Long, Cramped Corridor Stalemates (balance Issue)

Necrosis · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
A. My question was not really "how do I win in this example?" it was more is it unbalancing that there are times in which Aliens are brought to a stalemate situation?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Its a stalemate if there is NO solution. There was a solution, you didn't apply it. Since your example is flawed, your case cannot stand.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
B. Because I knew putting to much information into the original thread would bias the outcome of the thread. Although, now I feel like I have to because it has gathered so much import in the conversation.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Bias how, precisely.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
C. Because I didn't want the thread to turn into a solutions to solve THAT particular example, rather solutions in general to solve any situation given the hypotheticals. (Thus, as has been so clearly pointed out, would prove that no imbalance exists)
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I point out to you that if there's a way out of it then its hardly an imbalance, and more likely a result of poor play.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As with many of the above mentioned solutions to this problem, a handful of marines with GL's and HMG's have absolutely no problem (nor is any skill required) to lock down such a "tight" base.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

They have to find it, and they did. Then they've to keep it throughout the game. Odd how from your interpretation of events you don't mention if cargo was scouted out sooner, or was it watched for a lockdown. Speaking from experience, on the average alien team its usually very quickly discovered where marines are.... ESPECIALLY if its near a hive.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It was at this time, the marines then began to outmatch us (outskill us as so many people seem to want to believe) and we lost.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You left precious little details with which to analyse the situation, nor did you keep an eye on the thread you started. If this means so much to you, why abandon it? And IMHO if you let them dig in at cargo's doorstep you were STILL being outmatched on at least one level.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I have already conceded that we did not try to constantly slap up the third hive as the notion of such a wasteful strategy was reasonably set aside.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hardly wasteful if your team has enough res to onos continually.... hardly wasteful since you probably realised that third hive abilities like xeno or primal scream could be important.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I would like to point out that many people have brought up the idea that the balance issue occuring here is a map issue. After much consideration, I have begun to agree with this....
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Or you could accept poor play as a suggestion. Who lets rines relocate near a hive anyway?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Now, if at any point in a game the marines relocated to one of these spots they could set up this "marine advantage" strategy to defeat the aliens since the aliens could not have this third hive with which to get their turtle defeating abilities.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So your objective is to prevent rines gaining the upper hand - not letting them gain it and THEN claiming imbalance. The maps don't work if you try and turtle in your own hive either. Thats because you're not meant to be turtling in hive, you're meant to be trying to win - ie stopping rines relocating to the doorstep of a hive.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
that there are multiple places for this to occur (since there would be no way to 'predict' which spot the marines were going to take)
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That would be an impressively large map, since a single skulk can scout a map in a matter of seconds. It would need to be huge in order that not one skulk meets a marine when scouting around. And NS maps aren't huge, they're fairly small, with a small number of *good* relocation spots - areas that players are familiar with through experience.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I would contend that you could not defeat it. (At least not in a reasonable amount of time)
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, I could. Scout the map, find the rines, engage the rines. On such a gigantic map you could afford to leave the hive relatively unprotected, since you would have to pass rines if they were inbound. Secondly, you wouldn't even need to scout half the map, only areas near the three hives, since I've not yet seen a base in 2.01 that could withstand a fully teched up 3 hive alien team. Your example is flawed, and doesn't appear to be remotely imitated in any official NS map.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
First, saying that you can always do something (such as stopping a marine relocation) is a vacuous statement. As many have pointed out, declaring a prevention strategy does not always guarentee 100% success.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If its at a hive, you have no other option. You can't afford to lose hives - not because it makes endgame hard, but because losing one hive starts to force you down a losing path. Losing two is another nail in the coffin. Aliens must keep areas near hives free, regardless of difficulty. And the reason why it becomes difficult is because marines make committed relocations which they know will securely lock down a hive. If you let them do it then that is your own fault.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
By assuming that any game can be won with simple prevention measures, then of course everything you say afterwards will be true.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hardly an assumption, it can be proven up in real gaming situations. Prevention and denial, as I have stated, are the core of strategy. Preventing the opponent from gaining an edge.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In the event that said event occurs, there should be a way to deal with this situation.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

