observation of the early game being too unstable is what heavily contributes to a predictable outcome moreso than skill differences.


    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • unrenderedunrendered Finland Join Date: 2013-11-07 Member: 189137Members, Reinforced - Supporter, WC 2013 - Supporter Posts: 37 Fully active user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Calling it random just makes you look like you haven't read this thread or just don't understand it, given the amount of explanation I've provided.
    No offense, but please don't post unhelpful one sentence replies in this thread if you can't be bothered to absorb what's being written and actually engage in the discussion.

    I've already posted 4 separate times why allowing additional mechanics is a good thing - and in a hypothetical example why having just one is an extremely poor thing.
    You could always respond to the meat of that argument with an actual counter point instead of just repeating the hyperbole of posts prior.

    meh.

    I just honestly do not see these cheese rushes done by aliens as a real issue. They can be countered very easily, so in a match where both teams are equally skilled there is no unfair comeback factor for either team. I don't think there should even be more gimmick comeback factors.

    I think sometimes it's important to not necessarily change the game to fix something, but let the metagame develop itself to counter these issues. But I doubt the majority of people in pubs will ever learn...
    "Embrace the stack. Always look at it as an opportunity."

    - Hugh Jeremy
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,082 Advanced user
    Benson wrote: »
    General Ideas to slow down game:
    Slower resource ticks - Less resources/min = less upgrades/min = longer phases
    Longer research times - see above "math"
    Easier to re-buy guns/lifeforms - (harder to take an area with more higher lifeforms/guns)
    I like your post, only one thing bothers me. What is it about slowing down the game, that helps with snowballing?

    Somebody brought up the analogy (that I don't think completely fits for ns2, but I do think it paints a picture here) of snowballing in SC2. Often times when you gain a lead you have to fall back and macro a final army, or you risk losing that lead. To increase the resource ticks would only mean, that this period in time where the winning player is just macroing and not really doing anything, would be prolonged unnecessarily. It wouldn't actually give the losing player any more or less of a chance to break out of his containment or what ever the situation is.

    So I don't quite see exactly how slowing down the game actually helps with snowballing. Other than you may give people more time to respond and "come back". But I don't think that the general frustration is that people don't have enough time to come back - rather people are unable to come back, simply by a lack of skill or tech. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    twiliteblue
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    walking into an alien base with a flamethrower (with less player dmg) and staying alive while the enemy team focuses on you is not a flip of the coin

    But will be devastating if you have a player who can aim beside you
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Regarding stability vs. unstability per moultano's directed question:
    I have been observing that the micro factors that contribute to losses that competitive players here dislike are strikingly similar to the early game micro factors that contribute to a predictable outcome.

    Stop saying predictable outcome. Games are only decided when the losing team gives up. It is entirely possible for aliens to comeback and win rounds, without major exploits (GT BB rush) of marine mistakes, from any point in the game.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    In other words, winning an early engagement and blocking that lane often take less time and has more of an impact on who will win the round, than a losing team exploiting a vulnerability such as marines piling through a PG into a hive room, which doesn't always work out well. Yet one is considered the proper way to play, and the other is associated with a perception of unfairness or being undeserved despite the mistakes the winning team made to allow them.

    Being in position and winning engagements is considered proper. Bile rush when out of position is also a proper way to respond. The foremost early game actually has less of an impact because there are so many ways to deal with this GOOD PLAY. The latter late game can have devastating consequences despite there being so many ways to deal with this OBVIOUS PLAY.

    Having skill does not always mean you take advantages of the opposition's mistakes, but you FORCE them to make mistakes. That's where the "undeserved" attitude comes in. The GT BB rush is almost always as a consequence of the retard magnets like offensive PGs that allow clueless marines to phase through and follow the crowd to frag hunt. This is NOT primarily due to alien's decisions. The aliens are making the best of a bad situation they put themselves in which is OK in terms of getting a victory, but nevertheless UNDESERVED and cheap. There is more than one way to crack an egg (win by cheese, win by good plays), only one might be messy...

    A fantastic example to show how the community has slowly improved (and yet hasn't) is the paradigm shift from fast PGs to fast upgrades. Fast PGs meant that often the back lines and res were heavily undefended. Now with fast upgrades, spawners always react to RTs underattack. I believe this was a major reason for the win rate getting closer to 50-50 (among other factors like better ups, better frags). Although this only extends itself to tech routes because once the PGs pop, the number of people that phase and look too far forward on the map instead of all over to cover naturals doesn't appear to have changed much.

