...They held their res -> they won. Simple as that. ..
So I should be killing RTs instead of shooting players? PvE instead of PvP?
That's why I don't play anymore. I'm the guy defending our nodes... I'm tired of defending our nodes and the one trying to kill their nodes.
I've seen more games where the team that loses the initial engagement(s) automatically wants to concede. If not they are highly demoralized. Furthermore the winning team is often more than happy to hold what they have because its safer to wait for jp/gl then risk pushing forward and losing the res nodes.
Don't even say the word jetpack. I hate em. So much. Fight me on the ground like a man ya cowards! Ehhh....anyways,here's a crazy idea ya might like this....notice I said might.....anyways! What if you got more points/res/whatever for being with team mates? It would encourage players to work together and go in groups/packs. Of course,they'd need to help their friends! Can't just leech points ya know! So maybe the more kills and assists (WHICH SHOULD BE A THING BTW) you got while around team mates,the more points or res or whatever you'd get! And maybe the more there are the more points you get to a maximum of 7 players?
NS2 should help show players that one of the key aspects of winning is working together.
*GASP* What if there were a few changes/new features that all had something to do with team work?!
Just brainstorming,ya know.....cause I really don't want NS2 to die,it's hard enough finding a server with more than 4 players!
What you describe seems like a res-for-kill system, which would be EXTREMELY bad if we are trying to address the heavy snowballing (sometimes it feel more like an instant avalanche)
It gives the winners of a fight even more of an advantage than already get by having won the fight.
Think about the 50-0 God-Fades. Imagine FINALLY killing the fade that has murdered your team 3 times, just to have him immediately re-fade and do it all again. Its a very frustrating, hollow victory sort of feeling that just makes you want to give up even more.
...On the other hand, if an RFK gave different amounts of resources based on K/D or kills/life (its different), that could be an interesting way to balance things out.
Example:
Simple:
A player is worth their K/D in pres to their killer. So a 50-0 god-fade would be worth 50 pres*, and a 1/50 nublet would be worth next to nothing
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
The actual ammount of res the player is worth can be shows on the scoreboard for simplicity, and maybe even with a skill icon over high value targets player model.
-OR-
Dynamic:
A player becomes worth more depending on the amount of kills they get during their current life, meaning that if that 50-0 God-Fade dies while spawning due to a hive push, he does not grant 2 huge rewards so fast.
This is like a "Bounty" system that helps out players who cant go 50-0 against those that can by letting them earn more tech*.
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
I know we already give out points based on %Damage done, this system could translate into how Pres would be divided.
What you describe seems like a res-for-kill system, which would be EXTREMELY bad if we are trying to address the heavy snowballing (sometimes it feel more like an instant avalanche)
It gives the winners of a fight even more of an advantage than already get by having won the fight.
Think about the 50-0 God-Fades. Imagine FINALLY killing the fade that has murdered your team 3 times, just to have him immediately re-fade and do it all again. Its a very frustrating, hollow victory sort of feeling that just makes you want to give up even more.
...On the other hand, if an RFK gave different amounts of resources based on K/D or kills/life (its different), that could be an interesting way to balance things out.
Example:
Simple:
A player is worth their K/D in pres to their killer. So a 50-0 god-fade would be worth 50 pres*, and a 1/50 nublet would be worth next to nothing
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
The actual ammount of res the player is worth can be shows on the scoreboard for simplicity, and maybe even with a skill icon over high value targets player model.
-OR-
Dynamic:
A player becomes worth more depending on the amount of kills they get during their current life, meaning that if that 50-0 God-Fade dies while spawning due to a hive push, he does not grant 2 huge rewards so fast.
This is like a "Bounty" system that helps out players who cant go 50-0 against those that can by letting them earn more tech*.
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
I know we already give out points based on %Damage done, this system could translate into how Pres would be divided.
so killing the commander, or a gorge player would = very little pres even though the kills might win you the game
how about PRes for Assists instead of RFK Like that it encourages staying togheter and focusing the same target.
(increases the snowball effect)
Or
The other way around You earn 1 Pres for every time you die and engage in a team.
(decreases the snowball effect)
if you are far behind and die a lot you can at least buy a lifeform at some point to comeback and punish the other team for not being able to finnish the game (it could encourage dieing on purpose is the problem so the PRes reward has to be very low).
Or
Introduce Upkeep from Warcraft 3 (decreases the snowball effect)
If you hold 70% of all RTs on the map you only get res like you would hold 50% of all RTS (values have to be rethinked and balanced but for refrence look on the wc3 upkeep @income)
Also:
The most frustating thing is losing lifeforms Let ns2 track how long you had your lifeform and give percentage wise Resources back (decreases the punishment of throwing lifeforms).
depending on how long you had your lifeform.
example:
Fade lasted 1 minute get 40 res back
Fade lasted 10 minutes get 4 res back
Or
it could be done with Pdmg [instead] of Res or how long somebody is alive:
Fade did 0 Pdmg gives 50Pres back.
Fade did 1000 Pdmg give 40Pres back.
Fade did 4000 Pdmg give 4 Pres back.
(also decreses the snowball effect)
(in this case the time sombody stayed alive dosnt matter and the alien team could end up with a lot of lifeforms that dont play their lifeform very well but at least they have addional chances in learning them and they probly stop going these lifeform on their own if they realise they have no impact with it)
(i know the math behind it gets pretty complicated if you have a more simple soultion please come up with it)
I hate how I miss as a marine all the time and then die. Implement aimbot so missing is not as punishing.
