Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2018
Hehe, you've got a point, I was going to go on about those games as well with depth and skillbased performance. But that is indeed why I said "into a game such as this"
NS2 is kinda designed to force players to face huge losses from losing the toys/lifeforms they've saved for during a round. It's kinda a personal slap in the face for players, instead of feeling like a team based loss. Compared to for example MOBA's by losing towers and inhibitors, where it's quite obviously a team based territory and map presence loss. And even if you're losing, you still have your the levels and abilities you've worked for.
We can argue all we want about Combat this and that, killing the NS community and such. But the fact is, it was a more popular mode at the time due to it's MOBA like style without the issue of losing your huge investments because you made a mistake or your commander/team sucks forcing you to fight against increasingly powerful enemies, while you get less and less powerful. I've always preferred classic/vanilla, but it simply requires a different mindset from other games, which is why it's so damn niche methinks...
Also, endgame used to be fun in NS, while it's quite a drag in NS2. Now, I haven't played in a long time, so is this still a thing?
Also, endgame used to be fun in NS, while it's quite a drag in NS2. Now, I haven't played in a long time, so is this still a thing?
It's still a huge drag. Contaminate is boring, marine turtles are boring, and marines slowly creeping over the map is also boring. People blame obs spam for ruining their game but every time I've looked into it, by the time the map even had 3 obs built the aliens had already lost. Most of the community nowadays tries to encourage "concede fast, concede often" because the end game mechanics are not fun at all.
Also, endgame used to be fun in NS, while it's quite a drag in NS2. Now, I haven't played in a long time, so is this still a thing?
It's still a huge drag. Contaminate is boring, marine turtles are boring, and marines slowly creeping over the map is also boring. People blame obs spam for ruining their game but every time I've looked into it, by the time the map even had 3 obs built the aliens had already lost. Most of the community nowadays tries to encourage "concede fast, concede often" because the end game mechanics are not fun at all.
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
Interesting, I thought those abilities were altered exactly because they were "unfun", especially towards the losing team.
Onos devour, Fade acid rocket, Lerk primal scream...
People keep saying that stomp is a terrible mechanic, but you can dodge one Onos indefinitely.
/unrelated
Also, I'm not convinced lame duck scenarios are a real thing(/problem).
It usually happens when the winning team is not objective oriented. They keep going for kills/holding map control, instead of killing the last tech point the other team has.
IF they cant go for it because they get killed, or they have to delay the attack because they have to defend something, than it's not a lame duck, since the other team has a chance to turn it around.
That's a user issue, not game-mechanic.
What the devs could do is incentivize the final baserush, but I dont have any good idea for that... I keep looping back to the hard-timer idea, but that's a terrible one.
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
Simply because there was no concede. So the teams were forced to do something (on public servers).
A : Recycle IP, or F4 and move on to another game.
B : Something stupid and fun. Massive bile bomb in marine base, all go gorge in hive, fortifying with OC and other stuff having siege canon spammed on the other side of the wall, etc...
...anything but a real concede vote.
On the other side. The usual NS1 player was much more the kind that listen, learn and know what to do. Having a team in NS2 that coordinates properly on a public server is kind of a "urban legend" when you come to think about it.
Having a team in NS2 that coordinates properly on a public server is kind of a "urban legend" when you come to think about it.
Not so much... most often than not, players on 8bit (EU) server are actually listening. Especially lower-tier players.
Purple and above people are the ones who usually ignore explicit orders, because they have a 10:1 KD and thus know better how to handle the overall strategy...
Then they whine that even though they carried the team kill-wise, their team lost.
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
Because RFK means you could turtle with hope? Or maybe it is just nostalgia clouding memories and it wasn't actually fun.
I dunno, it might be some nostalgia clouds on the horizon. But I remember that being on the losing team meant you'd at least having a bloody yet slim chance at a comeback or delaying the ping death by setting up a DC+OC fortress for shits and giggles. Or actually relocating the CC by having a ninja marine somewhere on the map. I guess, NS2 has become too static with fixed starting locations and too symmetrical for it's own good, where NS has options NS2 has removed most if not all of them, while not having a clear indicator for the "winning" team to PUSH the DAMN final base
I for one absolutely detest the "concede" voting, because there are no options left. A game shouldn't have to rely on a voting system to end a round.