    In conclusion all that this paradigm shift has changed is that early game marines are stronger, but once PGs pop, marines are just as dumb as they used to be. There are ways aliens can deal with this and still come out with a win, you just need to think and not give up.
    twilitebluemeatmachine
  • ChizzlerChizzler Join Date: 2013-01-04 Member: 177532Members Posts: 234 Fully active user
    edited May 2015
    @IronHorse

    You seem to want to buff the flamethrower to give marines an option similar to the Bilebomb rushes aliens have during a desperate situation and flip the result of a match (that's what's lead to discussions of the bilebomb mechanic and how it's not a good example to follow)... If this is correct there's one glaring issue you're overlooking... Pub marines can't get out of base at that stage of a match and flamethrower tweaks aren't suddenly going to make that possible... On the off chance a marine does get out and get a phase gate up (to which the changes you propose make no impact on). Aliens are sat outside the marine base and will pile in as soon as the marines leave. Your change won't have the desired result. Even if theres some magic here im missing and it does allow marines to pop a hive AND hold their base, Aliens havn't lost all that much at this stage. Losing the marines main base is a bigger blow than aliens losing their starting hive (unless maybe ,they've dropped all their upgrade chambers in one location).

    You also seem to think I'm a competitive player, despite having never been part of a team, and having only played a handful of friendly pug matches...and that I like apparently all competitive players are looking for a predictable match that progresses down a set route each time... I don't see where you get that from your 'observations' and are simply attacking an entire group of players because they disagree with you. I'm not surprised people have become a little hostile towards you over the course of this thread when your go to response seems to be "your wrong, and I don't see you coming up with anything". Be a little more open-minded about where the problems actually exist and you might see that others are offering up solutions...try discussing them, rather than outright dismissing them.

    You've had a lot of people disagree with flamethrower changes, not because they don't want marines to have the ability to come back from a bad position (I think we'd all like to see more matches that arn't decided after 5mins) but because your proposed tweaks play into the hands of marines in a strong position... outside of a hive push, the flamethrower will remain less than useless because PvE isn't the issue you think it is...As far as i'm concerned, you can buff the hell out of the flamethrower... go nuts for all I care... you'll be disappointed by the results. I'm done discussing it with you, but will continue to give feedback to others in this thread who are remaining open-minded and offering up solutions to issues you're blind too.

    Finally, i'm going to respond to your comment that my idea of restricting lifeform evolution would lead to less varied games.

    Outside of gorge rush tunnels the impact on a match it would have is minimal. Yes it'd make bilebomb rushes a little more difficult to pull off, but the option remains there and I shouldn't need to tell you that gorge rushes were happening long before tunnels even existed... They just made it so easy to do that it's basically guaranteed a losing alien team will attempt it. That's not variation in a match. the variable is purely whether or not the gorge rush is successful.
    By making the change, it might occur less often... is that a bad thing? I'd say no. as it stands, if we've got aliens on the back foot, we're talking about when the bilebomb rush is coming, not if.

    Now my idea doesn't solve the issue of comebacks you're so keen to discuss... but if you're looking at bilebomb rushes as an example of a good end-game comeback mechanic, you're wrong, and the end-game (although it could be improved) isn't where i'd focus my efforts.

    Go and spectate 20-30 pub matches... count how many times a bilebomb rush occurs thanks to a tunnel... not if it's successful or not... your so called "variation" happens nearly every single match the aliens are losing.. it's become so predictable it rarely works out.

    Whilst you're at it, count how many times marines lose a match because of PvE... the number will be smaller than you think, because again, "PVE isn't the issue you think it is".

    Finally, count how many times the result is obvious after 5 mins of a match and you might see where the problems actually exist.

