A Column Some Ppl May Be Interested In

Nefilim · August 2003

This always makes me think of those kids who complain to game developers when their so-called "skills" are totally ruined with "llama tactics," and try to sound intelligent as they say that the devs don't know how to code since they patched up a major exploit that they used to their advantage over other players.

aegix · August 2003

Epidemic's post in <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=43104&hl=' target='_blank'>this thread</a> comes to mind.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Aug 16 2003, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 3 entries found for Superiority complex.
superiority complex
n.
An exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.
<b>A psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority.? </b> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

enf0rcer · August 2003

I'd agree with nojmaster's summary as well. I do think that skulks should have to get clerity or carapace or even both to stand an equal chance against marines. It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. Once a skulks gets carapace,cerity, cloaked by a sensory, thats when the marine should have to be skilled in order to stand a real chance.

Squidget · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (enf0rcer @ Aug 19 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'd agree with nojmaster's summary as well. I do think that skulks should have to get clerity or carapace or even both to stand an equal chance against marines. It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. Once a skulks gets carapace,cerity, cloaked by a sensory, thats when the marine should have to be skilled in order to stand a real chance.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I think this neatly encapsulates the crux of this, ahem, "debate."

I specifically want to highlight this statement:

"It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. "

WHY? Why does this makes sense? To who? Not to me.

Is there a guide for such things? Does your school teach this? Was it passed as a resolution by the U.N.?

This is the "the way *I* want the game to be is the way it *should* be" argument.

No supporting logic. No mention of game theory. No mention of the psychology of fun. Just the replacement of objectivity by personal desire.

So far no one has put forth a reason "WHY," other than "I want to dominate." That was the essence of the original column, and that's the essence of every supporting argument I've seen put forth.

Myself, I disagree totally with the column. I feel that CS has *proven* that certain game design choices destroy team play. The ability to rambo is one of the most obvious. So is tracking kills. NS doesn't want to be CS. It wants to be about team play. Hence, you remove those features that have been PROVEN by extensive experience to destroy team play. To do otherwise would make it something other than NS.

NS is a hallmark of the Logical, Rational, and Objective method of game design.

Which brings us to what I call the “CS syndrome,” where people always ask for sniper rifles to be added to NS. (Possibly the most common post in the S&I forums for quite a while.) The goal is not to make a better CS. It is to make a better NS.

So, challenge the column’s supporters to restate their argument. I’ll even frame the question for you:

How do your recommended changes IMPROVE upon the aspects which makes NS unique? Those values are things like team work, intelligence, and tactical planning.

enf0rcer · August 2003

To begin, that specific quote was my personal view of how i think the two would interact in an NS world. It has nothing to do with gameplay. I say that it makes sense because I’d like to think that the marines are prepared at least to handle a skulk by themselves. You might as well ignore that and just read what i have to say below.

I find that the aliens have a much easier time controlling the map because skulks are faster and, in most 1 vs 1 cases, stronger than marines. Thus they can stop marines from expanding easier. Marines <i>must</i> move in groups to stay alive and get things done. A skulk can move to a res node and cap it by himself with less threat than a marine would have. If basic marines were to become a more formidable foe it would allow the marine team to step out on a limb more often.

Resources are a big part of the game. If a single marine can take out a single skulk easier he stands a better chance of scoring his team a res node and keeping it. Skulks would have to group to take down a res node like marines do right now. If a lone marine tries to take down an alien node he will find himself overwhelmed quite soon after he starts to slash with his knife. An alien doesn't have to worry about an incoming marine because he can take quite a few hits and still be fast enough to get away.

Basically I’m saying that it's easier for aliens to get a good start and it's easier for them to attack structures outside the marine base.

e/ It seems that to deal with this expantion issue we now have cheaper electricity upgrades in 2.1 and skulks, last time i checked, changed back to 1.04 health ?. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that 1.04 health levels were good. That's my opinion. I never said i supported the column because i didn't even bother to read all of it. I saw nojmaster's post and i agree with what i read there.

Iden · August 2003

WAIT!!!

"1.04 with its 9 bullet kills meant that if a group of skulks charged you down a hallway, lmg takes care of atleast 3 and the pistol finishes the 4th - more than 4 your dead anyway."

So a group of FOUR aliens using TEAMWORK were killed in this example by ONE lone marine.

Oh yeah, I'm loving this argument so far. Who wants to reload his gun so he can shoot the OTHER foot instead of inserting it in his mouth?

Zel · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Iden @ Aug 20 2003, 12:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So a group of FOUR aliens using TEAMWORK were killed in this example by ONE lone marine.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
ah, yes, see four aliens in a pack should lose to a single marine, that sure does promote teamwork for marines and wildness for aliens.

othell · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nojmaster @ Aug 19 2003, 06:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think a lot of the people here are blowing this guys opinion out of proportion. Hes not saying he wants one marine to be able to beat whole teams of skulks. Look; the basic marine has 100 health, 50 armor and a machine gun, the skulk has 75 health, 20 armour and a bite. Why should there need to be more marines to take down these pathetic creatures? Hes not arguing that LMG's should be able to easily take down fades and onii, hes just saying that marines should have the advantage base unit vs base unit. I thought that was the whole idea behind unlocking hives from available evolutions anyway; that skulks aren't supposed to be game winners and that aliens need the higher evolutions, but constantly we see skulks eating res nodes, eating marines who are attacking res nodes, taking down TF's, IP's etc. A lone marine can't do **** to kharaa structures compared to what lone skulks can do to marine structures. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Lets start with reading comprehension first.

This guy complained that he was only able to take out 2 - 3 skulks with one clip now. He wants it to be 3 - 4 instead. If that's not wanting to take a whole team of skulks out... I don't know what is.

Marines have the advantage against skulks when it comes to distance... But if a skulk gets right up next to a marine.... He is MEANT TO DIE. I thought everyone knew this simple fact about the "subtle" differences between the skulk and the lone marine.

Skulks are meant to attack res nodes if they are not electrified... Marines are also supposed to attack res nodes. It is neither specie's fault if certain members decide not to watch for the enemy while they are doing it. The fault does not lie within the game design if marines die while trying to take out a res node.... Especially if they die from a skulk and are working as a team ( in which case they were not working well as a team ). Since when are skulks not meant to take down TFs, IPs, res nodes or any other marine structure? Why must it be a higher lifeform that does it? Why is it so bad that there are skulks at the end game ( xenocide is loads of fun! ).

Once again... Marines are generally not meant to go out alone. This is been part of NS from the very beginning. Lone marines should be expected to die.