In the event that you are marine, you've locked down two hives, and the aliens destroy your only CC and IPs, how do you deal with that situation? Is that imbalance? Games are balanced for competent play, not incompetent play (ie losing your most valuable structures or letting marines get a siege base up near a hive).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If it is the case that there is no counter-measure, then it is up to the game designer (not some fabled leet players) to make sure that the event that causes this unassailable strategy to occur does not occur.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So again I ask - what happens when rines lose their IPs and CCs? That is a gamewinning alien move, ideally the goal of most base assaults. Tell me, how should the team balance NS so that losing all IPs and CCs should NOT mean marines lose?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Furthermore, creating hypothetical examples in which this is not the case is automatically null and void because we are arguing THE CASE AT HAND.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And your case at hand is flawed, built on a flawed assumption and barely stands under its own weight.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In the case of marines, this hypothetical stalemate can not occur, thus the game designer have succeeded in balancing this issue.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Its called losing your IPs and CCs, or losing a CC and all your buildings except IPs. Marine's don't cope with kharaa turtling because KHARAA ARE NOT DESIGNED TO TURTLE. The marines most pressing concern is keeping their CC alive.

To an extent you ARE in denial since you insist there is no solution. Secondly, you insist that its unbalancing, and thirdly you insist on trying to draw some poorly conceived simplistic comparison to marines, who are a different design concept to kharaa.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As many have repeatedly said including myself, stop pretending like this situation doesn't occur.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Who has said it "does not occur"?<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> I don't think anyone did. We're merely saying its solvable, and preventable. And while it can be solved and prevented, its not an imbalance. Why you need to claim that intelligent posters are saying otherwise, I don't know.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1 skulk vs. 2 marines is IN NO MEANS good odds. In fact, this is a laughable statement. If you honestly believe you can kill 2 marines with one skulk so successfully, then I state .. that you aren't fighitng good enough marines.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I said DECENT, not good. Try reading the posts please. Yes, you can kill one marine, and with luck bite a second. Its not impossible unless you are doing pretty dumb things like running straight at them. Secondly, by this stage you will have figured out they're relocating to/near a hive and PUT CHAMBERS UP. If you respond slackly, then tough nuts.

And on the fade note - if you haven't figured out crouchblinking then you're not faded enough. Period. We're not talking midair swipes, we're talking a basic movement procedure.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
(One fade could have just blinked over the turrets and hacked marines to pieces if he was leet ninja fade) <---- Yeah right.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Did anyone say that at any point? No. Defective memory?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
A valid marine strategy is slash and burn. (Which happens to have a balance issue thread on it as well.)
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Link it up then, lets all have a laugh. I should tell you that the kharaa forum has several threads devoted to countering this tactic. Which requires more thought and application than screaming about a perceived imbalance.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I have argued there that this is not a balance issue.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Unfortunately in your absence the banner has been unfurled for "OMG Marines are unbalanced".

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In this particular game, the Alien team knew as soon as the alert went up that a relocation occured, that that was exaclty where they went.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which went undetetected for how long? Outside a hive? I've yet to see such a thing, and I've played on some pretty green alien teams. Aliens had ample opportunity to act and didn't.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It is common because it sets the marines up with an unfair advantage, one which commanders will use to their fullest.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

"Unfair advantage"........ wth? Using your strengths is unfair? Sorry, it seems to me that using your strengths is how you win games. If your opponent is fool enough to let you fully utilise your strength, then that unfortunately is their problem - and perhaps next game they'll be a little wiser.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
At no point should a side have an inherent advantage.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Coin tosses are NOT fun. They're random. Strategy games revolve around teams gaining an advantage - thats the whole point. If we wanted flat 50 50 coin tosses we'd be flipping coins, not bouncing around maps thinking up counters to counters to counters to attacks.