    Natural Selection has an RTS style economy, and much like an RTS, the match is decided before it comes to it's conclusion. Let's not look at ways to upset the balance during the end-game but look at ways to stop a match being decided so early in most cases. the victory screen is a formality.. I don't suddenly feel like a winner when my team steals victory in a 1min tunnel/gorge rush after 15mins of having my ass handed to me by a superior team. I'm just relieved the match is over so we can get a new one going and we can play the important stages of a match again.
    Post edited by Chizzler on
    Frozen
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    Chizzler wrote: »
    If this is correct there's one glaring issue you're overlooking... Pub marines can't get out of base at that stage of a match and flamethrower tweaks aren't suddenly going to make that possible... On the off chance a marine does get out and get a phase gate up (to which the changes you propose make no impact on). Aliens are sat outside the marine base and will pile in as soon as the marines leave. Your change won't have the desired result. Even if theres some magic here im missing and it does allow marines to pop a hive AND hold their base, Aliens havn't lost all that much at this stage. Losing the marines main base is a bigger blow than aliens losing their starting hive (unless maybe ,they've dropped all their upgrade chambers in one location).
    I actually think both effects are desirable.
    1. Marines currently "can't" get out of base when they are losing in the endgame, but that's partly because they don't have a motivation to. Even if they did, there's nothing they can accomplish, so there's no coordinated push. My hope is that by giving the marines the ability to inflict real damage to a late game alien team will make this part of the game more dynamic, instead of the slow grind at the main base doors. Marines will actually keep trying because they have realistic prospects.
    2. If getting marines out of base leads to a sudden alien steamroll, that's desirable too. Nobody likes the end game slog where aliens slowly break in, so if giving marines a realistic objective speeds that up too, that's a good outcome.
    I'm done discussing it with you, but will continue to give feedback to others in this thread who are remaining open-minded and offering up solutions to issues you're blind too.
    Can we please stop the meta discussion. Either talk to the people in the thread, civilly, or go do something else.
    Go and spectate 20-30 pub matches... count how many times a bilebomb rush occurs thanks to a tunnel... not if it's successful or not... your so called "variation" happens nearly every single match the aliens are losing.. it's become so predictable it rarely works out.
    It's predictable, but dynamic. It gives both teams clear things to do that are fun. Even if it doesn't work it keeps the game involving to the end.

    IronHorsecooliticSupaFred
  • BensonBenson Join Date: 2012-03-07 Member: 148303Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 1,296 Advanced user
    @SantaClaws

    The idea is that with each phase of the game being longer, they have both more time and ability to even the table.

    For instance, if on team loses a large amount of extractors in a short time, they have more time to rebuild them before the next enemy power spike (upgrades/lifeorms) comes onto the field, which may mean that when they do arrive, the team on the back foot had an opportunity to either reestablish their economy or damage the enemy's.

    Essentially,the idea was aimed at making more engagements be required to establish a commanding lead, which can really only happen if more time is available between tech.

    I can't say if this will fix anything, but I think it is at least worth discussing.
    If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are. - Capt. Jean Luc Picard
  • ChizzlerChizzler Join Date: 2013-01-04 Member: 177532Members Posts: 234 Fully active user
    edited May 2015
    moultano wrote: »
    Chizzler wrote: »
    If this is correct there's one glaring issue you're overlooking... Pub marines can't get out of base at that stage of a match and flamethrower tweaks aren't suddenly going to make that possible... On the off chance a marine does get out and get a phase gate up (to which the changes you propose make no impact on). Aliens are sat outside the marine base and will pile in as soon as the marines leave. Your change won't have the desired result. Even if theres some magic here im missing and it does allow marines to pop a hive AND hold their base, Aliens havn't lost all that much at this stage. Losing the marines main base is a bigger blow than aliens losing their starting hive (unless maybe ,they've dropped all their upgrade chambers in one location).
    I actually think both effects are desirable.
    1. Marines currently "can't" get out of base when they are losing in the endgame, but that's partly because they don't have a motivation to. Even if they did, there's nothing they can accomplish, so there's no coordinated push. My hope is that by giving the marines the ability to inflict real damage to a late game alien team will make this part of the game more dynamic, instead of the slow grind at the main base doors. Marines will actually keep trying because they have realistic prospects.
    2. If getting marines out of base leads to a sudden alien steamroll, that's desirable too. Nobody likes the end game slog where aliens slowly break in, so if giving marines a realistic objective speeds that up too, that's a good outcome.

    I understand what you want to accomplish, and I'm not objecting to the concept of giving a losing team options, although imo, once you're turtling in base, it's game over, you've made lots of mistakes to get to that point, and now your comeback options have been closed. The reasons turtles can take so long is because they get to that point before the aliens have got the game ending tech available and it draws the match out. The fact that aliens can win a match from such a position leaves me conflicted... On one hand it's cheesy because it requires almost no skill to set up, on the other, you're punishing marines for making an error. I just feel that at the moment the mistake is too small on the marines part in allowing aliens to get a rush set up (i.e. getting the tunnel up near marine base). As for the rush taking place, i've got no problems.. if the marines allow gorges into their base, they deserve to be punished. Is it something you can emulate for the marines though?
    When you bilebomb rush the marine base, they lose a ton. phase gate, obs ,2ips ,aa , proto, CC and an RT. They also lose a lot of map control because of the way pg's are utilized and the differing movement speeds between alien and marine. Taking a hive down won't have the same effect on a match at this stage. aliens still have their movement options and higher lifeforms (maintaining any lifeform upgrades that were tied to lost biomass until they die). But here I'm picking apart the effectiveness of a similar ability rather than the idea of it.