RyoOhki · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think a lot of the people here are blowing this guys opinion out of proportion. Hes not saying he wants one marine to be able to beat whole teams of skulks. Look; the basic marine has 100 health, 50 armor and a machine gun, the skulk has 75 health, 20 armour and a bite. Why should there need to be more marines to take down these pathetic creatures? Hes not arguing that LMG's should be able to easily take down fades and onii, hes just saying that marines should have the advantage base unit vs base unit. I thought that was the whole idea behind unlocking hives from available evolutions anyway; that skulks aren't supposed to be game winners and that aliens need the higher evolutions, but constantly we see skulks eating res nodes, eating marines who are attacking res nodes, taking down TF's, IP's etc. A lone marine can't do **** to kharaa structures compared to what lone skulks can do to marine structures.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why should there need to be more than one marine? Because the marines are supposed to work in groups. Regardless of that in a one on one fight a marine that uses the advantage of range can still take one one or 2 skulks charging down an open corridor: in a one on one scenario lvl 0 marine and lvl 0 skulks come up roughly even. Lone skulks can be a pain, that's why we have electricity on RTs and TFs (although it's use in 2.0 is curbed due to high cost, research time, range exploits. 2.01b sees much more electricity and much less lone skulks eating rts). We also have weapon upgrades and armour upgrades (no alien upgrade allows them to do more damage, and only one increases their armour). Skulks die real quick to lvl 2 and 3 weapons, and if that's not enough, hand out one or two shotguns. Skulks don't like shotguns <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

A lone marine can do damage to alien structures that are undefended or even defended. Sniping OCs from a long distance, ducking around a courner and unloading a clip into an OC, trying to dodge the spikes (CAN be done but VERY hard). He can knife a res tower if he wants and if the alien team does not respond to the threat he will take it down. <b>The same applies for both sides: if a marine RT comes under attack from a gorge, Fade, lerk or Onos and the marines do nothing about it, that RT will fall</b>. Base defenses exist to suppliment defense and drive off small threats: they're not there to defend a postion by themselves. If either side sits back on their laurels or thinks that their static defenses will do the job for them they are wrong. The biggest turret farm in the world will die to bile bombs, and the biggest OC stack in the world will be shreaded by grenades or seige. By the same token, a lone gorge or a lone GLer will die easily to a response by even just one of the team's players. Teamwork remains the key.

Rambo aliens can do a little more damage to undefended marine bases, but what about a rambo marine that manages to slap down a phase in an undefended hive location. Suddenly you've got a whole team there nailing your hive and spawning aliens, and before too long a tf will be up. Each side can be hurt by rambos, but in order to take on defended positions you need teamwork. That hasn't changed in 2.0 and it won't change in the future.

As a side note that "column" was one of the worst peices of writing I have ever seen. Grammer and punctuation was all over the place, as was spelling and gross over-use of profanities. I'd actually prefer if the forum mods shut down that link: whilst I myself may not have too much of a problem with swearing, these boards do not allow it for good reasons.

Xellos · August 2003

I've sacrafised my time and registered there just to write reply straight to that 'column' owner (Karma). Here's what I wrote as most probably you don't check that site for updates anymore:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A single skilled marine can still win the game for the team, but the tool for that is your microphone not your gun. Help your mates by hinting them, giving them clues, orders. Be the squad leader (not the commander) if you're that good.

If you can own 3 skulks alone thats very good - I've seen a single skulk killing a group of 3 marines more often than a single marine killing 2 skulks. I'm not complaining - this game is about teamwork, covering yourself. It gives it that atmospher I love. It's not quake, it never was, it'll never be. . . Thank God(talked in that sweat tount style voice).

The last thing i want to see in NS are marines separetly ramboing the map each killing 4-5 skulks. Really.

And yes, I think 2.0 is a HUGE improvement.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Wookie_nookie_is_the_best_nookie · August 2003

the fact is, one on one a marine against a skulk is a fairly even match. skulk can hide, attack from behind. Marine can hit from a long way off and do damage fast. But in groups, five marines against five skulks is no contest when they are of equal skill. Every one of the marines can attack one skulk, at one moment, easily. skulks have to swarm around that one marine to get him, covering distance and then having to stay out of each other's way. by the time the skulks could get two marines down, the three others would have gotten them. but marines can quickly kill one then the other, without changing positions or maneuvering. its better explained by playing most fps games. Imagine your playing like WC3 and you need to take out some big strong hero thingy. you can build say archers or a melee unit. the melee units would swarm around, and only about four could attack the one person at a time. they would die, and more would take their place. It is much more efficient if the same number of archers could be attacking at the same time. by the very nature of ranged and melee units, in any game, the melee are more powerful in a one on one situation, but the ranged will always hold more power in a group. To compare this, think- who will win in these scenarios. If three skulks come running at a heavy, he can usually deal with them one by one- it is difficult to just sit there and bite someone. They will die. If three marines encounter an onos, they can ALL attack him the second he arrives on the scene, killing or redeeming him. This is why skulks are lone hunters and marines are team players.

whew. did that make a point?

TheMuffinMan · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wookie nookie is the best nookie @ Aug 20 2003, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> the fact is, one on one a marine against a skulk is a fairly even match. skulk can hide, attack from behind. Marine can hit from a long way off and do damage fast. But in groups, five marines against five skulks is no contest when they are of equal skill. Every one of the marines can attack one skulk, at one moment, easily. skulks have to swarm around that one marine to get him, covering distance and then having to stay out of each other's way. by the time the skulks could get two marines down, the three others would have gotten them. but marines can quickly kill one then the other, without changing positions or maneuvering. its better explained by playing most fps games. Imagine your playing like WC3 and you need to take out some big strong hero thingy. you can build say archers or a melee unit. the melee units would swarm around, and only about four could attack the one person at a time. they would die, and more would take their place. It is much more efficient if the same number of archers could be attacking at the same time. by the very nature of ranged and melee units, in any game, the melee are more powerful in a one on one situation, but the ranged will always hold more power in a group. To compare this, think- who will win in these scenarios. If three skulks come running at a heavy, he can usually deal with them one by one- it is difficult to just sit there and bite someone. They will die. If three marines encounter an onos, they can ALL attack him the second he arrives on the scene, killing or redeeming him. This is why skulks are lone hunters and marines are team players.

whew. did that make a point?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
give the man a cookie!