I mean seriously. Losing is ment to be frustrating. It means the enemy is better at that one time. No need to fix that.
Yeah, what the hell, give rookies some small bonus to bring them up to speed (if not exploitable to cheat). The rest of us don't need no stabilizer wheels.
...They held their res -> they won. Simple as that. ..
So I should be killing RTs instead of shooting players? PvE instead of PvP?
Yes you should. They are put there by flash and blood commander, no PvE. Also with any luck you will have to shoot horde of players to get to them/ defend them. If you are the only guy in your team who defends/attacks them, take consolation in that, you are likely the best player in your team.
Again no need for radical changes to this game. Just go play some other fun games for awhile, let's say Battlefield 2 or Quake 3 or whatnot.
As for the bounty idea, it's not so bad (that is if the sum collected teamwise does not exceed RT output). Or commander could distribute the res as he sees fit too. The problem is that the rookies will be dry and will be even more of a food than now (not very practical - not good for retention). Also don't forget the GodFade kills your 50 players and will again have most money (well you could argue that he dries the pres of other players in his team while he has nothing to spend them on).
I hate how I miss as a marine all the time and then die. Implement aimbot so missing is not as punishing.
I mean seriously. Losing is ment to be frustrating. It means the enemy is better at that one time. No need to fix that.
Yeah, what the hell, give rookies some small bonus to bring them up to speed (if not exploitable to cheat). The rest of us don't need no stabilizer wheels.
...They held their res -> they won. Simple as that. ..
So I should be killing RTs instead of shooting players? PvE instead of PvP?
Yes you should. They are put there by flash and blood commander, no PvE.
If i stand on a res node biting it for 60 seconds... that's PvE. If i'm the guy going and welding our resnodes for 60 seconds... that's PvE. I don't join in the front line battles because no one else wants to go save our res node from the skulk. Then I get owned by the lerk supporting that skulk. Rinse and repeat.
Cool I'm the best player on my team... that doesn't make the game fun for me. I'm either delaying the enviable loss because they are getting our res nodes or I don't get to really enjoy all that fighting the trailers show everyone.
*yawn*. Maybe I will continue my hiatus from NS2.
Losing isn't MEANT to be anything. It does not HAVE to be frustrating (like trying to stop a snowball from rolling down on to your face). I don't think a logarithmic growth economy is "radical change"
I think the issue is that many new players are not used to the idea of econ in an FPS game. They therefore misunderstand the importance of RTs and positioning on the map. The game is not just about getting kills like other FPS games. It is about holding positions and controlling the map. Many new players fail to understand the strategy behind the game and as a result do not understand why experienced players are mad when they are not "going to the right place".
Trying to take out game mechanics is not going to resolve the issue. If the game is too complex they can play combat. If your going to take out power and cysts then you might as well just directly port over NS1 except spark can not deal with the movement and hitreg requirements of a NS1 port so given you have taken enough out of the game at that point you can go ahead and port it so source making it so everyone with a computer from the last 7 years can play the game.
What I can say is that making major changes by removing thing out of the game when it has been out this long is a quick way to kill what is left of it.
Also can you imagine the commander rage trying to get gorges to cyst... I just hope that if they can cyst it does not stop the com from cysting as well.
@soccerguy243 Yeah sure... anything gets boring after 100s of hours. Especially bad team gets boring fast. Seen it too, some people are like the grunts from DOTA. Just going to that one single place over and over to dish it out with enemy grunts and forgeting rest of the map even exist.
Not if you are Human (wired to perceive win/loss strongly, no matter how uninportant). Preventing snowball in any game is hard/impossible (and possibly against the fun). Even Monopoly or whatever you play in your country snowballs hard. There are two types of games: the snowballing ones, where your actions matter and not snowballing ones, where nothing matters.
EDIT: Actually when I think about it, the more a game snowballs, the more I like it. It ends desperate rounds sooner. It makes everything you do matter from the start. It gives more clear and immediate feedback, that you are doing something wrong. Its more competitive and keeps you on your toes, until you lose/win.
Really I have nothing serious against logarithmic economy growth. I really just don't like the unrealism of it (If I buy two apples, I only get 1.5 apple? what the hell?). Also that it somehow helps the losing team to provide further fun challange to the winning team seems unlikely. If I play it in my mind, it only prolongs the game, alowing the losing team to turtle longer. And also prolong even games between even teams to hours (because it's more forgiving of small mistakes). Nobody likes that after that point. People need to at least pee.
There are two types of games: the snowballing ones, where your actions matter and not snowballing ones, where nothing matters.
This is wrong again - you can pretty much take any non snowballing game (fighting games are a great example) and find that your actions still have a huge impact.. the only difference is that it's a fair and balanced impact instead of a doubly rewarding one.
It ends desperate rounds sooner. It makes everything you do matter from the start. It gives more clear and immediate feedback, that you are doing something wrong. Its more competitive and keeps you on your toes, until you lose/win.
OR it creates predictable rounds early on that you end up playing for 10 extra futile minutes because your pub team is not a clan where a captain alone concedes for everyone.
Pretty much the opposite of "keeps you on your toes until you lose/win".. the frequency of concedes and constant claims of "stacking" highlights this well.