    If an option is found where marines were given an end-game option I imagine i'd be equally conflicted about it... but I don't feel the flamethrower buffs is the way to go, for reasons i've already given. Personally, i'd like to see the turtles reached later, once aliens/marines have the tech researched to end the game quickly.

    I think Benson could be on the right tracks with slowing down the game so there is more time to recover from early game mistakes before the snowball has too much momentum to stop. Obviously it could lead to even longer marine turtles, but it's more reliant on the teams skill than an early game advantage.
    Chizzler wrote: »
    I'm done discussing it with you, but will continue to give feedback to others in this thread who are remaining open-minded and offering up solutions to issues you're blind too.

    Your right, that was unnecessary, and I'm certainly not going to ignore his input here. I apologize for the remark.
  • cooliticcoolitic Right behind you Join Date: 2013-04-02 Member: 184609Members Posts: 1,684 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    Yeah the only time late-game comebacks should be happening is if the winning team has high-negligence towards a critical POI and the losing team punishes them hard for that which can give them a lot of map control. Obviously this is unlikely to happen in most scenarios.
    When life gives you lemons, throw it back and demand chocolate.


  • BensonBenson Join Date: 2012-03-07 Member: 148303Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 1,296 Advanced user
    Seb wrote: »
    To do this, I don't think you have to add in any new abilities. Tweak the resource model so that res nodes aren't on linear increments, maybe you have 2 or 3 res a tick on the base node and then every extremity node gives you .5 res or something. That would lessen the impact of being outpaced by tech in the early game and maybe give you a chance in the mid game to comeback. It would lessen the importance of biting res nodes a fair bit but with some brainstorming I'm sure something along those lines could be done instead of adding in cheese abilities and such.

    Crazy idea: what if res points in TP rooms gave this extra res, but only if the TP was claimed.
    If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are. - Capt. Jean Luc Picard
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,191 admin
    @nachos
    nachos wrote: »
    Stop saying predictable outcome. Games are only decided when the losing team gives up. It is entirely possible for aliens to comeback and win rounds, without major exploits (GT BB rush) of marine mistakes, from any point in the game.
    Not true at all and you know it isn't. Predictable outcomes exist, and can become apparent at any time in a round. The causes aside, I dislike this design due to what it brings.
    It's quite frequent that games are well over and decided long before you wait the sometimes extra 5 to 10 minutes before the rest of the team concedes in a pub game.
    I don't play on EU pubs but I have to assume you experience some degree of this?

    If you want to argue semantics like "it's technically not over because the splash screen hasn't displayed yet" well I am not interested in such a semantic discussion. That's ignoring the problem of a demoralizing, frustrating and drawn out gameplay that leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. That's the issue I see, that it often is not worth continuing to play. This just can't help player retention.
    Do comebacks happen? Ofc they do. Do those symptoms I just listed happen? Ofc they do, and they should be addressed, imo.

    Also why point out how only one team (aliens) has more capable means of coming back and winning rounds at any point in a round, as if that's an acceptable design despite the downsides it creates?
    I don't get what you were trying to say there?
    nachos wrote: »
    Having skill does not always mean you take advantages of the opposition's mistakes, but you FORCE them to make mistakes. That's where the "undeserved" attitude comes in.... The aliens are making the best of a bad situation they put themselves in which is OK in terms of getting a victory, but nevertheless UNDESERVED and cheap.
    Like I said previously, this viewpoint infers that only a few methods of attaining victory are morally acceptable and should be allowed. Which would reduce variability and increase "predictable outcomes."
    Also, you've said before that it isn't about manners, but yet you keep saying cheap?..
    nachos wrote: »
    A fantastic example to show how the community has slowly improved (and yet hasn't) is the paradigm shift from fast PGs to fast upgrades.
    Confirmation bias from a much reduced playercount. Have a free weekend and observe the same results from years prior return.
    Also, if it takes _years_ to overcome on average such a small, insignificant thing such as a single decision in a build order... then this again points to an issue in the design as well as the lukewarm response of "oh they'll L2P, don't worry."

    We need to account for the floor, to some degree, no matter how poor our data set is we need to at least attempt to diagnose and address instead of simply dismissing.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    @Chizzler
    I have not responded to you, nor have I referenced you... so you must have gotten that mixed up or assumed, I apologize for not being more specific. :)

    Like the 2nd post in this thread said, I don't necessarily consider the specific title of this thread to be the extent of what would be needed, and in fact I do not even believe (as i've stated in here already) that there should be a mechanic which allows either team to "come back" after being locked into their base. So I don't know where you got that from either

    I am not "attacking" a whole group of players, for the record, and if you feel i have please direct me to a quote where I have.