SlayerOfSkulks · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Squidget @ Aug 20 2003, 05:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (enf0rcer @ Aug 19 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

WHY?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
For the same reason a marine (even an upgraded one) SHOULDN'T be able to kill off an Onos or fade single handed. One kharaa is not equal to one marine... it makes sense that the early forms should be weaker than a vanilla marine, and the later forms should be stronger than a fully upgraded one.

Squidget · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (slayer111 @ Aug 20 2003, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Squidget @ Aug 20 2003, 05:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (enf0rcer @ Aug 19 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

WHY? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
For the same reason a marine (even an upgraded one) SHOULDN'T be able to kill off an Onos or fade single handed. One kharaa is not equal to one marine... it makes sense that the early forms should be weaker than a vanilla marine, and the later forms should be stronger than a fully upgraded one.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
More anti-logic. Your first assertion:

"For the same reason a marine (even an upgraded one) SHOULDN'T be able to kill off an Onos or fade single handed. "

Wrong. The reason that this applies is due to time and resources involved. And given proper circumstances an upgraded marine does have a pretty good chance of beating a Fade, BTW. This argument, while valid for higher lifeforms, does NOT apply for base skulks and base marines. The investment cost is roughly the same. This simply doesn't apply to the argument presented in the column.

Second sentence:

"One kharaa is not equal to one marine... it makes sense that the early forms should be weaker than a vanilla marine, and the later forms should be stronger than a fully upgraded one."

Neat, Deja Vu. WHY!?!! Because you say so? etc.

Saying "it makes sense" doesn't cut it. WHY does it make sense? Who says one Kharaa can't be equal to one marine?

IIRC, the devs STATED GOAL was to make skulks and marines roughly equal in the beginning of the game. Obvious it "didn't make sense" to them that skulks should be weaker.

I'll go one step further. It is a BAD idea to make skulks weaker than marines in the start of the game. Rather than just say "it makes sense," I'll provide logic. My argument is based on fun vs. balance. You can weaken skulks to balance the game (as is currently happening in the beta), but that should be a last resort. Put simply, it's not a lot of fun to get owned constantly at the beginning of the game if you are playing aliens. Most people do not enjoy feeling handicapped, even if they know the game will swing their way later. Basic gamers psychology: you want to feel like your gameself is at least competent, if not downright deadly.

Knowing that the game will swing in your favor later is nice, but first impressions matter. There are also major downsides with "temporal balancing," but I'll leave that to another day.

If you can, you are better off making the skulks balanced vs. marines as much as possible, and adjust other factors (econ, respawn rate, upgrade costs) to put the game in balance. That provides balance without really impacting the fun factor.

It also echos what the devs said when they started the public beta. They designed 2.0 to be fun first and foremost, and are now trying to balance while retaining the fun as much as possible.

SlayerOfSkulks · August 2003

(Some minor snippage in this post)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Squidget @ Aug 21 2003, 06:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (slayer111 @ Aug 20 2003, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Squidget @ Aug 20 2003, 05:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (enf0rcer @ Aug 19 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It just makes sense that a basic marine should be able to take down the weakest lifeform by himself. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
WHY? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
For the same reason a marine (even an upgraded one) SHOULDN'T be able to kill off an Onos or fade single handed. One kharaa is not equal to one marine... it makes sense that the early forms should be weaker than a vanilla marine, and the later forms should be stronger than a fully upgraded one. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

"For the same reason a marine (even an upgraded one) SHOULDN'T be able to kill off an Onos or fade single handed. "

Wrong. The reason that this applies is due to time and resources involved.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

My apologies, I had assumed that in order to get HA, HMG, armour and weapon upgrades etc, that res and time had to be expended, in the same way res has to be expended to get an Onos, hives, and chambers. Evidently I'm wrong, all that stuff is free, and the commander really DOES just not want to drop me the shotgun I keep whining for when he has 3 res.

Or, perhaps, it takes time and resources to get that upgraded marine too?

At this point, you'll say 'Yes, but it takes more time and resources to get a fully upgraded Onos than a fully upgraded marine' and I'll say 'Yes, and that's why a single marine shouldn't be able to kill one.'

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And given proper circumstances an upgraded marine does have a pretty good chance of beating a Fade, BTW. This argument, while valid for higher lifeforms, does NOT apply for base skulks and base marines. The investment cost is roughly the same. This simply doesn't apply to the argument presented in the column.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is kinda my OWN argument. I don't agree with the column, and I posted saying so. That doesn't mean I believe 2.0 is perfect. It IS damn good, and if thwey decided there'd be no more changes, I'd play with a smile on my face anyway.

Anyway, let's put it this way; let's say that, all things being equal, 2.0 should be balanced between the teams. Fair comment? Good. Now. We've acknowledged that an upgraded Onos should not generally be able to be killed by a single upgraded Marine, due to the 'time and resources involved.' Now, if the most powerful alien is going to be more powerful than the most powerful marine, it follows that the vanilla alien should be LESS powerful. Otherwise, marines are beaten out at all stages of the game. You balance the units out over the course of the game, and in average, the units are equal.

Now, is that really such a strange propositin to you? Is that really 'anti-logic' as you called it? Or is it merely something you disagree with?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Second sentence:

"One kharaa is not equal to one marine... it makes sense that the early forms should be weaker than a vanilla marine, and the later forms should be stronger than a fully upgraded one."

Neat, Deja Vu. WHY!?!! Because you say so?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

See above.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saying "it makes sense" doesn't cut it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Neither does refering to a statement as 'anti-logic', and then not really bringing up any reason for it being wrong. Rather, you decided to keep asking why. I've seen children do that with adults for hours, with the adult constantly explaining things in greater and greater detail, and you know what? There's always another 'why?'

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>IIRC, the devs STATED GOAL was to make skulks and marines roughly equal in the beginning of the game. Obvious it "didn't make sense" to them that skulks should be weaker.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

They stated flamethrowers would be in. They stated Gorges in 1.1 would be able to drink from res nodes. They stated a lot of things that changed.

And guys, pay attention here; he's brought up what the devs choose as though anything they say, goes. Remember that.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'll go one step further. It is a BAD idea to make skulks weaker than marines in the start of the game. Rather than just say "it makes sense," I'll provide logic. My argument is based on fun vs. balance. You can weaken skulks to balance the game (as is currently happening in t
he beta), but that should be a last resort.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And here, he disagrees with what the devs are doing in the 2.0 betas. So can the devs be wrong?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Put simply, it's not a lot of fun to get owned constantly at the beginning of the game if you are playing aliens. Most people do not enjoy feeling handicapped, even if they know the game will swing their way later. Basic gamers psychology: you want to feel like your gameself is at least competent, if not downright deadly.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're right. Some people do not like to feel handicapped early on. Those people, as it stands now, should stop playing marine and go Kharaa. They should be able to beat a marine 1-on-1 at all states of play, don't you know?