</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 it is reasonable to conclude after wading through all of the political and irresponsible posts made from both sides, that a balance issue does occur. To fix the balance issue, a simple map fix would be in order (no changes to either team neccessary) and we could continue on our way.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Your conclusion is irrational and unfounded, based on a flawed if not outright idiotic concept of balance. Its balance at its most basic - the 50 50 of chance. And games based on sheer luck just don't play well. To fix the "balance issue" players need to understand that no matter how hard a base is, you don't let marines build it on your doorstep. Likewise no matter how well you're winning, you don't want aliens to get into base and kill your last IP and CC.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As a further note, THIS is a solution not a prevention measure thus it has success in stopping the given issue 100% of the time, not 50%, 80% or even 99.9999999999% of the time.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Another 100% solution is to stop people who can't play the game from playing. Another 100% solution is chopping off your hands so that YOU cannot play. Both of those suggestions are however totally irrational and unwarranted. If you don't want to lose to a superior marine team, don't play - and if you MUST play then do so with enough strategic/tactical knowledge to let you know that you don't let marines camp on your doorstep.

Slayer - virtually your entire post is OT. You're playing to form and making this a thread about apparent persecution of yourself. Make one elsewhere if you intend to do the dying swan.

</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 tactic described is not overly complex?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It is. It really is
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Its not. It really isnt.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Marine tactics generally only require on one man, the comm, knowing what he's doing
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The above is probably one of the most untrue statements ever. You DO follow it up with "if the team follows orders"....... but then that follow up instantly negates your earlier statement. Those tactics require ONE MAN TO COME UP WITH THEM, and A TEAM TO EMPLOY THEM.

Aliens requiring cooperation is imbalance then? This gets more laughable by the second.

BTW, you're the one spamming this thread up with entire paragraphs devoting to "slander" and are now stating that I actually called you a troll... You're still trying to drag this off topic. So what can we conclude? I don't see why I need to continually go over previous posts in order to fuel your little OT fantasy. Why not take it elsewhere, as you have previously stated you would? Or, in behaviour typical of a certain internet breed, will you AGAIN play to form and make a post about slander, or some other even more off topic comment. Do you want the thread locked? That'd be handy, because it'd stop people pointing out that these perceived imbalances don't exist... but it would also prevent you from having a nice big thread of imbalance "proof".

Oh, I missed this bit

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
According to you I'm a troll who drags topics down, doesn't know the first thing about a game I've been playing since the day 1.0 came out, and doesn't have anything of worth to say. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Your words, not mine.

I don't care how long you played 1.0, this is 2.01, and IF your only replies are concerned with perceived slander or "rines are different! That makes them unbalanced!!" then your statements ARE worthless, I don't need to imply anything.

im_lost · October 2003

Necrosis: Why do you compare marines locking down ONE of the THREE hives on the map to aliens getting in the marine main base and killing the IP's and CC? If you think those two things are comparable, then how can you claim the game to be balanced? The marines moving to an area of their choice that aliens have to run a decent distance to defend, compared with aliens attacking the area where marines spawn, should not be reasonable.

So, do you see these two things as comparable? (If you respond to this, please give a clear "yes" or "no" answer.) If no, then it contradicts what you have argued in several different posts. If yes, it shows that you have a skewed perception of balance.

I think I will go on to say a little more here. You have said that the marine relocation can be broken by competent players, yet you have have also said that if marines are permitted to relocate then the aliens deserve to lose. Since your posts have emphasized preventing the relocation, that is what I am basing my question off of.

Verus · October 2003

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

test

Verus · October 2003

Heh, sorry, had to figure out how this quoting thing works.

Anyways, I was mistaken on my original post that this is an unbalanced issue with Aliens. I now realize it is a simple map balance issue, one that can be easily worked out, and I'll leave it at that.

Necrosis - I had this wonderful quote thing going on basically asking you what in the hell it was you were trying to say without actually attacking my main proof which was the hypothetical map situation, but then I decided, hey what's the point? I'm sorry we aren't all as leet as you. Maybe in the future sometime we will all understand whatever it is that you are trying to say... maybe.... but doubtful... as all I could really gather was that you think everyone else is "not reading your posts" or "is an idiot" or "isn't as good as you" but hey, what do we know, right? (BTW, if you are going to attack someone's quotes, lets attack the whole statement. This gives you credibility, something which flames against other posters and claims about how YOU could win in every situation does not. Just keep that in mind the next time you want to share with the rest of the world whatever it is exactly that you have to share.) Alas, will the world ever be a perfect place?