    If anything I have responded how what is being suggested is not for that scene or skill level / player size, and have been very clear about it because the first few pages of responses were largely from the remaining playerbase (which is largely comprised of competitive now) who were repeating "L2P" and linking videos of high division 6v6 matches as if it has any bearing on the symptoms being discussed. There's also this groupthink issue that occurs where new ideas are quickly shot down or frowned upon and few individuals' ideas are the only acceptable. Some of it can be seen with a lack of participation in this discussion from very able persons, that instead agree on posts which oppose this idea that were made by those select few individuals, where 9/10 of the agrees are from comp players..

    So, if I have seemed confrontational - which I know I have been at points - it is because I am frustrated from repeating my points, preventing irrelevant points (l2p), and from primarily debating with a certain crowd who can be perceived as being unable to see through the eyes of a lesser skilled player on a 24 player server, and are too often content with responding "L2P" which gives off a sense of not actually caring about the quality of games that occur for a scene they typically do not participate in or find much value in.
    It is very frustrating to me, as a result.. as I've always believed in accounting for the average experience and I much rather simply have a nuanced discussion to hammer it out - no matter how confrontational it is - than write it off as "not smart" to discuss at all and walk away..

    Also, please direct me to where i've been closed minded to an idea here, as I believe you are again mixing things up.
    If anything I've desperately attempted to draw out explanations from individuals instead of their one sentence replies or vague ideas.
    Saying "it's bad" or "it's the wrong way" is insufficient in a discussion this nuanced, as it contributes nothing - I am pretty sure you can agree to this? (props to @unrendered for elaborating)

    For the record, I do disagree regarding the PvE impact, especially as the alien khamm increasingly doesn't have much else to do with his Tres, (pub khamms less likely to micro drifters etc) and of course the difference between clearing 2 or 3 hive rooms with all the clogs, hydras, whips, crags, shifts, shades, gorge tunnels, drifters and the hive itself....... versus a PG and an RT ... are worth considering when you're talking about effort involved in a comeback.

    ________________________________________________________________________

    @Benson and @Seb Great Ideas, both of you. I think a resource economy based solution could be a much more elegant approach to the listed symptoms. How to avoid hidden mechanics / communicate to the players is the only issue.





    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    I do like the adjusting the economy as an approach to fixing problems. It is a big enough change to produce the desired effect.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    If we're discussing economy changes, what about making alien RTs give more resources when mature, and fewer when new? (I feel like this may have been tried before but I don't remember the result.)

    There are several reasons this makes sense to me.
    1. Drifters make it easier for aliens to take the whole map if they get a lucky streak of kills and fill the spawn queue. In contrast, a marine team that manages to take the whole map has probably been dominating all game. This mechanic would punish aliens more for over extending if the marines can get back out on the field because the alien RTs won't have paid for themselves.
    2. It's easy for aliens to get behind the marine lines, but harder for marines to get behind alien lines. This rewards the marines more if they get deep into enemy territory. This makes a ninja phase more powerful because it lets the marines take out more valuable RTs, which was one of my goals from this thread.
    3. End game winning aliens may need to throw away lifeforms to finish the game, and this makes that easier.

    To avoid hurting aliens in the early game, you could increase their starting res to compensate.
    BensonSupaFred
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    IronHorse wrote: »
    @nachos
    nachos wrote: »
    Stop saying predictable outcome. Games are only decided when the losing team gives up. It is entirely possible for aliens to comeback and win rounds, without major exploits (GT BB rush) of marine mistakes, from any point in the game.
    Not true at all and you know it isn't. Predictable outcomes exist, and can become apparent at any time in a round. The causes aside, I dislike this design due to what it brings.
    It's quite frequent that games are well over and decided long before you wait the sometimes extra 5 to 10 minutes before the rest of the team concedes in a pub game.
    I don't play on EU pubs but I have to assume you experience some degree of this?

    LOL AT HOW BLASÉ YOU ARE. Total denial, move on, I'm telling lies because obviously I'm benefiting somehow by deceiving you.

    Losing engagements and all map control at 34 pres does not mean that aliens will lose because fades are adequately balanced to fight off 3-3 JP/SGs with metab alone (this isn't me playing fade, it's publics playing vs publics), I know this because I've won and lost games from this position. The same players that were skulks who lost map control, managed to get frags and play with discipline as fades. It's also worth mentioning that this was one of those games where everyone on the team was ecstatic about the victory because it was won through hard work.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    That's the issue I see, that it often is not worth continuing to play. This just can't help player retention.