There are two teams in NS. If ONE is going to be weaker earlier on, then that means the other is going to be stronger. And, funnily enough, people get to choose what team they go on (barring team numbers.) If people don't want the handicap that, for the first few minutes, they're a bit weaker than their opponents, they can play marine.

Besides, a lot of people I've heard from LOVE the handicap, or 'challenge' as they call it. What can be better than going up against something you KNOW is stronger than you, and beating it through pure skill?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There are also major downsides with "temporal balancing," but I'll leave that to another day.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're right, there are. But unless you're going to make it so units on both sides at any given level of upgrade can match each other, these are going to be here anyway. The trick is making them manageable.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It also echos what the devs said when they started the public beta. They designed 2.0 to be fun first and foremost, and are now trying to balance while retaining the fun as much as possible.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's fair enough. I've never had anything but good things to say about the dev team, or Natural Selection. It's a great game, and they should be commended for their work. Besides, what am I going to do if I feel there's an imbalance, demand a refund? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

WAR-Karma · August 2003

Woah.

Interesting.... to say the least.

I got linked here by Kal (thanks mate), and yes I am the "owner" or author of that column, note I represent no arm of the Australian community, that is my personal thoughts.

Err, lets see.....

1) That entire piece was written straight off, first draft. So spelling, grammar and any other english technique was not at the forefront of my mind. Nor is it any time when I am posting on an online forum.

2) For all the people that flamed me and discounted what I said only because of spelling, grammar and my use of the word <span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span>, then you are not worth my time. Don't bother replying to what I write, or placing any of your opinions in any thread directed to me. I love how people are so tough on the internet, and so close minded. But what can I expect I guess, it's an online game dominated by social inepts who think flaming me for spelling makes their e-<span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span> feel 50x bigger.

3) My piece was written when I was <span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span>, hence my jagged line of thought and abrasive writting, I don't know about the rest of the world, but the word F*** isn't taboo in Australia. Stop being so shallow and actually look at the meaning of what I wrote. However, I did manage to convey <b>ALL</b> of my points.

4) I never meant for this piece to be read outside the <i>Australian</i> Natural Selection community, why? Because I have been involved in that community for over eight months, am .... was.... a very active member of that community and was respected. I have been heavily involved in the clan scene, refereed tournaments and had a hand in the launch of a new community. To you I'm just some angry random, possibly a noob who has spent 3 hrs playing 2.0 and thinks it is <span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span>. I had no intention of posting my thoughts here because I have no voice here, nor did I want one. But due to idiots, I am forced to defend myself... God Bless America.

5) To those who think I want to be able to rambo in clan wars and take 4-5 skulks, please re-read my piece and get a clue. I was talking about public play, against low-medium skilled players. I look for games where individual skill is paramount, but I also look for games where clan play is very teamwork orientated. I love clan wars for NS, but since I find public play frustrating and slow I lose 90% of my playing time and therefore become rusty and become a liability to my clan in wars.

Anyway now that that is off my chest:

I'm not so base as to presume I have any right to abuse the dev's about the direction they have taken <i>their</i> game in. Nor do I presume that any critism that I offer will ever be considered.

I was stating that I felt that the individual skill has been ripped out from the marines, this fact, coupled with the fact my regular servers are now crammed with cs convert's who think they are hot Sh** has meant I do not find playing marines in public games enjoying.

I was offering <i>my</i> community, <i>my</i> clan mates and <i>my</i> friends, reasons why I will be leaving and that if the game is continued along this line I will not be back.

I was also interested if any other members of <i>my</i> community felt the same way as me, agreed/disagreed and if so, why. I have gotten that response from<i>my</i> community with zero flames, across two forums ~70 posts. Hence you can see the reasoning why I never intended for my thoughts to be broadcast here.

In summary:

1) If you flamed me, thankyou for wasting your time - although since you probably spend all your time online trolling forums you will regard it as time well spent - due to the fact that I can speed-read wake takes you 10 minutes to type, takes me 5 seconds to realise all you are doing is flaming me.

2) I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't give a flying <span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span> yes <i><span style='color:white'>do not dodge the swear filter</span></i> if you think I'm just some angry noob random, because I don't know you and you don't know me, so don't bother trying to tear me apart to make your e-**** feel large because it doesn't affect me.

3) If you actually have something relevant to add sign up to either of the forums my threads are found and state them. www.NSPlayer.com and www.ausns.org

4) If any of the dev's read this, maximum respect for a brilliant game, however, it has been taken into a direction which I don't agree with.

5) No I don't have kangaroo's in my back yard, but I do have a family of possum's.

6) Thankyou for those few of you who actually figured out what I was trying to say and backing me up, too bad your wisdom was drowned out by the mass of forum trolls.

7) Peace.

lolfighter · August 2003

1) Say the f-word all you want. Couldn't care less. Make spelling errors too if you want. This is the intarweb, nobody cares. Most of us don't even speak english in our daily lives. As long as they don't get so abundant that they actually obscure the meaning of the text, only nitpickers complain about spelling errors. Don't bother.
2) A game where individual skill is paramount, but clan play is teamwork oriented. Sorry, but this fits CS (and this is not a flame, CS is a great game) more than it fits NS. To me, NS is a game where tactics and strategy take the crown. Being in the right place at the right time. Kill four or five Skulks over there and it will hardly make a difference. Kill one or two over here and you save the base. First and foremost, NS is a Real-Time Strategy game, but with a unique first-person perspective. Runner-up: Twitch shooter. The game is tailored so that a team that is strategically superior can win over a disorganized team with better aim. NS is not a solo experience. The (sometimes sad) reality is that you WILL lose if your team is a bunch of smacktards. That's the way NS is. I'm talking about public play here, mind you. Finding high-level servers is by far impossible (and they MUST have those in Australia too), and there you will usually find teamwork-oriented people that will work towards goals with you instead of just doing their own thing (of course, provided you're willing to do the same).
What I'm saying is this: If I'm getting it right, what you're criticising about NS is that you have to rely on a bunch of strangers that quite often suck compared to you. That's NS. I know that it's very frustrating when those people turn out to be completely clueless, and that you will inevitably lose the game. That's NS. You will probably be better off playing a different game (CS comes to mind as the big big contender, but if you don't like that, there's always alternatives).
If you're not willing to ditch NS, you will have to either:
A) Find servers that fit your level of skill so that you can count on your team or
B) Lower your expections.