Which kinda brings me back to for example MOBA's. What makes their end game more fun than NS2's lack of direction during end game? My guess is a lack of a voting system to end the game is forcing players to PUSH for a win, instead of hanging back raking in kills.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2018
@EvilNess my appologies for kinda pushing this thread into an improvement discussion. But for NS2 to go F2P if that's even going to happen, which requires quite a bit more than just tagging on the F2P in the Steam Store Some of these issues first have to be addressed to at least make the game less... Frustrating and more direction orientated?
...and because F2P players simply don't want to dedicate time and effort to learn a game to even be a little bit competent. They (and casuals) aren't going to be as involved into a game such as this.
I agree with everything else you said except this part. F2P doesn't inherently mean people won't dedicate time and effort into games. Look at all the mobas like dota 2, league of legends, and HotS. Look at the amount of time and effort people put into Tf2 by looking at the competitive leagues on twitch. F2P games can be made right to encourage skill based gameplay.
That being said.... NS2 isn't that game. F2P doesn't fit within NS2's culture and frankly the only major thing I think it would do to the game is making hacking even worse of a problem.
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
I for one absolutely detest the "concede" voting, because there are no options left. A game shouldn't have to rely on a voting system to end a round.
Economy model differences between NS1 and NS2 shaping the design, mostly.
But let's not pretend we didn't have turtles, devour or boring spectating waiting for that last marine in a vent to be found in NS1..
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions.
Even if the end game had less enjoyable mechanics to it, (like an Exo sitting in a hallway) you'd still be engaged and continue to play if there was a point.
But there's not. When the scales get tipped, they often stay there, and this poignant reality is wholly demotivating to anyone who becomes aware of it.
So it's best to just start a new round and try again.
Making end game mechanics more fun won't impact the concede rates, either, even if it should be attempted anyways.
But interestingly enough, if you solve predictable outcomes you may not need many of the necessary mechanics that are "unfun" like contamination.
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions.
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions by making games with forgone conclusions end sooner.
I suggest we start by completely redesigning the alien abilities so that aliens can end games faster. Good abilities to start with replacement or redesign are stab, advanced metabolism, xenocide, and stomp. Give aliens the tools they need to not have to ever use contaminate.
by making games with forgone conclusions end sooner.
I was going to post your poll which asked players to determine the average round time where they can predict the outcome / winner but cannot find it?
IIRC the average player answered around 5 minutes.
So in my mind what you are advocating for is essentially "the first team to score a point wins the round", in spirit.
What is wrong with going the opposite direction, and making NS2 engaging until the last second of a round?
That seems far more enjoyable to me, and less of a binary experience.
Simply making Tier 3 abilities stronger (or any abilities at any point) does not solve the core issue, it just pushes it to a different time.
It doesn't matter if its a nuke in the alien commander's hands or the field players, marines will know what they are up against and simply concede still. Relevant post from one of your threads.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2018
The general consensus is that during end game
There is a lack of clear direction of what to do, caused by the winning team gradually frag whoring and taking over the map
There is a lack of things to do for the losing team besides constantly getting weaker and losing map presence, while waiting for the inevitable final push. That is if it's not intervened by a concede
The fact there were turtles, devour and stalemates in NS doesn't change the fact there was still a clear direction and things to do for both teams. The ninja marine is not going on the list, because it could have been fixed by some form of hive sight after a while, similar to motion tracking and the Ping of Death. Imagine having just 2-4 minutes or something to get that newly hidden CC up and running for a counter push, before the Hive Mind yells out on all channels "The Enemy Approaches", painting a big target on your back after having found you. Whereas NS2 has technode lockdown to prevent that from happening, which instantly removed this kind of creativity. As I said, NS2 is quite static in terms of map control compared to NS. Easier to balance I'm sure, but keep in mind, a game that is too balanced also tends to step into stale or predictable territory
Also hive sight in NS was more clear and less confusing.
by making games with forgone conclusions end sooner.