    So often do I see people conceding before all avenues and opportunities are expired.
    Maybe you lose your PGs, concede.
    Maybe you're on 1RT as alien, concede.
    Maybe you lost an onos, concede.
    Maybe you lost a hive, concede.

    These things are obviously all bad for your team but it can be so easy to restablish your PG if you have you RTs still up, you might have 1 tick away from lifeforms so 1 RT is ok to play with, an onos isn't the end of the world because you can keep their res low to buy more time, a hive loss doesn't mean you can't bite res and re-expand to redrop the hive.

    So often do people make mountains out of mole hills and I would not be surprised if you were a similar type player.

    IronHorse wrote: »
    Also why point out how only one team (aliens) has more capable means of coming back and winning rounds at any point in a round, as if that's an acceptable design despite the downsides it creates?
    I don't get what you were trying to say there?

    In case you still don't understand, I'm only trying to stop you thinking that BB rush is a good comeback mechanic to base any future feature on. Everything else has been an extension of futile arguments you bring up because you fail to comprehend or appreciate skill as a factor in a competitive game.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    nachos wrote: »
    Having skill does not always mean you take advantages of the opposition's mistakes, but you FORCE them to make mistakes. That's where the "undeserved" attitude comes in.... The aliens are making the best of a bad situation they put themselves in which is OK in terms of getting a victory, but nevertheless UNDESERVED and cheap.
    Like I said previously, this viewpoint infers that only a few methods of attaining victory are morally acceptable and should be allowed. Which would reduce variability and increase "predictable outcomes."
    Also, you've said before that it isn't about manners, but yet you keep saying cheap?..

    Wow I'm almost lost for words. I only wish I could insult and type expletives directed at you for this. Perhaps I'll use your very own *Sigh* to show how much of a moron you are.

    GT BB rush should be allowed because the mechanics in place that allow this to happen are good for other things like breaking an expansion deadlock or killing ARCs and a forward base. Nerfing GT would make expansions harder (we saw this with the much needed HP nerf), and nerfing BB would make ARCs and forward fortifications stronger.

    HOWEVER, making a comeback mechanic similar to GT BB rush for the sake of devastating a teams base is just dumb for all the reasons previously stated.

    Winning doesn't have to be about manners, winning with a sense of satisfaction and achievement is more likely to occur when the victory is deserved, not cheap. Why would you promote winning at all costs if it's not fun? Oh yeah because in your view those people whom take time to think about what they do and what they should do and appreciate the meta for what it is should have just as much fun as those who join a server and press W + left mouse button 1. Forget the beauty of strategy and the complexity of the game that could be explored, lets just make it easy for everyone to get that victory logo.

    Yay everyone's a winner mentality.


    IronHorse wrote: »
    nachos wrote: »
    A fantastic example to show how the community has slowly improved (and yet hasn't) is the paradigm shift from fast PGs to fast upgrades.
    Confirmation bias from a much reduced playercount. Have a free weekend and observe the same results from years prior return.
    Also, if it takes _years_ to overcome on average such a small, insignificant thing such as a single decision in a build order... then this again points to an issue in the design as well as the lukewarm response of "oh they'll L2P, don't worry."
    Oh please anyone who has played over the last 2 years can see the noticeable difference between the number of games started with PG first and now arms lab first. I don't have statistics to back it up so of course it's going to be a confirmation bias, it doesn't make what I say any more wrong.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    We need to account for the floor, to some degree, no matter how poor our data set is we need to at least attempt to diagnose and address instead of simply dismissing.

    Everyone has the ability to position themselves properly, look at the map and read it the same, and make the right decisions. The only difference in skill set that is difficult to change and so where game balance is more appropriate to deal with issues than L2P, is aim and reflexes.

    IronHorse wrote: »
    If anything I have responded how what is being suggested is not for that scene or skill level / player size, and have been very clear about it because the first few pages of responses were largely from the remaining playerbase (which is largely comprised of competitive now) who were repeating "L2P" and linking videos of high division 6v6 matches as if it has any bearing on the symptoms being discussed.
    I can link you a low division 90 minute long 6v6 round if you'd like :smile:. Not much has changed in the way of meta in competitive and player count really does not have that much of an impact on meta either. To dismiss it because it is another scene is moronic.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    There's also this groupthink issue that occurs where new ideas are quickly shot down or frowned upon and few individuals' ideas are the only acceptable. Some of it can be seen with a lack of participation in this discussion from very able persons, that instead agree on posts which oppose this idea that were made by those select few individuals, where 9/10 of the agrees are from comp players..
    There's nothing wrong with new ideas being shot down by appropriate arguments. Competitive players do also play public you realise. I play more public than competitive. I came from public. To dismiss any competitive player's views because they spend any proportion of their time playing competitive is moronic.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    So, if I have seemed confrontational - which I know I have been at points - it is because I am frustrated from repeating my points, preventing irrelevant points (l2p), and from primarily debating with a certain crowd who can be perceived as being unable to see through the eyes of a lesser skilled player on a 24 player server, and are too often content with responding "L2P" which gives off a sense of not actually caring about the quality of games that occur for a scene they typically do not participate in or find much value in.