That's it.

Edit: And forget the flaming and counter-flaming. If this is supposed to be a meaningful discussion, someone's gotta swallow their retorts and ignore the flaming. Do you really think that your reputation will be squandered if you do not pull an eye-for-an-eye on that dude who just flamed your flame? So he flamed back? Forget it. Disregard it. Copy his post to wordpad, edit the flaming out, then read it. Pay attention to the arguments, not the flames.

coil · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-WAR-Karma @ Aug 21 2003, 05:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 4) If any of the dev's read this, maximum respect for a brilliant game, however, it has been taken into a direction which I don't agree with.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. *shrug*

Majin · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Aug 19 2003, 08:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The guy should find a dictionary and look up "column". Horrible stuff - numerous misspellings, lots of obscenities without any point in them, SHOUTING, wandering off topic and in general, writing _real_ bad. I wouldn't be so hard on the guy if he didn't call his rant a column and himself a columnist.

About the content of this so called column. I guess there is certain faction inside the NS community that is so hard-core about FPS that they can't handle the way NS is progressing. Marine diversity is an issue I agree with, but most of the column is just rambling about how the game isn't like the "columnist" wants it to be.

Really crappy effort at a column. Would take quite a lot of whipping before I would call this good.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Also I found the guy is HIGH on himself
"I use to be able to kill 4 or 5 skulks.."
So because the game in 1.04 allowed the Skulks to get MAJORLY OWNED without a D chamber and now a Skulk can play and get a ratio of 2:1 instead of 1:3, this is a bad thing.

What a ****-POOR Columnist that guy is!

Squidget · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At this point, you'll say 'Yes, but it takes more time and resources to get a fully upgraded Onos than a fully upgraded marine' and I'll say 'Yes, and that's why a single marine shouldn't be able to kill one.'</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And actually gets to my point that you missed. Base Skulks, IMO, should be equal to base marines since the resource cost is equal (i.e. basically zero). Issues of cost are simply not present. Hence, your first sentence had NO bearing on the second. That was my point.

But, now you have expanded your explanation a bit, and I *think* I see your logic. Summarized: In the end-game, aliens have access to creatures that marines can't match up to on a one-to-one basis. (No matter how many res the marines have, they can’t equip a marine to match an Onos one-on-one.) So, in the name of balance, aliens should dominate on a one-to-one balance early on to make up for the late game pounding? Is this the thrust? I can understand how this would link your two statements I considered unrelated. However, I consider it temporal balancing in disguise, and disagree with it totally.

If you are going for a different point, I apologize. Please clarify.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And guys, pay attention here; he's brought up what the devs choose as though anything they say, goes. Remember that.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You are a good debater, don't stoop to dirty tactics. Take my sentences for what they say, do not infer my non-expressed opinions. This isn't a testimony, you gain nothing by trying to prove me incompetent.

Of *course* devs can be wrong. They basically *have* reversed their positions. For the record, I feel the Devs HAVE done an outstanding job in 2.0, so far. But I do disagree with many of the beta changes. I didn't feel like commenting on them simply because it's a beta; it's just not real yet.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're right. Some people do not like to feel handicapped early on. Those people, as it stands now, should stop playing marine and go Kharaa. They should be able to beat a marine 1-on-1 at all states of play, don't you know?

There are two teams in NS. If ONE is going to be weaker earlier on, then that means the other is going to be stronger. And, funnily enough, people get to choose what team they go on (barring team numbers.) If people don't want the handicap that, for the first few minutes, they're a bit weaker than their opponents, they can play marine.

Besides, a lot of people I've heard from LOVE the handicap, or 'challenge' as they call it. What can be better than going up against something you KNOW is stronger than you, and beating it through pure skill?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I've seen this argument made many times before. It boils down to: "It's perfectly OK that a game is unbalanced, because some people like a challenge. After all, they can just switch sides." I consider it hogwash, and always have. The upsides of a perfectly balanced game FAR outweigh the upsides of an imbalanced one.

Pros and cons:
(terminology: challengers = love the odds against them, balancers prefer a fair fight)
* Competitive play. Imbalance is not an option, period.
* In the presence of balance, one can always handicap themselves explicitly. The ways are endless, and they are voluntary. Thus, in a balanced game, challengers and balancers can BOTH be happy on either team. Balancers play as is, challengers can handicap themselves.
* In an unbalanced system, challengers will only be happy on one team. If they happen to want to play the overpowered team, the enjoyment is reduced for them. They must handicap themselves in the same way as they would in a balanced game, only more so. Balancers will be unhappy on either team, since they know it isn't a fair fight either way.

You thus make a minority (challengers whose favorite side is overpowered) happy some of the time, and make the majority less happy virtually all the time. It just doesn't add up.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're right, there are. But unless you're going to make it so units on both sides at any given level of upgrade can match each other, these are going to be here anyway. The trick is making them manageable. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ah, but that’s not the issue at hand. We are discussing the way the game SHOULD be, not the actual making of said game. We shouldn’t discuss the feasibly or effort required until we agree what the end goal of the balancing is. Which we have not yet done.

(Yep, it’s off-topic, but I can’t resist. Temporal balancing pretty much DESTROYED C&C Generals as a competitive game. That was a painful forum to live through. The awe-inspiring power of StarCraft is that three races were balanced in every way, even temporally and “map”orally. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> It can be done. )

Forlorn · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Majin @ Aug 21 2003, 09:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What a ****-POOR Columnist that guy is!  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Don't let this guy work at commchair! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Althought, his column was borderline with your last newspost, which I changed...

coil · August 2003

<b>[moderator] PLEASE keep the discussion civil; do NOT make personal attacks. They are the weakest form of debate, the last refuge of an argumentative person who has run out of legitimate points of contention. They will also result in this thread being locked. [/moderator]</b>

My opinions:

A skulk and a vanilla marine both cost the same amount. Ergo, they should be equal. Flay has been attempting to make them so. That doesn't mean that every encounter will be a 50-50 toss-up... each of the two has his individual strengths. If a skulk gets the drop on a marine, it should win. But if a marine is defending a strong position - e.g. watching a corridor - the skulk won't stand a chance. I've killed 5+ skulks in a row guarding one of the approaches to NS_Nothing's Power Silo hive. I've killed 3 marines in a row with no upgrades by ambushing them in NS_Eclipse's Station Access Alpha.