I was going to post your poll which asked players to determine the average round time where they can predict the outcome / winner but cannot find it?
IIRC the average player answered around 5 minutes.
So in my mind what you are advocating for is essentially "the first team to score a point wins the round", in spirit.
What is wrong with going the opposite direction, and making NS2 engaging until the last second of a round?
That seems far more enjoyable to me, and less of a binary experience.
Simply making Tier 3 abilities stronger (or any abilities at any point) does not solve the core issue, it just pushes it to a different time.
It doesn't matter if its a nuke in the alien commander's hands or the field players, marines will know what they are up against and simply concede still. Relevant post from one of your threads.
That was a Moultono poll, which why you may not have found it.
I am not advocating for ending the game at 5 minutes, or even 15 minutes. What I am asking for is that when one team is clearly winning, give them the tools to end it. Ideally T3 tech would end the game quickly. Don't let lame duck scenarios last longer than they need to.
You are stating a desire for more comeback mechanics. There are two problems with comeback mechanics in NS2.
1) They are often frustrating. I am thinking of secret gorge tunnel base rushes. This is very effective and very frustrating. This is like the blue shell in mario kart. This isn't fun.
2) Comeback mechanics in NS2 often increase the length of the lame duck scenario. That is that comeback mechanics often delay the inevitable loss rather than get both teams on even footing. As I mentioned earlier, I think lame duck scenarios in NS2 are one of the least fun things in NS2.
I am pretty sure I read @trixX say something about lame duck scenarios not really existing. I wanted to respond, but I can't seem to find that comment on mobile. Edit: I still can't find it on my desktop. What did you say .Trixx and where?
That being said.... NS2 isn't that game. F2P doesn't fit within NS2's culture and frankly the only major thing I think it would do to the game is making hacking even worse of a problem.
You say this as if hacking is a problem, there's hardly any hacking this game..
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
I for one absolutely detest the "concede" voting, because there are no options left. A game shouldn't have to rely on a voting system to end a round.
Economy model differences between NS1 and NS2 shaping the design, mostly.
But let's not pretend we didn't have turtles, devour or boring spectating waiting for that last marine in a vent to be found in NS1..
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions.
Even if the end game had less enjoyable mechanics to it, (like an Exo sitting in a hallway) you'd still be engaged and continue to play if there was a point.
But there's not. When the scales get tipped, they often stay there, and this poignant reality is wholly demotivating to anyone who becomes aware of it.
So it's best to just start a new round and try again.
Making end game mechanics more fun won't impact the concede rates, either, even if it should be attempted anyways.
But interestingly enough, if you solve predictable outcomes you may not need many of the necessary mechanics that are "unfun" like contamination.
People keep saying that stomp is a terrible mechanic, but you can dodge one Onos indefinitely.
Nope, that is a myth. Like dodging GLs. While it might be possible in theory, it is not due to lag.
For that we pray hope for high tick / low interp... that makes predictions much easier.
Wasnt someone testing high tick low interp servers sometime recently? How did that go?
It exposed a lot of subtle stutters in the engine and some fundamental flaws and bottlenecks. More work is being done in secret internally with the PDT and CDT.
Hmm, seems to me them dev type people need to reassess why NS was generally quite fun during endgame...
For starters, don't even bother... Some fun things to do end game as aliens:
Defense chambers (mixture between crag and shell) could survive at the end of the round as alien with this around you, able to be built in vents by gorges, a regen skulk with 1 dc can survive
Kill for pres/tres allowed people to kill and gain res to build hives, now in ns2 you need cysts, you need a hive to have a commander, hence why no late-game survival or comeback of aliens
Marines:
Could push back with a heavy armor as it was next to impossible to kill a heavyarmor with simply fade/skulk/lerk unless the the HA was bad, you can't do the same with useless exosuits.
Marines could relocate and build anywhere they wanted on the maps, they did not need "power nodes or tech points"
qwiojeioqwjeiqwjeiowejiqowejiowqej if i continue on i'll have to commit Sudoku
I am not advocating for ending the game at 5 minutes, or even 15 minutes. What I am asking for is that when one team is clearly winning, give them the tools to end it.