    You have to repeat your points because it's as if you refuse to understand the counter arguments. READ: Gorgetunnel Bilebomb rush obviously allows a victory and should be allowed, but it should not be a template for future features. It is an unfortunate byproduct of otherwise good mechanics.

    L2P arguments are not irrelevant. Just because a certain time has passed and there are still some issues does not make it the wrong solution. While it may give off a sense of not caring about quality of games in your eyes on a forum, some competitive players do care ingame and do communicate and do teach and do their best to coordinate good plays.

    I'm so tired of your presumptions Ironhorse. You make so many ridiculous claims and assumptions all under the guise of intricately articulated paragraphs and that is what makes you a dangerous person. I play public more than competitive. I play ns2 a hell of a lot because I do value the games and experiences. To assume otherwise is damn right ignorant and prejudice. You claim ad hominem (incorrectly) in my posts when I was just warning people to take a pinch of salt when reading your posts and now you use the very same fallacy to ignore my entire posts and arguments.


    EDIT: I expect many disagrees based on my language of frustration having to deal with someone who appears so articulate and yet misses the point of counter arguments. I only ask that before you dismiss my posts because of the tone I use, you think about the content not the emotion.
    Frozen
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    What if to help the PvP comeback and to help frag lifeforms, marine commander could upgrade on the prototype lab for 20 tres some sort of armor that removes the highlight from alien vision. Marines then purchase said armor for 15 pres.

    Fades and lerks will have a hard time tracking marines in close combat.
    Skulks and onos wouldn't have a problem.

    Fade and lerk acc might decrease improving the survival of marines and chance to frag these lifeforms, and then with high weps and armor ups they should be able to dispatch skulks easily whilst still needing coordination to deal with onos.

    The tres cost makes it late game tech.
    The pres cost makes it a risk/reward feature that foregoes other tech that would be inappropriate in those scenarios.

    EDIT: Debatable points include:
    Does parasite re-highlight the marine?
    Does this seriously damage the potential for aliens to comeback if marines have the advantage? (Onos and skulks can still play vs this relatively easily)
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    Well ... We won't see anything of the sort in the next patch... If it gets out.

    Unless the FT buff in already a reality in the next build. I would be sad to see this. Not because i think it won't do anything good, but because there are many other matters at hand to focus on. FT is close to last in my list, to be honest. 300 players... 398, 313, 257, 230... yay.





    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    nachos wrote: »
    What if to help the PvP comeback and to help frag lifeforms, marine commander could upgrade on the prototype lab for 20 tres some sort of armor that removes the highlight from alien vision. Marines then purchase said armor for 15 pres.

    Fades and lerks will have a hard time tracking marines in close combat.
    Skulks and onos wouldn't have a problem.

    Fade and lerk acc might decrease improving the survival of marines and chance to frag these lifeforms, and then with high weps and armor ups they should be able to dispatch skulks easily whilst still needing coordination to deal with onos.

    The tres cost makes it late game tech.
    The pres cost makes it a risk/reward feature that foregoes other tech that would be inappropriate in those scenarios.

    EDIT: Debatable points include:
    Does parasite re-highlight the marine?
    Does this seriously damage the potential for aliens to comeback if marines have the advantage? (Onos and skulks can still play vs this relatively easily)

    I'm down with this, I don't use Alien Vision so let them waste their res, muahaha
    mattji104
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    Just to take a bit out of one of the previous post. Nachos mentioned people concede at every opportunity. Often times I notice while spectating both teams have concede votes, maybe just 1-2, happening at any intense point of the game for both teams. When I see this it makes me wonder why about 25% of a server is wanting the game to end when the gameplay is what I would say at its best.


    Well ... We won't see anything of the sort in the next patch... If it gets out.

    Unless the FT buff in already a reality in the next build. I would be sad to see this. Not because i think it won't do anything good, but because there are many other matters at hand to focus on. FT is close to last in my list, to be honest. 300 players... 398, 313, 257, 230... yay.