A better example of that sort of gameplay comes from NON snowballing games, where there is always a chance to win until the very last second. (think fighting games or TF2's gold rush or Q3's freeze tag)
@IronHorse I have the feeling we do not agree on the meaning of "snowball". So let me get more formal this time. By that I understand, that the advantage of the winning team raises exponentially with every consecutive success they make. Forgive me, I am not a native english speaker. Is that your understanding of the word too?
Even in a fighting game, if you get your opponent to half health by luck the first minute it will snowball with him (and you will have even more chance to do additional damage because of that -> hence "snowball"). The best thing the losing player can do is avoid you and force a draw by the timer (or attempt luck against the odds). Only really purely nonsnowballing game I can think of is puzzle.
By the same definition the losing team can't prolong decided game to 10 minutes. The winning team accumulated advantage would get so big so fast, the end will be swift. Most of the time of the game would be held in the region where both parties still have a chance. Once the balance would shift strongly in favor of one team, the actual ending/finishing should also be exponentially fast in true snowballing game.
With that definition, "reducing snowballing" or putting any kinds of roadblocks in the way of winning team would prolong the boring finishing part of the game. Yes, it would also prolong the fun part of the round by the same amount, but I don't think that was your intention to prolong the total time of the round.
@FearlessJames Exactly. Any and all suggestions to already complex system can have seemingly unpredictable result or exactly the opposite result than intended. Butterfly effect. Also state bankers could talk, often causing economic crisises by something that should have prevented them. Thats why we are doing the sugesteering and not the developeering. Less risky - web forum survives any idea. Real product, not so much.
Even in a fighting game, if you get your opponent to half health by luck the first minute it will snowball with him
That is not following the definition of snowballing, fyi.
What you mean to say is that one player now has less work involved in order to win. But it's important to note that while this winning player has less work ahead of them, the losing player has just the same amount of chance and effort required to win as he did when the round started. He may have to play differently, but it's not like the winning player suddenly has his HP doubled compared to when they started.
Think of snowballing as a positive feedback loop that expands. In Street Fighter or Pong, it generally doesn't matter how badly you're doing; as long as the game isn't over, you can pull it back and win.
It's harder to accomplish this in an RTS (where earning resources leads to earning even more resources) but there are ways. Some are cheap and easy but may come off as unfair or what some would call handicaps : you give the losing team a buff. Some are designed in the foundation of the economy : you start with X amount of resources instead of accruing them, and how you spend them dictates the outcome. Some can be caps on how far the snowball goes like diminishing returns. etc etc..
By the same definition the losing team can't prolong decided game to 10 minutes. The winning team accumulated advantage would get so big so fast, the end will be swift.
But they do. Snowballing causes predictable outcomes, and other gameplay design elements cause difficult to end rounds / turtles.
More than likely, if you increase snowballing to help finish a round you will also be increasing the occurrence of a predictable round. (and who honestly enjoys those?)
"reducing snowballing" or putting any kinds of roadblocks in the way of winning team would prolong the boring finishing part of the game.
I disagree.
All it does is remedy the predictability, which actually makes the victor of a round a mystery until the very last second.... in other words there would no longer be a boring part of the game.
It addresses the source instead of addressing the symptom - unlike what increasing snowballing does, which simultaneously creates more symptoms.
Really I have nothing serious against logarithmic economy growth. I really just don't like the unrealism of it (If I buy two apples, I only get 1.5 apple? what the hell?). Also that it somehow helps the losing team to provide further fun challange to the winning team seems unlikely. If I play it in my mind, it only prolongs the game, alowing the losing team to turtle longer. And also prolong even games between even teams to hours (because it's more forgiving of small mistakes). Nobody likes that after that point. People need to at least pee.
you're not buying 2 apples but only getting 1.5. You'd be planting two apple trees but the 2nd apple tree isn't as fruitful as the 1st tree.
My most memorable and enjoyable games were long battles... where the econ was so split it came down to coordinated/directed teamwork. I love those longer games where the outcome is so back and forth.
That's awesome! Like you said,the most awesome rounds were the ones that lasted a long time! (It was even better if the teams used things like deception and actual teamwork!)
@IronHorse So you consider "not snowball", when all advantage you get is purely from the death of the enemy combatant you killed (and "snowball", when you get more e.g. a RT on top and the res over time). It is less broader than my definition, hence the opinion difference about the fighting game genre. Ok, I can work with that. I think that still falls into the hard category. I have absolutely no idea, how you intend to make that in strategy game with respawning. You would either have to remove the strategy or the respawning.
Fighting game works, because you have finite health (and no healing and respawning) and you have those stupid abilities/combos that make you one hit from death no matter your health.
If you remove the RT and both teams will get the same res (and thus remove snowballing), no one will be able to break the endgame turtle (The winning team will only be wasting Onoses, while the losing team could still afford Exos). The rounds will be "unpredictable" in that the team, which players die of exhaustion sooner will lose. Ok, you add a little helping crutch of some finishing ability, that kills the last base. Still even teams will play even game forever, because you have to make N consecutive mistakes to lose (instead of only log(N) mistakes you can afford in game with snowballing).
If you make diminishing returns on RTs the effect is the same, only less pronounced. On the oposite reasonably heavily snowballing game is like a seesaw in balance. It's not predictable. You never know to which side it will fall. And when it shifts to one side, then it falls quickly. Yes, it makes those popular comebacks unlikely. And at some point it will get simply too unforgiving. Some bargain have to be striked. But no, it's not something evil to be avoided in games.