Now look at an Onos. How often does an alien have 100 RPs, and how often does a commander? It takes a good bit more time to get 100 RPs as a single alien than it does to get 100 as a commander. That's why an Onos is so much more powerful than a single marine: because a single marine has *easy* access to 100RPs' worth of upgrades (if his commander so chooses), while an alien has to gain those resources by himself.*

Regarding the opinions expressed in the article: I think a player who could take 4-5 skulks as a marine in 1.04 is fairly skilled. However, I think a player who expects his Quake- and CS-taught twitch skills to make him a one man army in NS needs to readjust his perception of this game. It's a teamplay game, pure and simple.

Regarding the style in which the article was written: No, it wasn't well-written. Grammar and spelling were poor, and language and "word choice" left a good deal to be desired. More importantly, though, the author failed to adequately support his position. As such, it is in my mind nothing more than an opinion piece, and one that was not very well thought-out, at that. *shrug* If you're going to write a "column," your writing ability is as much a factor in getting people to agree with you as your arguments are. Simple truth. Me? I wasn't convinced.

<i>(* I realize that the resource model is a little unbalanced, and that aliens generally get the upper hand in terms of RPs. The theory still applies, since imbalances like this will be addressed in future patches.)</i>

SlayerOfSkulks · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At this point, you'll say 'Yes, but it takes more time and resources to get a fully upgraded Onos than a fully upgraded marine' and I'll say 'Yes, and that's why a single marine shouldn't be able to kill one.'</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And actually gets to my point that you missed. Base Skulks, IMO, should be equal to base marines since the resource cost is equal (i.e. basically zero). Issues of cost are simply not present. Hence, your first sentence had NO bearing on the second. That was my point.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, I understand your point completely. I just don't believe the two points are mutually exclusive. For example, you could argue that a skulk, upon spawn, is instantly battle-ready, whereas a marine who wants to take on more kharaa needs to spend the time at the armory to get the ammo. It's a poor argument I know, but... well, the main thrust of my argument comes in with the next part.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But, now you have expanded your explanation a bit, and I *think* I see your logic. Summarized: In the end-game, aliens have access to creatures that marines can't match up to on a one-to-one basis. (No matter how many res the marines have, they can’t equip a marine to match an Onos one-on-one.) So, in the name of balance, aliens should dominate on a one-to-one balance early on to make up for the late game pounding? Is this the thrust? I can understand how this would link your two statements I considered unrelated. However, I consider it temporal balancing in disguise, and disagree with it totally.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You've pretty much got it, except there's no disguise about it... it's temporal balancing.

You simply have to follow a chain of logic. Should the game be balanced? Yes. If the game is going to be balanced, should the teams overall be equal? Again, yes. If the res and time needed for the most powerful kharaa outway the res and time needed to fully equip a marine, should that alien be more powerful than said marine? Well, yes it should. And, if the highest level alien beats the highest level marine, and both teams should be balanced, doesn't it follow that weaker aliens should be weaker than the weakest marines?

Think of each alien and each marine as having a difficulty rating. For the teams, you'll want the AVERAGE difficulty to more or less match out. For balance, you should be able to take a mean value of each teams theoretical difficulty, and wind up with the same number. How can you do that if the aliens start off just as strong as marines, but get to a faster stage anyway?
It's just another kind of temporal imbalance... as time progresses, both teams become more powerful, but Kharaa get stronger FASTER and FURTHER.

As for your dislike of temporal balance, that's just the way NS is. It's a much faster game that Starcraft or C&C Generals, and errors are magnified as time goes on. A comm that doesn't invest in motion tracking early will likely kill less marines, have more marines get killed, giving res to the other team. Timing is an important part to NS. Think of it as a 4-dimensional RTS, if you like.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And guys, pay attention here; he's brought up what the devs choose as though anything they say, goes. Remember that.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You are a good debater, don't stoop to dirty tactics. Take my sentences for what they say, do not infer my non-expressed opinions. This isn't a testimony, you gain nothing by trying to prove me incompetent.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

What, you mean the same way you did by starting off calling my points 'anti-logic'? You tried to decredit my words from the start, that was me just bringing it forward where everyone can see.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Of *course* devs can be wrong. They basically *have* reversed their positions. For the record, I feel the Devs HAVE done an outstanding job in 2.0, so far. But I do disagree with many of the beta changes. I didn't feel like commenting on them simply because it's a beta; it's just not real yet.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Then the argument 'because the devs stated they wanted it that way', which is what my statement was replying to, isn't valid. The devs can change their minds. The devs can be wrong.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're right. Some people do not like to feel handicapped early on. Those people, as it stands now, should stop playing marine and go Kharaa. They should be able to beat a marine 1-on-1 at all states of play, don't you know?

There are two teams in NS. If ONE is going to be weaker earlier on, then that means the other is going to be stronger. And, funnily enough, people get to choose what team they go on (barring team numbers.) If people don't want the handicap that, for the first few minutes, they're a bit weaker than their opponents, they can play marine.

Besides, a lot of people I've heard from LOVE the handicap, or 'challenge' as they call it. What can be better than going up against something you KNOW is stronger than you, and beating it through pure skill?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I've seen this argument made many times before. It boils down to: "It's perfectly OK that a game is unbalanced, because some people like a challenge. After all, they can just switch sides." I consider it hogwash, and always have. The upsides of a perfectly balanced game FAR outweigh the upsides of an imbalanced one. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You misunderstand me. I've stated the game is unbalanced, and it's obvious I would prefer balance. You'll notice the way my phrase was worded mainly wasn't talking about poissible changes to the game, but how the game is *now*, to make the point that people are already suffering through the very kind of imbalance you talk about, except the other way. The difference with my suggestion is that, over the course of a game, there IS balance. It's achieved in one of the only two ways possible, and the other is downgrading the power (and, to be fair, cost) of later aliens so a marine of equal level can beat them. That doesn't sound like a good solution to me.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Pros and cons:
(terminology: challengers = love the odds against them, balancers prefer a fair fight)
* Competitive play. Imbalance is not an option, period.
* In the presence of balance, one can always handicap themselves explicitly. The ways are endless, and they are voluntary. Thus, in a balanced game, challengers and balancers can BOTH be happy on either team. Balancers play as is, challengers can handicap themselves.
* In an unbalanced system, challengers will only be happy on one team. If they happen to want to play the overpowered team, the enjoyment is reduced for them. They must handicap themselves in the same way as they would in a balanced game, only more so. Balancers will be unhappy on either team, since they know it isn't a fair fight either way.