I am obviously not opposed to a stable early game and a fragile late game, such as @The_Welsh_Wizard has stumbled onto (glad to have you aboard!)
But the crux of the issue with ONLY addressing the late game fragility - as you are -and not the early game stability, is your qualifier of "clearly winning" and how subjective that is to each user, on average. Link to that poll
That variance and low round time implies a binary experience, if we are to assume that there is a "clear winner" by the 4 minute mark! A stable early game is a prerequisite to addressing the late game fragility, and thus in the larger scope, predictable outcomes and therefore the need to concede.
Also, I'm not convinced lame duck scenarios are a real thing(/problem).
It usually happens when the winning team is not objective oriented. They keep going for kills/holding map control, instead of killing the last tech point the other team has.
IF they cant go for it because they get killed, or they have to delay the attack because they have to defend something, than it's not a lame duck, since the other team has a chance to turn it around.
You are correct in that I am using a very loose definition of a lame duck scenario. By definition a lame duck scenario is when the game can not be won no matter what. I am not saying that the other team can't win. I am saying that people hold out for a possible comeback when it is incredibly unlikely, and even if it is somewhat possible, that the game is very unfun in this time period. I know you disagree with this.
That's a user issue, not game-mechanic. What the devs could do is incentivize the final baserush, but I dont have any good idea for that... I keep looping back to the hard-timer idea, but that's a terrible one.
I am not advocating for ending the game at 5 minutes, or even 15 minutes. What I am asking for is that when one team is clearly winning, give them the tools to end it.
I am obviously not opposed to a stable early game and a fragile late game, such as @The_Welsh_Wizard has stumbled onto (glad to have you aboard!)
But the crux of the issue with ONLY addressing the late game fragility - as you are -and not the early game stability, is your qualifier of "clearly winning" and how subjective that is to each user, on average. Link to that poll
That variance and low round time implies a binary experience, if we are to assume that there is a "clear winner" by the 4 minute mark! A stable early game is a prerequisite to addressing the late game fragility, and thus in the larger scope, predictable outcomes and therefore the need to concede.
I think we need to unpack the words fragile and stable in this statement. Let me try to say what I think you want. Please tell me if I am correct, and where I am wrong. As I understand it, you want a stable early game where there is no clear winner and a fragile early game where anybody can win, and the advantages built aren't all that influential.
As I understand it, you want a stable early game where there is no clear winner and a fragile early game where anybody can win, and the advantages built aren't all that influential.
Where the advantages built are less influential than they are now.*
Which is to say, there is a whole lot of breathing room for this currently, with the degree of compounding advantages / snowballing mechanics in play - especially considering the impact that said early game can have on this scenario. Right now it's as if the early game is what dictates the winner, not the middle or the end game.
There's the possibility that with a stable early game , you won't have to change much at all for the end game, since there is always an opening or a mistake that is made by one team at some point. But if that wasn't the case, you could just increase the power output of the mechanics at that time in the round so that the first team to reach X would be at a major advantage in order to swiftly end it.
As I understand it, you want a stable early game where there is no clear winner and a fragile early game where anybody can win, and the advantages built aren't all that influential.
Where the advantages built are less influential than they are now.*
Which is to say, there is a whole lot of breathing room for this currently, with the degree of compounding advantages / snowballing mechanics in play - especially considering the impact that said early game can have on this scenario. Right now it's as if the early game is what dictates the winner, not the middle or the end game.
There's the possibility that with a stable early game , you won't have to change much at all for the end game, since there is always an opening or a mistake that is made by one team at some point. But if that wasn't the case, you could just increase the power output of the mechanics at that time in the round so that the first team to reach X would be at a major advantage in order to swiftly end it.
I agree that the round is decided too early, and it would be better if advantages didn't compound so early.
To put it another way: Even though advantages compound too early, I don't think the advantages compound enough late game to make the game end quick enough. Too many games are too slow to finish which is aweful to play. Making the late game end quicker wouldn't be hard to implement and would have very tangible positive effects on gameplay in the short and long term. Trying to slow down the snowball early game is not as easy to do, and you haven't achieved this in how many years you have been trying?