@soccerguy243 That's the same. What's wrong with the second tree? Why if someone else plants it, it gets more fruitful suddenly?
@deathshroud Yeah, the linear tech is bad. Wish the upgrades were more situational and a equal choice. Any research order of upgrades should be viable (based on situation) and any combination of evolutions on liveform should be viable. Though shade hive is powerfull. You can just stand still and wait untill the marine walks right into your mouth by himself.
PS: Somewhat relevant: In Robocraft they started with four towers (little like a RT). They moved to three towers per map. And they have been actually increasing bonus of how much one tower gives you, not the opposite (it changes your health, damage, respawn time and ability to capture more towers). They made time itself to multiply the bonus from the structures (on top of what you get over time by owning them). On start the game is extremely forgiving and after 30 minutes the game becomes extremely unforgiving/snowballing with even a small loss. Their comback mechanic is that capturing a tower instantly respawns your whole team (So the losing team have some chance if it can keep it up and harrasses the towers.) Their ward against too long battles is finite health of your base and increasing structure damage. Their goal was to intensify battles.
@deathshroud - that's a pretty long and comprehensive list imo.. Idk what you are trying to illustrate with that.
SC2 doesn't have many viable tech paths either within each matchup. I mean, sure if you count all 9 matchups combined, you'll see a lot of variety.
Moreover, the real variety is not in your build order. It's in how you acquire and maintain map presence and how you set up your engagements etc. That is where the depth is, and I think that applies to a real rts like sc2 as well.
The full metaphor is basically along the lines of:
You make a snowball, and start it rolling down a mountain. As the snow ball goes down the mountain. it gains ever more snow, until it gets to bottom of the mountain. It is no longer a simple snowball you have to stop, but a massive sphere of Snow capable of flattening an entire city.
So snowballing means the object gets exponentially stronger as it goes on.
In a fight game, If I got you down to 1% of health in the first few seconds, I have not snowballed, I am not now 100 times more powerful than you, I have still the same power, just more health than you.
In NS2, it is called snowballing because once you get ahead in the tech race, you keep getting more powerful and further ahead. As a point, start of the game is a level 0 marine vs level 0 skulk. By the end of the game, if marines were winning, and the game snowballed, the end game could be level 3 exo vs level 0 skulk.
Marines are exponentially more powerful, but the alien has the same power, the marines have snowballed, and the aliens are incapable of dealing with the unstoppable power they face.
Do you get it yet? Do you now see why your fighting example was absolutely nothing to do with snowballing?
^ Your health does not make you stronger?
The health you lose at start will snowball with you and will limit your options and probably will cause you to get in even worse position (if you do X damage to you opponent and he does the same to you, you are in even worse position than before). Yes, the base of the exponential may be small(e.g. 1.1^N), but it is still exponential growth of your chance of victory.
I think I do get it. I simply do not see it as a bad thing, that the guy with L3 exos will win in 30 seconds against L0 skulk.
Ok, that subject was covered extensively, to the point no one will budge, I think... Sooo time for some new sugestions
Not sure if that simplifies things or the opposite, but what about making more granularity to the tech/upgrade tree? That is to separate things like FT and GL. And also adding things like rifle and parasite and spikes in there to be researched first.
And what about making one (destructible) building per upgrade (e.g. grenade factory, jetpack factory ). It always bothered me about NS2, that I can't target specific upgrades of the enemy that well (e.g. targeting the grenade factory could help stop ongoing hive rush and so on). And they could be more spread around the map (maybe those building would have to be build one room close to the RT and only one such building per RT)
RE: HP in fighting games - There's a difference between an advantage you earn from being successful versus compounding advantages.
It's the compounding part that I have a problem with.
But enough with that, you're right.
I think those suggestions you made may make the game more complex instead of simplifying it.
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2015
How about bringing combat back to NS2?
The game itself is dead anyway.
Remove the stuff wich is not included in NS2, polish it a bit and we have good 2nd game mode where the pros can warmup and the new players can train basic stuff.
Make rookie only combat servers, so they can try out lifeforms without getting harrased or get stomped.
I think that would be a good start for new players.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
But @IronHorse how do you sympathize with the idea of win-win-win-win-win-win-win-lose power node- lose game? How do you think that's ok? By your same logic shouldn't an alien comeback show to marines as win-win-win-win-win-win-win-lose power node-lose-lose-lose-lose-lose-lose-lose-lose game?
How about bringing combat back to NS2?
The game itself is dead anyway.
Remove the stuff wich is not included in NS2, polish it a bit and we have good 2nd game mode where the pros can warmup and the new players can train basic stuff.
Make rookie only combat servers, so they can try out lifeforms without getting harrased or get stomped.
I think that would be a good start for new players.
That will likely never happen because its not UWE that is making combat... but if you look on these forums you will see a mod called "assault" which I personally think will be a fantastic 2nd game mode that people will thoroughly enjoy and can be used for the reasons you state above.
If i stand on a res node biting it for 60 seconds... that's PvE. If i'm the guy going and welding our resnodes for 60 seconds... that's PvE. I don't join in the front line battles because no one else wants to go save our res node from the skulk. Then I get owned by the lerk supporting that skulk. Rinse and repeat.
Biting res/defending res is probably the most PvP-intensive part of the game.