You thus make a minority (challengers whose favorite side is overpowered) happy some of the time, and make the majority less happy virtually all the time. It just doesn't add up.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But I don't make it that way. That's the way it is, <b>right now</b>. Most NS people are a little more patient than the average Quake fragger, they'd play enough to understand kharaa get more powerful over time. It's the nature of the game.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're right, there are. But unless you're going to make it so units on both sides at any given level of upgrade can match each other, these are going to be here anyway. The trick is making them manageable. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ah, but that’s not the issue at hand. We are discussing the way the game SHOULD be, not the actual making of said game. We shouldn’t discuss the feasibly or effort required until we agree what the end goal of the balancing is. Which we have not yet done.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The end goal of balancing has to be to create an equal playing field between the two teams. That, if you take two teams of equal skill, the end result will be very close. Fun is, IMO, a sperate issue... any change made for balance will afect fun, yes, but in a much less concrete and hard-to-predict way anyway, and people who were used to the way it was will always have less fun at first.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Yep, it’s off-topic, but I can’t resist. Temporal balancing pretty much DESTROYED C&C Generals as a competitive game. That was a painful forum to live through. The awe-inspiring power of StarCraft is that three races were balanced in every way, even temporally and “map”orally. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> It can be done. )</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're right, it can... but Starcraft had an advantage that NS doesn't. In Starcraft, the NUMBER of units was another balance. The Zerg were all weak, but could swarm through sheer numbers, for example. NS doesn't have that, except to the limited extent the marines team is always 'one man down' thanks to the comm. You could get away with having teams that were unbalanced in a 1-1 sense, because you could balance it by always making it 2-1, or something. In NS, that's not possible.... so the only things that can be changed are power, cost and time taken to achieve, which all fall into what we've gone over above.

criticaI · August 2003

I think that most of the people responding to this post are generally unqualified to give an opinion. Also, most of the responses seem to be heavily emotional. By the way, he is talking about GEE-DEE good skulks here <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Ape · August 2003

What a disgrace to the Aussie NS community.

GEE-DEE? Is this supposed to be some sort of payout on Aussie slang?

If so, please explain.

MMZ_Torak · August 2003

One thing I think alot of people who say "marine vs skulk is not balanced" miss is that it is purely situational. In the right situations marines and skulks are equal. In long halls, a marine can fairly easily kill several skulks, in a tight area, a skulk can fairly easily kill the same number of marines. You cannot expect a marine to kill 4-5 skulks in Red Room any more than you should expect a skulk to run down the power silo hall and kill the 4-5 marines at the other end of the hall. You have to play to the strengths of the class you choose. In 1.04 it was too easy for marines to kill skulks at melee range, and people got used to this imbalance. Now that the scales are evened, alot of people feel that marine got pummeled with the "nerf bat". It just isnt the case. It is all about who sees who first and where they choose to fight it out.

Cheez1 · August 2003

I really don't think that just because the marines have ONE good player they should be able to do a lot more damage. That just makes no sense. Ok sure, put his skill to use, make him guard while others build, make him take point while moving, but this magical "best marine" shouldn't win the game for you automatically. That's why people hated stacking in 1.0x...

If you ask me this guy is just re-voicing opinions we've heard 1000000 times and i'm fed up with hearing it. A vanilla marine can only take out 1-3 skulks BOO-HOO, get over it. I swear they won't be happy until marines spawn with an AWP...

Squidget · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Think of each alien and each marine as having a difficulty rating. For the teams, you'll want the AVERAGE difficulty to more or less match out. For balance, you should be able to take a mean value of each teams theoretical difficulty, and wind up with the same number. How can you do that if the aliens start off just as strong as marines, but get to a faster stage anyway?
It's just another kind of temporal imbalance... as time progresses, both teams become more powerful, but Kharaa get stronger FASTER and FURTHER.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I understand the point, but I disagree that nerfing Skulks are the answer. The basic problem with nerfing a unit directly is that it doesn't fix temporal balancing problems, since it affects the unit across the entire game. Thus you simple move the imbalance "somewhen" else. That's the wrong way, IMO. Instead, you tweak the temporal-specific factors: upgrade costs, economy, etc. You can have marines and skulks be balanced vs. each other in the early game and still have the game be balanced late.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You're right, it can... but Starcraft had an advantage that NS doesn't. In Starcraft, the NUMBER of units was another balance.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

True, but not a game-breaker. There are other RTSes that have fixed or low-count numbers of units (Ground Control comes to mind). There are ways to balance these games, too. It might be harder to do, but cannot be proven as impossible.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As for your dislike of temporal balance, that's just the way NS is. It's a much faster game that Starcraft or C&C Generals, and errors are magnified as time goes on. A comm that doesn't invest in motion tracking early will likely kill less marines, have more marines get killed, giving res to the other team. Timing is an important part to NS. Think of it as a 4-dimensional RTS, if you like.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I disagree. Any RTS has this property. Heck, virtually any game does. Losing an early battle in any competitive game can will put you a hole. It's the famous power curve in action. Magnification of errors (sometimes called the runaway effect) is nothing unique to NS. And even the RFK system isn't really unique in its effects; RTSes that model unit experience have much the same phenomenon.

And this is not the same as temporal imbalance. What you describe is an opponent taking advantage of a mistake, which is good. Temporal imbalance is an intrinsic weakness of a faction at certain points of time, irregardless of player skill.

An analogy from chess:

What you describe: me loosing a rook early on, and thus being behind on the power curve. Unless my opponent likewise fumbles, I will most likely lose.

Temporal Imbalance: Every game, the white side starts out with 16 pawns, but all pieces turn into Queens after the 8th turn. Very weak early, but very strong late. Such a system could possibly be tweaked to overall balance, but the resulting gameplay is simply inferior to the original (IMO).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What, you mean the same way you did by starting off calling my points 'anti-logic'? You tried to decredit my words from the start, that was me just bringing it forward where everyone can see.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

IMO, one is an attack on the argument (i.e. the logic stated), the other is an attack on the person’s abilities. But I can see how that can become an argument of semantics, and that is pointless. So, I retract my statements. It’s more fun to debate on-topic.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The difference with my suggestion is that, over the course of a game, there IS balance. It's achieved in one of the only two ways possible, and the other is downgrading the power (and, to be fair, cost) of later aliens so a marine of equal level can beat them. That doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think this solution is terribly good either. If we nerf the heck out of the low-end in order to balance the high-end, we end up some ugly game mechanics, as I've stated.

I also don't feel that there are only two ways to balance, unless you are using some very broad categories. It's very subjective, but I'd classify them into a far greater number of categories.