    More patches are coming. It is a matter of waiting on the build machine. Nothing here is even remotely being considered for addition as far as I know.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    mattji104 wrote: »
    @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, directed at you, by the way
    mattji104
  • d0ped0gd0ped0g Join Date: 2003-05-25 Member: 16679Members Posts: 782 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    ^^^
    mattji104 wrote: »
    B. You still haven't answered my questions.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    I didn't see one question directed towards me from you except for the rhetorical and obvious one about a marine team with 200 tres that loses to a gorge because the team wasn't situationally aware?

    Also, adding to that, whilst there are certain situations where the powernode is the right thing to target, more often than not it's more worthwhile to target the obs/pg/cc/ips. If you haven't figured this out after "hundreds of hours of pubs, hundreds of hours of pugs/gathers, and hundreds of hours of competitive", then I don't know what to tell you.
    IronHorse
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    d0ped0g wrote: »
    ^^^
    mattji104 wrote: »
    B. You still haven't answered my questions.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    I didn't see one question directed towards me from you except for the rhetorical and obvious one about a marine team with 200 tres that loses to a gorge because the team wasn't situationally aware?

    Also, adding to that, whilst there are certain situations where the powernode is the right thing to target, more often than not it's more worthwhile to target the obs/pg/cc/ips. If you haven't figured this out after "hundreds of hours of pubs, hundreds of hours of pugs/gathers, and hundreds of hours of competitive", then I don't know what to tell you.

    @d0ped0g If you haven't thought about it while playing for however long you've played yourself, then I do know what to tell you. I just won't... wouldn't? You can pick between those as you please
    mattji104
  • d0ped0gd0ped0g Join Date: 2003-05-25 Member: 16679Members Posts: 782 Advanced user
    I have no idea what you're trying to say. Thought about... what?

    The "powernode = automatic win button" argument has been around since the beta. It's not exactly anything new to me. However, most people have learned over time that it's not quite the Achilles Heel that they first thought it was as they grow to understand the game better. How can it be when, more often than not, there are better things to target. Sometimes during a rush it's the biggest weakness to take advantage of, but certainly not the majority of the time.
    meatmachine
  • SebSeb Melbourne, AU Join Date: 2013-04-01 Member: 184576Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Retired Community Developer Posts: 514 mod
    Yeah look, it depends. You can go for the power node when there are a lot marines dead so you stop multiple ips from respawning and you are going for a final blow, the KO so to speak. It's much more beneficial to damage the economy with an arms lab/ip attack with bile but whatever.
    d0ped0gelodea
  • nemonemo Join Date: 2003-01-05 Member: 11908Members, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 54 Fully active user
    Most games with a snowballing mechanic balance it out by making it so that every advantage picks up a disadvantage too.

    The most common is that by expanding your territory you spread your numbers thinner and become more open to counter attack. However lane blocking is relatively easy in NS2, to the point were you can have most of the map, be on the offensive, and also block lanes all at the same time.

    Aliens have tunnels and vents to help, as well as raw speed. Marines have phase gates, both teams have the ability to spawn at multiple locations (if they have invested in multiple bases).

    A skulk pushing through the lines only really has the option of biting RTs, a risky base attack, or evolving and doing a tunnel + bile rush. A marine breaking through the lines can attack an RT or set up a PG.

    In order to balance this you need to increase the reward for breaking through the lines, or to reduce how much it costs you to be the "stalled" team. You do this by looking at things a winning team has, that a losing team does not have.

    One thing a winning team has that a losing team likely doesn't have is OLDER RTs. The winning team likely has a lot of RTs which have been up a while, the losing team is likely constantly losing and rebuilding RTs. Hence you can rebalance by making RTs stronger when new, and "age" to become less strong. Thus you simply reverse maturity for alien RTs (start strong and young, lose max HP over time), for marine RTs you can make them start with a 1-2 minute nano shield on construction and then lose it after that time.

    The result is that when you break through the lines of the stronger team and bite/shoot RTs its more effective than before. It also motivates players to sneak through deeper into enemy territory (to attack the easier to kill, older RTs) and thus disrupt the lane blocking by making enemies fall back. This adds real cost to taking lots of territory. Marines pushed back into base have a real chance of getting their naturals back up, as a brand new RT is a lot stronger so the trickle of reinforcements has a chance. The start of the game becomes friendlier too, the couple of pro players who instantly run to the enemy naturals will have a harder time of making the game a lost cause within the first minute.
    JonMo from the JonMo & ShellMo <3 NS2 Servers
    WobIronHorse
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    @d0ped0g , I'm not concerned about power nodes in base.
    mattji104
Sign In or Register to comment.