Saving your res node from the skulk? That skulk is a player. Getting owned by a lerk supporting the skulk? That lerk is a player. Trying to finish off that RT that takes less than 30 seconds to bite before the incoming footsteps of ANOTHER PLAYER reaches you? PvP. You're contradicting yourself.
If i stand on a res node biting it for 60 seconds... that's PvE. If i'm the guy going and welding our resnodes for 60 seconds... that's PvE. I don't join in the front line battles because no one else wants to go save our res node from the skulk. Then I get owned by the lerk supporting that skulk. Rinse and repeat.
Biting res/defending res is probably the most PvP-intensive part of the game.
Saving your res node from the skulk? That skulk is a player. Getting owned by a lerk supporting the skulk? That lerk is a player. Trying to finish off that RT that takes less than 30 seconds to bite before the incoming footsteps of ANOTHER PLAYER reaches you? PvP. You're contradicting yourself.
To add to this point:
In quake and reflex, you spend your time defending pickups, like red armor and mega health. Is that PvE? I mean.. I guess, but who cares?
@IronHorse Yeah I concede and join the dark side for a bit then. Let's just put aside if reducing snowballing is a good or bad idea. To stop you from discussing your ideas was last thing I wanted.
RE: You mean you don't like the advantages you get for STAYING successful (the res you get over time by not losing anything), right?
Well in NS2 everything has lot of inertia (you get to keep JP, weapons even after building is destroyed. you get to keep the res even if you lose the RT etc etc). It DOES seem, that would be hard to change. But don't let that stop our imagination.
RTSes usually solves it by having Silos and depletable and more local resource (e.g. tiberium/spice fields get depleated, need to be hauled to refinery and unspent excess stored in silos). Basically lots of things to kill enemy economy with, no matter how strong he is. On the other hand when the resource gets depleated on the whole map it ends in endless stalemate.
I got the feeling that lot of you hate those games, where the snowball is caused at the immediate start by AFKs and before people wakes up a bit and by a bad commander on pub games (and not by a fair means). I written in above post, how they handled it in Robocraft (basicaly they made first few minutes meaningless for the outcome of the round and people can wake up and feel the nature of their opposing team a bit).
Also the aggresive team could be prefered. (Again Robocraft inspired, where your whole team respawns on structure capture). Perhaps some res could be gained by destroying structure (the rationale could be you recycle the debris or get the residual res stored in RT and blah blah). Something like @alster is proposing. That could allow the losing team to climb the stairs back. And allow the winning team some window to kill that last turtled base, if the players are out trying to recover.
Or perhaps the gauntlet could be thrown at the winning team instead to consumate its advantage immediately (or lose it) somehow. Again the RT could be depleated and refilled on capture. Though I would prefer some more realistic solution, then an apple-tree again that suddenly pops apples when it changes owner.
RE2: Yeah, the word "simplify" is tricky. The sugestion I made would simplify things in such a way that every one thing would be X (in this case X=upgrade and linked upgrade building) and simplify the tech-tree visualisaton to "you have/have not this thing". On the other hand it would dump more choices and more things to do on commander, thus making the game more complex.
Comments
So I should be killing RTs instead of shooting players? PvE instead of PvP?
That's why I don't play anymore. I'm the guy defending our nodes... I'm tired of defending our nodes and the one trying to kill their nodes.
I've seen more games where the team that loses the initial engagement(s) automatically wants to concede. If not they are highly demoralized. Furthermore the winning team is often more than happy to hold what they have because its safer to wait for jp/gl then risk pushing forward and losing the res nodes.
NS2 should help show players that one of the key aspects of winning is working together.
*GASP* What if there were a few changes/new features that all had something to do with team work?!
Just brainstorming,ya know.....cause I really don't want NS2 to die,it's hard enough finding a server with more than 4 players!
What you describe seems like a res-for-kill system, which would be EXTREMELY bad if we are trying to address the heavy snowballing (sometimes it feel more like an instant avalanche)
It gives the winners of a fight even more of an advantage than already get by having won the fight.
Think about the 50-0 God-Fades. Imagine FINALLY killing the fade that has murdered your team 3 times, just to have him immediately re-fade and do it all again. Its a very frustrating, hollow victory sort of feeling that just makes you want to give up even more.
...On the other hand, if an RFK gave different amounts of resources based on K/D or kills/life (its different), that could be an interesting way to balance things out.
Example:
Simple:
A player is worth their K/D in pres to their killer. So a 50-0 god-fade would be worth 50 pres*, and a 1/50 nublet would be worth next to nothing
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
The actual ammount of res the player is worth can be shows on the scoreboard for simplicity, and maybe even with a skill icon over high value targets player model.
-OR-
Dynamic:
A player becomes worth more depending on the amount of kills they get during their current life, meaning that if that 50-0 God-Fade dies while spawning due to a hive push, he does not grant 2 huge rewards so fast.
This is like a "Bounty" system that helps out players who cant go 50-0 against those that can by letting them earn more tech*.
*(Pres divided among all players that assisted in the kill)
I know we already give out points based on %Damage done, this system could translate into how Pres would be divided.
so killing the commander, or a gorge player would = very little pres even though the kills might win you the game
(increases the snowball effect)
Or
The other way around You earn 1 Pres for every time you die and engage in a team.
(decreases the snowball effect)
if you are far behind and die a lot you can at least buy a lifeform at some point to comeback and punish the other team for not being able to finnish the game (it could encourage dieing on purpose is the problem so the PRes reward has to be very low).