I'll leave it to the hypothetical map situation as proof of the map inbalance, and hopefully, it will be fixed in the future. As this is such a rare occurence, it really isn't that bothersome and I'll continue to play on as I have.

P.S. Calling me an idiot at this point as you have done everyone else (oh wait you already did call me an idiot?) will be fruitless as I'm gone from the thread now. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> Have a wonderful day and see you all in game sometime.

Cxwf · October 2003

Yes, Necrosis, Lost has hit the exact core of the flaws in your arguments. In your opinion, allowing marines to relocate to Cargo is as horrible and stupid and preventable a mistake as allowing the aliens to destroy all of your IPs and your com chair. Why don't we compare the two for a bit?

Stopping Relocation:
--Fighting is done in a part of the map where neither team has an inherent combat advantage
--Respawning members of both teams must walk to get to the fight.
--Marines do not need to destroy any structures
--Since the battle is over before the 1:30 mark of the game, there is absolutely no time to spend any alien money in any way. If even a single alien started the game by gorging to drop a res tower, he is useless for the fight, as the fight will be over by the time he evolves back to skulk. Marines may spend money instantly.

Protecting CC and IP:
--All fighting takes place in the core of the marine base, protected by any defenses the marines may have set up.
--Marines constantly respawn to aid in the fight, while respawning aliens must walk there.
--Aliens must destroy a 10,000 hp building and multiple 2,000 hp buildings
--Marines must not have 20 res, or the income to get 20 res before you deal that 14,000 damage, otherwise they will simply drop a new com chair somewhere else

If that is your idea of equivalent, then you must think the aliens are inherently far better than the marines in straight combat, because every advantage in both of those scenarios is a marine advantage.

Cold_NiTe · October 2003

Can <b>anyone</b> recap this conflict with a <i>totally unbiased opinion</i> for me? I am having trouble understanding what was the provocation for all of this and what caused its continuity...

im_lost · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold-NiTe @ Oct 11 2003, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Can <b>anyone</b> recap this conflict with a <i>totally unbiased opinion</i> for me? I am having trouble understanding what was the provocation for all of this and what caused its continuity...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I don't know how much you read, so I will start from the beginning. Also, I don't know how unbiased my opinion will be, but I will try to be unbiased.

First, Verus posted about a game where marines turtled in Room With Things on ns_nothing to the point where aliens could not break through, even though they controlled the rest of the map, and he asked for ideas on how to break the stalemate to win as aliens. Some ideas were given out. Eventually Necrosis said that the best way is to prevent the relocation in the first place (which I would agree is a good idea, at least to try to do). Other people wanted to discuss how to actually break the stalemate once it occurred. I don't remember how it happened, but the thread shifted to a debate about balance between the teams and also that map. This led to a flamewar between Necrosis and slayer111, with Necrosis insisting that if you allow the marines to relocate to a position that is that important and difficult to take back you deserve to lose. Several people, including me, disagreed with him. The last sentence describes the last 2 or 3 pages of the thread. I would try to recap in more detail, but I know it would be biased, as it would cover my perceptions of other people's tones, etc, so if you want more detail you will have to read through all of it (I don't think anyone can cover this in too much detail without being biased).

SlayerOfSkulks · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Slayer - virtually your entire post is OT.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No it isn't, for reasons stated above.

</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'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The tactic described is not overly complex
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It is. It really is
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Its not. It really isnt.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yes it is, for reasons stated above.

</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'>Marine tactics generally only require on one man, the comm, knowing what he's doing</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The above is probably one of the most untrue statements ever.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No it isn't, because...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You DO follow it up with "if the team follows orders"</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I said that. There is a difference here; for the aliens EVERY team has to know a tactic before it will work. With the marines, only ONE man has to know it. There is a difference between employing a tactic, and knowing of the tactic to employ it in the first place.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW, you're the one spamming this thread up with entire paragraphs devoting to "slander" and are now stating that I actually called you a troll...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Oh, so you didn't? Let me see now...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Ah yes, holding 90% of the map, that famous losing position... :/"