I didn't mean that as a burn, but as evidence that it isn't easy to do. I have not seen ironhorse put forward a solution to stabilize the early game, but he has been calling for it for years. There is also implementation issues too, but I don't think implementation is the problem. Convincing others is also hard. I am not trying to diminish ironhorses efforts.
Edit: my point in drawing attention to the difficulty of stabalizing the early game is to draw a contrast to how easy it is to implement my suggestion.
There are many, possibly better, ways to implement my suggestion. I think the easiest solution to implement with as little change to the current game would be to redesign most of the alien abilities to be very op late game so that they end the game quickly. The alien abilities like stab, advanced metabolize, and xenocide are such low hanging fruit. This would be a good start in the right direction.
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
And important thing to clarify is what you actually mean by "stabilise". Do you want the outcome of the first 5 minutes to have no notable impact on the rest of the game?
Comments
NS2 is kinda designed to force players to face huge losses from losing the toys/lifeforms they've saved for during a round. It's kinda a personal slap in the face for players, instead of feeling like a team based loss. Compared to for example MOBA's by losing towers and inhibitors, where it's quite obviously a team based territory and map presence loss. And even if you're losing, you still have your the levels and abilities you've worked for.
We can argue all we want about Combat this and that, killing the NS community and such. But the fact is, it was a more popular mode at the time due to it's MOBA like style without the issue of losing your huge investments because you made a mistake or your commander/team sucks forcing you to fight against increasingly powerful enemies, while you get less and less powerful. I've always preferred classic/vanilla, but it simply requires a different mindset from other games, which is why it's so damn niche methinks...
Also, endgame used to be fun in NS, while it's quite a drag in NS2. Now, I haven't played in a long time, so is this still a thing?
It's still a huge drag. Contaminate is boring, marine turtles are boring, and marines slowly creeping over the map is also boring. People blame obs spam for ruining their game but every time I've looked into it, by the time the map even had 3 obs built the aliens had already lost. Most of the community nowadays tries to encourage "concede fast, concede often" because the end game mechanics are not fun at all.
I agree with this, and I wish people actually conceded fast and often. Maybe 1/10 games I play people actually concede fast, and 1/10 is not often enough.
Related thread: https://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2386505/#Comment_2386505
Interesting, I thought those abilities were altered exactly because they were "unfun", especially towards the losing team.
Onos devour, Fade acid rocket, Lerk primal scream...
People keep saying that stomp is a terrible mechanic, but you can dodge one Onos indefinitely.
/unrelated
Also, I'm not convinced lame duck scenarios are a real thing(/problem).
It usually happens when the winning team is not objective oriented. They keep going for kills/holding map control, instead of killing the last tech point the other team has.
IF they cant go for it because they get killed, or they have to delay the attack because they have to defend something, than it's not a lame duck, since the other team has a chance to turn it around.
That's a user issue, not game-mechanic.
What the devs could do is incentivize the final baserush, but I dont have any good idea for that... I keep looping back to the hard-timer idea, but that's a terrible one.
Because RFK means you could turtle with hope? Or maybe it is just nostalgia clouding memories and it wasn't actually fun.
Simply because there was no concede. So the teams were forced to do something (on public servers).
A : Recycle IP, or F4 and move on to another game.
B : Something stupid and fun. Massive bile bomb in marine base, all go gorge in hive, fortifying with OC and other stuff having siege canon spammed on the other side of the wall, etc...
...anything but a real concede vote.
On the other side. The usual NS1 player was much more the kind that listen, learn and know what to do. Having a team in NS2 that coordinates properly on a public server is kind of a "urban legend" when you come to think about it.
Not so much... most often than not, players on 8bit (EU) server are actually listening. Especially lower-tier players.
Purple and above people are the ones who usually ignore explicit orders, because they have a 10:1 KD and thus know better how to handle the overall strategy...
Then they whine that even though they carried the team kill-wise, their team lost.
I dunno, it might be some nostalgia clouds on the horizon. But I remember that being on the losing team meant you'd at least having a bloody yet slim chance at a comeback or delaying the ping death by setting up a DC+OC fortress for shits and giggles. Or actually relocating the CC by having a ninja marine somewhere on the map. I guess, NS2 has become too static with fixed starting locations and too symmetrical for it's own good, where NS has options NS2 has removed most if not all of them, while not having a clear indicator for the "winning" team to PUSH the DAMN final base
I for one absolutely detest the "concede" voting, because there are no options left. A game shouldn't have to rely on a voting system to end a round.