Or
Introduce Upkeep from Warcraft 3 (decreases the snowball effect)
If you hold 70% of all RTs on the map you only get res like you would hold 50% of all RTS (values have to be rethinked and balanced but for refrence look on the wc3 upkeep @income)
Also:
The most frustating thing is losing lifeforms Let ns2 track how long you had your lifeform and give percentage wise Resources back (decreases the punishment of throwing lifeforms).
depending on how long you had your lifeform.
example:
Fade lasted 1 minute get 40 res back
Fade lasted 10 minutes get 4 res back
Or
it could be done with Pdmg [instead] of Res or how long somebody is alive:
Fade did 0 Pdmg gives 50Pres back.
Fade did 1000 Pdmg give 40Pres back.
Fade did 4000 Pdmg give 4 Pres back.
(also decreses the snowball effect)
(in this case the time sombody stayed alive dosnt matter and the alien team could end up with a lot of lifeforms that dont play their lifeform very well but at least they have addional chances in learning them and they probly stop going these lifeform on their own if they realise they have no impact with it)
(i know the math behind it gets pretty complicated if you have a more simple soultion please come up with it)
I mean seriously. Losing is ment to be frustrating. It means the enemy is better at that one time. No need to fix that.
Yeah, what the hell, give rookies some small bonus to bring them up to speed (if not exploitable to cheat). The rest of us don't need no stabilizer wheels.
Yes you should. They are put there by flash and blood commander, no PvE. Also with any luck you will have to shoot horde of players to get to them/ defend them. If you are the only guy in your team who defends/attacks them, take consolation in that, you are likely the best player in your team.
Again no need for radical changes to this game. Just go play some other fun games for awhile, let's say Battlefield 2 or Quake 3 or whatnot.
As for the bounty idea, it's not so bad (that is if the sum collected teamwise does not exceed RT output). Or commander could distribute the res as he sees fit too. The problem is that the rookies will be dry and will be even more of a food than now (not very practical - not good for retention). Also don't forget the GodFade kills your 50 players and will again have most money (well you could argue that he dries the pres of other players in his team while he has nothing to spend them on).
Cool I'm the best player on my team... that doesn't make the game fun for me. I'm either delaying the enviable loss because they are getting our res nodes or I don't get to really enjoy all that fighting the trailers show everyone.
*yawn*. Maybe I will continue my hiatus from NS2.
Losing isn't MEANT to be anything. It does not HAVE to be frustrating (like trying to stop a snowball from rolling down on to your face). I don't think a logarithmic growth economy is "radical change"
Trying to take out game mechanics is not going to resolve the issue. If the game is too complex they can play combat. If your going to take out power and cysts then you might as well just directly port over NS1 except spark can not deal with the movement and hitreg requirements of a NS1 port so given you have taken enough out of the game at that point you can go ahead and port it so source making it so everyone with a computer from the last 7 years can play the game.
What I can say is that making major changes by removing thing out of the game when it has been out this long is a quick way to kill what is left of it.
Also can you imagine the commander rage trying to get gorges to cyst... I just hope that if they can cyst it does not stop the com from cysting as well.
Not if you are Human (wired to perceive win/loss strongly, no matter how uninportant). Preventing snowball in any game is hard/impossible (and possibly against the fun). Even Monopoly or whatever you play in your country snowballs hard. There are two types of games: the snowballing ones, where your actions matter and not snowballing ones, where nothing matters.
EDIT: Actually when I think about it, the more a game snowballs, the more I like it. It ends desperate rounds sooner. It makes everything you do matter from the start. It gives more clear and immediate feedback, that you are doing something wrong. Its more competitive and keeps you on your toes, until you lose/win.
Really I have nothing serious against logarithmic economy growth. I really just don't like the unrealism of it (If I buy two apples, I only get 1.5 apple? what the hell?). Also that it somehow helps the losing team to provide further fun challange to the winning team seems unlikely. If I play it in my mind, it only prolongs the game, alowing the losing team to turtle longer. And also prolong even games between even teams to hours (because it's more forgiving of small mistakes). Nobody likes that after that point. People need to at least pee.
Now I understand why suggestions are hard to make,because no matter how good it is,there's always something about it that causes mayhem XD
Still,assists should be in the game be default! I hate biting a powernode for 5 minutes and someone comes in and helps me and THEY get the "kill."
It peeves me >:c
It's slightly more difficult to do in an RTS but it's still not impossible, not by a long shot. This is wrong again - you can pretty much take any non snowballing game (fighting games are a great example) and find that your actions still have a huge impact.. the only difference is that it's a fair and balanced impact instead of a doubly rewarding one. OR it creates predictable rounds early on that you end up playing for 10 extra futile minutes because your pub team is not a clan where a captain alone concedes for everyone.
Pretty much the opposite of "keeps you on your toes until you lose/win".. the frequency of concedes and constant claims of "stacking" highlights this well.
A better example of that sort of gameplay comes from NON snowballing games, where there is always a chance to win until the very last second. (think fighting games or TF2's gold rush or Q3's freeze tag)
Even in a fighting game, if you get your opponent to half health by luck the first minute it will snowball with him (and you will have even more chance to do additional damage because of that -> hence "snowball"). The best thing the losing player can do is avoid you and force a draw by the timer (or attempt luck against the odds). Only really purely nonsnowballing game I can think of is puzzle.