If you'd read the thread, you'll note the aliens permitted the rines to relocate to a very defensible position next to a hive. THAT is a losing position, and if you can't see that then you're just trolling.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Digging in at arguably one of the best known bolt holes on the map IS a competent move. I challenged you to suggest another strategy in the circumstances - you've refused to answer. This could be because you're trolling, you've no idea of another strategy, or you agree that it was the wisest move for the marine team and you just lack the spine to admit to it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
(That one, if you remember, was when you were trying to tell me I hadn't said that move was smart, when in fact I had, in my very first post.)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not intending to be rude but quite honestly if you can't offer a solution, and have neither the humility nor honesty to admit that the marine comm made a tactically sound move, then you shouldn't be trolling out of your depth. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So why do you defend a point you disagree with? That sounds like trolling.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
(This, if you recall, was where I was defending a point I agreed with, and you decided to take it out of context, and throw it in my face for the rest of your post.)

</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 still trying to drag this off topic.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Except I'm not. Defending valid points is on-topic. If it isn't, then you should stop trying to defend your points that you have already made.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So what can we conclude? I don't see why I need to continually go over previous posts in order to fuel your little OT fantasy.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Except it's not OT or a fantasy. See my last post.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why not take it elsewhere, as you have previously stated you would?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Because...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"If you wish, (and this is entirely your choice,) you can bring this to e-mail"

Frankly I don't see the point, considering your continous attempts at twisting quotes, shifting your viewpoint, and apparent inability to keep on topic.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You said you wouldn't, for a load of reasons which I've had to counter again and again.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Or, in behaviour typical of a certain internet breed, will you AGAIN play to form and make a post about slander</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
See, at first I presumed you were talking about a TROLL, except the difference between me saying I've been slandered and a troll saying he's been slandered, is I can prove I have been. Anyone can; they just have to go back and read the thread.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>or some other even more off topic comment.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Once again; defending an on-topic statement is not off-topic. I have shown how those points are on-topic (and once again, snipping out that section from your reply doesn't stop it from existing.) Ergo, either this is on-topic, or I'm WRONG about people being allowed to expand and defend their points, in which case everyone should say their part and then never mention it again.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do you want the thread locked?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
What I want is admittance that, whether or not you agree with my points, they are valid, not trollish off-topic ramblings. And an apology would be nice.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh, I missed this bit

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>According to you I'm a troll who drags topics down, doesn't know the first thing about a game I've been playing since the day 1.0 came out, and doesn't have anything of worth to say. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Your words, not mine.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No, they are yours, more or less. Would you like me to go back and get the quotes, like I have above?

Necrosis · October 2003

I'm lost-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why do you compare marines locking down ONE of the THREE hives on the map to aliens getting in the marine main base and killing the IP's and CC?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because they're two very dumb mistakes which teams generally try to avoid. Now, lets just get more accurate here - locking down IN a hive is easy to break - hives are easy to penetrate, in order to prevent aliens stalemating through a turtle. ALIENS ARE NOT MEANT TO TURTLE. Locking down NEAR a hive where marines can turtle should put up the big red warning flag of "we're about to get killed".

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So, do you see these two things as comparable?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which two? My two, or your two? I think my two are totally comparable, IN TERMS OF TACTICAL SCREW UPS. That should be easy enough to understand.

Verus -

Your hypothetical situation does NOT exist. It's arguably outside the bounds of NS mapping as well. It doesn't occur anywhere in the game. Sure, we can conjure up tons of hypotheticals, but without some grounding in the game, they're completely irrelevant. No map is so big that it cannot be scouted out quickly and easily.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I'm sorry we aren't all as leet as you
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'm not leet. The fact that your argument devolves to calling better players leet is evidence enough of the weakness of it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
BTW, if you are going to attack someone's quotes, lets attack the whole statement. This gives you credibility, something which flames against other posters and claims about how YOU could win in every situation does not
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're clearly unfamiliar with the written word. Half the statements posted by the imbalance brigade contain double meanings. Case in point, I'm Losts "do you agree" statement, in which he quotes MY two points, then adds two of his own. Which two does he wish me to agree with?

I don't believe I have claimed I can win in any situation. Could anyone claim so? I merely stated that this situation is winnable, and that in situations where I could not win (due to some diabolical error on the part of myself or my team) that I accept it with good sportsmanship, as opposed to complaining about some perceived imbalance that arose due to a tactical error.