To sum up: I consider temporal (im)balancing to be evil*. I believe NS can be conventionally balanced. I also think it can be done without nerfing skulks. I believe that, if at all possible, the skulks and marines should match up evenly in the early game. If, after exhausting all other reasonable balancing techniques, we still have a problem late-game, then nerf the skulks. But please consider it as a last resort. I firmly believe it won't come to that.

*in typical RTSes – temporal balancing can work in some kinds of games, mostly ones with a time limit or “soft victory” conditions. Axis and Allies comes to mind.

SlayerOfSkulks · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Think of each alien and each marine as having a difficulty rating. For the teams, you'll want the AVERAGE difficulty to more or less match out. For balance, you should be able to take a mean value of each teams theoretical difficulty, and wind up with the same number. How can you do that if the aliens start off just as strong as marines, but get to a faster stage anyway</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I understand the point, but I disagree that nerfing Skulks are the answer.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Wait, stop a second. When I have I talked about any kind of direct nerfing of the Skulk? At the moment I'm talking purely of a concept, an end-state if you will, where marine vs skulks is in the marines favour in general. There're ways this could be done without changing skulk abilities or stats at all.

If it WAS done (It meaning some sort of balance, not necessarily a balance nerf,) I'd love for it to be done so a SKILLED skulk player, one who hides out and, yes, *skulks* about and then pounces on lone marines wouldn't see any difference. But the run-down-the-corridor types would have a harder time.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You're right, it can... but Starcraft had an advantage that NS doesn't. In Starcraft, the NUMBER of units was another balance.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
True, but not a game-breaker. There are other RTSes that have fixed or low-count numbers of units (Ground Control comes to mind). There are ways to balance these games, too. It might be harder to do, but cannot be proven as impossible.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's right, there are other ways to do it, and almost all of them invove nerfing or improving some of the units. The problem here is that, in these games, none of the units ALSO has to be fun to play... in NS, they do, and that limits a lot of the possibilities too. for a lot of the reasons you state. In the end, if you want balance, something's probably going to give.

You basically need to accept there may not be some kind of perfect gaming state where balance can be achieved while having the units remain identical to how they are. Or maybe there is... I personally find it unlikely, but I'm not pretending I have the answers, just some ideas.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for your dislike of temporal balance, that's just the way NS is. It's a much faster game that Starcraft or C&C Generals, and errors are magnified as time goes on. A comm that doesn't invest in motion tracking early will likely kill less marines, have more marines get killed, giving res to the other team. Timing is an important part to NS. Think of it as a 4-dimensional RTS, if you like.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I disagree. Any RTS has this property. Heck, virtually any game does.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I agree entirely.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Losing an early battle in any competitive game can will put you a hole. It's the famous power curve in action. Magnification of errors (sometimes called the runaway effect) is nothing unique to NS. And even the RFK system isn't really unique in its effects; RTSes that model unit experience have much the same phenomenon.

And this is not the same as temporal imbalance. What you describe is an opponent taking advantage of a mistake, which is good. Temporal imbalance is an intrinsic weakness of a faction at certain points of time, irregardless of player skill.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ahh, but is it irrespective of player skill?

Remember for a second, we already HAVE temporal imbalance. In fact, we have 2... in the early game the kharaa start with more res and can amass res quicker, and in the late stage, they can achieve forms that beat out anything the marines can create. It's only in the mid game that things are balanced at all. Both problems are being worked on, with changes to res for the first, and removal of devour-redeem for the second, so maybe this will be enough. I like what I see, and this whole argument could become academic.

But whether thsi skulk vs marine team became a matter of balance vs skill depends on how you chose to balance it. As you say, there are many ways to do it that don't involve directly nerfing skulks. I can think of one rather interesting thing that could be done that would, in theory, solve this issue, get rid of a few stuck problems, AND slow the game a little giving each team extra room to manuevour. Unfortunately, it's one of those ideas that would probably sound really really dumb if I said it out loud, and it's a little extreme anyway.

But despite that, good marines with a good comm and (most important IMO) a good FIELD comm can still win a decent amount of times. It just isn't seen that often, because there are few none-clan places where you can get teams like that, and when they do, they usually fight against kharaa just as good.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>An analogy from chess:

What you describe: me loosing a rook early on, and thus being behind on the power curve. Unless my opponent likewise fumbles, I will most likely lose.

Temporal Imbalance: Every game, the white side starts out with 16 pawns, but all pieces turn into Queens after the 8th turn. Very weak early, but very strong late. Such a system could possibly be tweaked to overall balance, but the resulting gameplay is simply inferior to the original (IMO).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
But that's largely what we have now, except the BLACK side ALSO starts off with 16 pawns, but they never go higher than rook. And this all happens much later than the 8th turn, unless it's a very short game of chess where all the white pawns take all the black pawns while they decide who's going to move the pieces. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The difference with my suggestion is that, over the course of a game, there IS balance. It's achieved in one of the only two ways possible, and the other is downgrading the power (and, to be fair, cost) of later aliens so a marine of equal level can beat them. That doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I don't think this solution is terribly good either.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's because you appear to have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about halving skulks speed, armour, health, bite speed and bite strength, or something like that. I'm talking purely about the end result of the balancing process... how this is achieved is a completely different matter, and one I doubt I could comment on.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also don't feel that there are only two ways to balance, unless you are using some very broad categories. It's very subjective, but I'd classify them into a far greater number of categories.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Again, I think this is a matter of misunderstanding. I'm stating that, in this particular situation, there are two possible en-states that could achieve balance. I'm certainly not saying there are only two ways of ACHIEVING this balance.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To sum up: I consider temporal (im)balancing to be evil*. I believe NS can be conventionally balanced. I also think it can be done without nerfing skulks. I believe that, if at all possible, the skulks and marines should match up evenly in the early game. If, after exhausting all other reasonable balancing techniques, we still have a problem late-game, then nerf the skulks. But please consider it as a last resort. I firmly believe it won't come to that.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I hope so too. Personally I love the game anyway, and would probably play it no matter what the team decide to do with it. (Or at least I would, if my stupid old PC hadn't decided to stop letting me connect the other day, grrr.) I'm hoping the Onos and res balances will make things equal.

Squidget · August 2003

slayer111: reasonable statements, all. I feel much better about your opinions now that you've filled them in a bit more.

I'd say we agree on far more things than we differ on. The things we disagree on are definitely a matter of opinion and personal taste. Balancing is a soft science, to be sure. I think we've pretty much beat this horse to death.

Anyway, props to you for a solid debate. I look forward to our next argument. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

A Column Some Ppl May Be Interested In

Comments