By the same definition the losing team can't prolong decided game to 10 minutes. The winning team accumulated advantage would get so big so fast, the end will be swift. Most of the time of the game would be held in the region where both parties still have a chance. Once the balance would shift strongly in favor of one team, the actual ending/finishing should also be exponentially fast in true snowballing game.
With that definition, "reducing snowballing" or putting any kinds of roadblocks in the way of winning team would prolong the boring finishing part of the game. Yes, it would also prolong the fun part of the round by the same amount, but I don't think that was your intention to prolong the total time of the round.
@FearlessJames Exactly. Any and all suggestions to already complex system can have seemingly unpredictable result or exactly the opposite result than intended. Butterfly effect. Also state bankers could talk, often causing economic crisises by something that should have prevented them. Thats why we are doing the sugesteering and not the developeering. Less risky - web forum survives any idea. Real product, not so much.
What you mean to say is that one player now has less work involved in order to win. But it's important to note that while this winning player has less work ahead of them, the losing player has just the same amount of chance and effort required to win as he did when the round started. He may have to play differently, but it's not like the winning player suddenly has his HP doubled compared to when they started.
Think of snowballing as a positive feedback loop that expands. In Street Fighter or Pong, it generally doesn't matter how badly you're doing; as long as the game isn't over, you can pull it back and win.
It's harder to accomplish this in an RTS (where earning resources leads to earning even more resources) but there are ways. Some are cheap and easy but may come off as unfair or what some would call handicaps : you give the losing team a buff. Some are designed in the foundation of the economy : you start with X amount of resources instead of accruing them, and how you spend them dictates the outcome. Some can be caps on how far the snowball goes like diminishing returns. etc etc..
But they do. Snowballing causes predictable outcomes, and other gameplay design elements cause difficult to end rounds / turtles.
More than likely, if you increase snowballing to help finish a round you will also be increasing the occurrence of a predictable round. (and who honestly enjoys those?)
I disagree.
All it does is remedy the predictability, which actually makes the victor of a round a mystery until the very last second.... in other words there would no longer be a boring part of the game.
It addresses the source instead of addressing the symptom - unlike what increasing snowballing does, which simultaneously creates more symptoms.
you're not buying 2 apples but only getting 1.5. You'd be planting two apple trees but the 2nd apple tree isn't as fruitful as the 1st tree.
My most memorable and enjoyable games were long battles... where the econ was so split it came down to coordinated/directed teamwork. I love those longer games where the outcome is so back and forth.
Hell, I even took screenshots and made captions for those type of games:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=362037964
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=362037889
That's awesome! Like you said,the most awesome rounds were the ones that lasted a long time! (It was even better if the teams used things like deception and actual teamwork!)
these are the current ways a game usually ends.
marines..
shotgun rush
arcs
jetpack rush
exo train
sneaky pg rush (when aliens have the upper hand)
aliens..
gorge rush
early base rush
onos train
sneaky tunnel (when marines have the upper hand)
lerk rush
these are the typical early tech research in order of most common.
marines
arms lab ar 1
obs phase tech
armory arms lab
armory obs
arms lab wep 1
armory mines
armory grenades
robotics turrets
aliens
shift hive spurs
crag hive shells
biomass level 1
shade hive veils
Fighting game works, because you have finite health (and no healing and respawning) and you have those stupid abilities/combos that make you one hit from death no matter your health.
If you remove the RT and both teams will get the same res (and thus remove snowballing), no one will be able to break the endgame turtle (The winning team will only be wasting Onoses, while the losing team could still afford Exos). The rounds will be "unpredictable" in that the team, which players die of exhaustion sooner will lose.
If you make diminishing returns on RTs the effect is the same, only less pronounced. On the oposite reasonably heavily snowballing game is like a seesaw in balance. It's not predictable. You never know to which side it will fall. And when it shifts to one side, then it falls quickly. Yes, it makes those popular comebacks unlikely. And at some point it will get simply too unforgiving. Some bargain have to be striked. But no, it's not something evil to be avoided in games.
@soccerguy243 That's the same. What's wrong with the second tree? Why if someone else plants it, it gets more fruitful suddenly?
@deathshroud Yeah, the linear tech is bad. Wish the upgrades were more situational and a equal choice. Any research order of upgrades should be viable (based on situation) and any combination of evolutions on liveform should be viable. Though shade hive is powerfull. You can just stand still and wait untill the marine walks right into your mouth by himself.
PS: Somewhat relevant: In Robocraft they started with four towers (little like a RT). They moved to three towers per map. And they have been actually increasing bonus of how much one tower gives you, not the opposite (it changes your health, damage, respawn time and ability to capture more towers). They made time itself to multiply the bonus from the structures (on top of what you get over time by owning them). On start the game is extremely forgiving and after 30 minutes the game becomes extremely unforgiving/snowballing with even a small loss. Their comback mechanic is that capturing a tower instantly respawns your whole team (So the losing team have some chance if it can keep it up and harrasses the towers.) Their ward against too long battles is finite health of your base and increasing structure damage. Their goal was to intensify battles.
SC2 doesn't have many viable tech paths either within each matchup. I mean, sure if you count all 9 matchups combined, you'll see a lot of variety.
Moreover, the real variety is not in your build order. It's in how you acquire and maintain map presence and how you set up your engagements etc. That is where the depth is, and I think that applies to a real rts like sc2 as well.