Which kinda brings me back to for example MOBA's. What makes their end game more fun than NS2's lack of direction during end game? My guess is a lack of a voting system to end the game is forcing players to PUSH for a win, instead of hanging back raking in kills.
Is there a "Sadly Agree" button somewhere?
Economy model differences between NS1 and NS2 shaping the design, mostly.
But let's not pretend we didn't have turtles, devour or boring spectating waiting for that last marine in a vent to be found in NS1..
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions.
Even if the end game had less enjoyable mechanics to it, (like an Exo sitting in a hallway) you'd still be engaged and continue to play if there was a point.
But there's not. When the scales get tipped, they often stay there, and this poignant reality is wholly demotivating to anyone who becomes aware of it.
So it's best to just start a new round and try again.
Making end game mechanics more fun won't impact the concede rates, either, even if it should be attempted anyways.
But interestingly enough, if you solve predictable outcomes you may not need many of the necessary mechanics that are "unfun" like contamination.
If you want to solve conceding you need to solve predictable outcomes / forgone conclusions by making games with forgone conclusions end sooner.
I suggest we start by completely redesigning the alien abilities so that aliens can end games faster. Good abilities to start with replacement or redesign are stab, advanced metabolism, xenocide, and stomp. Give aliens the tools they need to not have to ever use contaminate.
I was going to post your poll which asked players to determine the average round time where they can predict the outcome / winner but cannot find it?
IIRC the average player answered around 5 minutes.
So in my mind what you are advocating for is essentially "the first team to score a point wins the round", in spirit.
What is wrong with going the opposite direction, and making NS2 engaging until the last second of a round?
That seems far more enjoyable to me, and less of a binary experience.
Simply making Tier 3 abilities stronger (or any abilities at any point) does not solve the core issue, it just pushes it to a different time.
It doesn't matter if its a nuke in the alien commander's hands or the field players, marines will know what they are up against and simply concede still.
Relevant post from one of your threads.
The fact there were turtles, devour and stalemates in NS doesn't change the fact there was still a clear direction and things to do for both teams. The ninja marine is not going on the list, because it could have been fixed by some form of hive sight after a while, similar to motion tracking and the Ping of Death. Imagine having just 2-4 minutes or something to get that newly hidden CC up and running for a counter push, before the Hive Mind yells out on all channels "The Enemy Approaches", painting a big target on your back after having found you. Whereas NS2 has technode lockdown to prevent that from happening, which instantly removed this kind of creativity. As I said, NS2 is quite static in terms of map control compared to NS. Easier to balance I'm sure, but keep in mind, a game that is too balanced also tends to step into stale or predictable territory
Also hive sight in NS was more clear and less confusing.
That was a Moultono poll, which why you may not have found it.
I am not advocating for ending the game at 5 minutes, or even 15 minutes. What I am asking for is that when one team is clearly winning, give them the tools to end it. Ideally T3 tech would end the game quickly. Don't let lame duck scenarios last longer than they need to.
You are stating a desire for more comeback mechanics. There are two problems with comeback mechanics in NS2.
1) They are often frustrating. I am thinking of secret gorge tunnel base rushes. This is very effective and very frustrating. This is like the blue shell in mario kart. This isn't fun.
2) Comeback mechanics in NS2 often increase the length of the lame duck scenario. That is that comeback mechanics often delay the inevitable loss rather than get both teams on even footing. As I mentioned earlier, I think lame duck scenarios in NS2 are one of the least fun things in NS2.
I am pretty sure I read @trixX say something about lame duck scenarios not really existing. I wanted to respond, but I can't seem to find that comment on mobile. Edit: I still can't find it on my desktop. What did you say .Trixx and where?
A big step towards the right direction is this:
https://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/154877/some-words-about-the-power-increase-of-ns2/p1
Nope, that is a myth. Like dodging GLs. While it might be possible in theory, it is not due to lag.
For that we pray hope for high tick / low interp... that makes predictions much easier.
Wasnt someone testing high tick low interp servers sometime recently? How did that go?
It exposed a lot of subtle stutters in the engine and some fundamental flaws and bottlenecks. More work is being done in secret internally with the PDT and CDT.
For starters, don't even bother... Some fun things to do end game as aliens:
Defense chambers (mixture between crag and shell) could survive at the end of the round as alien with this around you, able to be built in vents by gorges, a regen skulk with 1 dc can survive
Kill for pres/tres allowed people to kill and gain res to build hives, now in ns2 you need cysts, you need a hive to have a commander, hence why no late-game survival or comeback of aliens
Marines:
Could push back with a heavy armor as it was next to impossible to kill a heavyarmor with simply fade/skulk/lerk unless the the HA was bad, you can't do the same with useless exosuits.
Marines could relocate and build anywhere they wanted on the maps, they did not need "power nodes or tech points"
qwiojeioqwjeiqwjeiowejiqowejiowqej if i continue on i'll have to commit Sudoku
I am obviously not opposed to a stable early game and a fragile late game, such as @The_Welsh_Wizard has stumbled onto (glad to have you aboard!)
But the crux of the issue with ONLY addressing the late game fragility - as you are -and not the early game stability, is your qualifier of "clearly winning" and how subjective that is to each user, on average. Link to that poll
That variance and low round time implies a binary experience, if we are to assume that there is a "clear winner" by the 4 minute mark!
A stable early game is a prerequisite to addressing the late game fragility, and thus in the larger scope, predictable outcomes and therefore the need to concede.
What I am suggesting is to make end game tech intentionally very overpowered so that the final baserush is easy for the winning team. NS2 already has a soft timer with the 3rd hive. Marines need to win or prevent the third hive. When aliens do have that third hive, it is usually a painfully slow slog fest into a turtle fest that ends in a win. This final slog turtle fest for either team is the worst part of the game. It happens when marines are winning too, but aliens have less tools than marines to actually end the game. Even then, neither team can end the game quick enough, at least in my unpopular opinion. I know you disagree with this.
What I want is simple. We already have this soft timer. I want the game to end VERY quickly once we get there, not have a painful last stand. I propose to do that by giving each team very overpowered late game tools to end the game so that when a team reaches late game tech they can press for a win very quickly. The losing team can concede, but if they want to keep trying they have to hurry, rather than have a 5-30 minute last stand.
I think we need to unpack the words fragile and stable in this statement. Let me try to say what I think you want. Please tell me if I am correct, and where I am wrong. As I understand it, you want a stable early game where there is no clear winner and a fragile early game where anybody can win, and the advantages built aren't all that influential.
Where the advantages built are less influential than they are now.*
Which is to say, there is a whole lot of breathing room for this currently, with the degree of compounding advantages / snowballing mechanics in play - especially considering the impact that said early game can have on this scenario. Right now it's as if the early game is what dictates the winner, not the middle or the end game.
There's the possibility that with a stable early game , you won't have to change much at all for the end game, since there is always an opening or a mistake that is made by one team at some point. But if that wasn't the case, you could just increase the power output of the mechanics at that time in the round so that the first team to reach X would be at a major advantage in order to swiftly end it.
I agree that the round is decided too early, and it would be better if advantages didn't compound so early.
To put it another way: Even though advantages compound too early, I don't think the advantages compound enough late game to make the game end quick enough. Too many games are too slow to finish which is aweful to play. Making the late game end quicker wouldn't be hard to implement and would have very tangible positive effects on gameplay in the short and long term. Trying to slow down the snowball early game is not as easy to do, and you haven't achieved this in how many years you have been trying?
Edit: my point in drawing attention to the difficulty of stabalizing the early game is to draw a contrast to how easy it is to implement my suggestion.
There are many, possibly better, ways to implement my suggestion. I think the easiest solution to implement with as little change to the current game would be to redesign most of the alien abilities to be very op late game so that they end the game quickly. The alien abilities like stab, advanced metabolize, and xenocide are such low hanging fruit. This would be a good start in the right direction.