The full metaphor is basically along the lines of:
You make a snowball, and start it rolling down a mountain. As the snow ball goes down the mountain. it gains ever more snow, until it gets to bottom of the mountain. It is no longer a simple snowball you have to stop, but a massive sphere of Snow capable of flattening an entire city.
So snowballing means the object gets exponentially stronger as it goes on.
In a fight game, If I got you down to 1% of health in the first few seconds, I have not snowballed, I am not now 100 times more powerful than you, I have still the same power, just more health than you.
In NS2, it is called snowballing because once you get ahead in the tech race, you keep getting more powerful and further ahead. As a point, start of the game is a level 0 marine vs level 0 skulk. By the end of the game, if marines were winning, and the game snowballed, the end game could be level 3 exo vs level 0 skulk.
Marines are exponentially more powerful, but the alien has the same power, the marines have snowballed, and the aliens are incapable of dealing with the unstoppable power they face.
Do you get it yet? Do you now see why your fighting example was absolutely nothing to do with snowballing?
The health you lose at start will snowball with you and will limit your options and probably will cause you to get in even worse position (if you do X damage to you opponent and he does the same to you, you are in even worse position than before). Yes, the base of the exponential may be small(e.g. 1.1^N), but it is still exponential growth of your chance of victory.
I think I do get it. I simply do not see it as a bad thing, that the guy with L3 exos will win in 30 seconds against L0 skulk.
Ok, that subject was covered extensively, to the point no one will budge, I think... Sooo time for some new sugestions
Not sure if that simplifies things or the opposite, but what about making more granularity to the tech/upgrade tree? That is to separate things like FT and GL. And also adding things like rifle and parasite and spikes in there to be researched first.
And what about making one (destructible) building per upgrade (e.g. grenade factory, jetpack factory ). It always bothered me about NS2, that I can't target specific upgrades of the enemy that well (e.g. targeting the grenade factory could help stop ongoing hive rush and so on). And they could be more spread around the map (maybe those building would have to be build one room close to the RT and only one such building per RT)
RE: HP in fighting games - There's a difference between an advantage you earn from being successful versus compounding advantages.
It's the compounding part that I have a problem with.
But enough with that, you're right.
I think those suggestions you made may make the game more complex instead of simplifying it.
The game itself is dead anyway.
Remove the stuff wich is not included in NS2, polish it a bit and we have good 2nd game mode where the pros can warmup and the new players can train basic stuff.
Make rookie only combat servers, so they can try out lifeforms without getting harrased or get stomped.
I think that would be a good start for new players.
Nothing is wrong with the 2nd tree...
That will likely never happen because its not UWE that is making combat... but if you look on these forums you will see a mod called "assault" which I personally think will be a fantastic 2nd game mode that people will thoroughly enjoy and can be used for the reasons you state above.
Biting res/defending res is probably the most PvP-intensive part of the game.
Saving your res node from the skulk? That skulk is a player. Getting owned by a lerk supporting the skulk? That lerk is a player. Trying to finish off that RT that takes less than 30 seconds to bite before the incoming footsteps of ANOTHER PLAYER reaches you? PvP. You're contradicting yourself.
In quake and reflex, you spend your time defending pickups, like red armor and mega health. Is that PvE? I mean.. I guess, but who cares?
More teamwork against res nodes and structures. Less for good players snowballing.
No res for kills.
Pres for every bite or shot on structures instead of the uneeded damage number. Make everything cost more because of this.
Simple.
RE: You mean you don't like the advantages you get for STAYING successful (the res you get over time by not losing anything), right?
Well in NS2 everything has lot of inertia (you get to keep JP, weapons even after building is destroyed. you get to keep the res even if you lose the RT etc etc). It DOES seem, that would be hard to change. But don't let that stop our imagination.
RTSes usually solves it by having Silos and depletable and more local resource (e.g. tiberium/spice fields get depleated, need to be hauled to refinery and unspent excess stored in silos). Basically lots of things to kill enemy economy with, no matter how strong he is. On the other hand when the resource gets depleated on the whole map it ends in endless stalemate.
I got the feeling that lot of you hate those games, where the snowball is caused at the immediate start by AFKs and before people wakes up a bit and by a bad commander on pub games (and not by a fair means). I written in above post, how they handled it in Robocraft (basicaly they made first few minutes meaningless for the outcome of the round and people can wake up and feel the nature of their opposing team a bit).
Also the aggresive team could be prefered. (Again Robocraft inspired, where your whole team respawns on structure capture). Perhaps some res could be gained by destroying structure (the rationale could be you recycle the debris or get the residual res stored in RT and blah blah). Something like @alster is proposing. That could allow the losing team to climb the stairs back. And allow the winning team some window to kill that last turtled base, if the players are out trying to recover.
Or perhaps the gauntlet could be thrown at the winning team instead to consumate its advantage immediately (or lose it) somehow. Again the RT could be depleated and refilled on capture. Though I would prefer some more realistic solution, then an apple-tree again that suddenly pops apples when it changes owner.
RE2: Yeah, the word "simplify" is tricky. The sugestion I made would simplify things in such a way that every one thing would be X (in this case X=upgrade and linked upgrade building) and simplify the tech-tree visualisaton to "you have/have not this thing". On the other hand it would dump more choices and more things to do on commander, thus making the game more complex.