Cxwf-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Since the battle is over before the 1:30 mark of the game, there is absolutely no time to spend any alien money in any way. If even a single alien started the game by gorging to drop a res tower, he is useless for the fight, as the fight will be over by the time he evolves back to skulk. Marines may spend money instantly.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Must be an odd relocation. I dunno about your games but I see some where the relocation dominates the first ten minutes of the game, as marines pile res into securing a location they're committed to taking.

As for the whole content of your post, its based on a poor concept of how you take down IPs and CCs. What I'm saying is that if your team is dumb enough to let one skulk sneak into base and take out your IP and CCs, then you have no right to complain about imbalance. Likewise, if you're fool enough to let marines build a siege base in a hard position, you have no right to complain about imbalance. Both situations arise from poor play.

Cold-Nite

I don't think anyone can, at this stage. A shame, because in some areas we do actually get to see the differing concepts of what balance is. At the core, the thread started with perceived imbalance, and an example. I attempted to dissect the example, others attempted to verify it, and it went downhill from there, really. Its a bit basic for a summary but its all I've got <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

Slayer -

Your post is STILL OT. The tactic is simple. That single statement IS untrue, and if you'd posted it fully you'll note that I credit the FULL quotation, but point out that the full quotation defeats itself. Implication is not slander. I could call something hard and grey stone, but it could just as easily be slate. Its poor that someone of apparent long standing in the community should stoop to entirely OT posts because he is unable to accept the opposing view.

I suggest people read the very big thread between myself and Niaccurshi, where we discuss the lerk. Note the large posts that are fully read by each other, and a gentlemen's agreement after a shaky start. Now are we leaving the OT stuff here or are we getting more irrelevant posts?

SlayerOfSkulks · October 2003

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

Your post is STILL OT.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Except that it isn't, for reasons stated above, as I've already stated, and you have found no refutement for my logic as to it being On Topic. And THIS is On Topic, because it's debating the validity of my previous statements which I believe are On Topic, for the reasons I stated, and you don't. Apparently, it needs to be decided if what I say is relevant before we can decide if it's correct or not.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The tactic is simple.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It is, perhaps simple to execute, IF everyone involved knows about the tactic. The marine tactics do NOT, in general, require each player to know the workings of the tactic. I'm trying to think of a workable analogy to help you understand...

OK. Marines are like a real big company. Each person in that company has one small job to do, which they (anf the rest of the people in their area) are told how to do. The guys who type the letters doesn't have to know how finances are worked out, the finance guys doesn't need to work out the networking system, the networking techs don't set up the databases, and so on. All it needs is one initial person to train every employee for their one simple part of the job. (OK, in a REAL big company, there would be different trainers for each area, but this is just an analogy.) If someone isn't doing their job, it can mess things up for everyone, depending on how important the job is, but usually someone else from their area can take up the slack. If everyone does their job, everything is fine. they still have to do the work, but they don't need to see the big picture. they do one little job, the whole thing works.

Now, the aliens, they're like a small family business, a corner shop or something. Every worker in that shop knows the in's and out's of everything. they know where to buy one stock to put on which shelf at what price. The group is a unit; one person does one job, and everyone fills in the gaps in the other jobs. If one person isn't doing their job, or goes ill or something, everyone else has to take the strain and work harder. And if someone doesn't know their job, or gets it wrong, the whole thing goes to pot. There's inter-dependability that doesn't exist in the big company. Everyone HAS to know everything, how they're work will affect others, because the store's too small for mistakes to go un-noticed. One person forgets to order the bread, and next week EVERYONE has hell to pay from customers. (Again, I know that it doesn't really work this way in a small company... and if nothing else, the small company has less work to deal with anyway... but this is just an analogy.)

In the big company, no-one needs to know everything, they just do what they're told, and be good at it. The company can be all big and complex, just so long as the head honcho keeps on top of things and has enough people who know their small part in the right area. In the small company, everyone has to know everything for the whole thing to work. Whether that work is easy to DO doesn't matter if they don't know how to do it. I don't doubt a mechanic finds changing a fan belt easy, but I wouldn't have a clue... But if someone told me how, I could.

Notice how I haven't insulted your position, I haven't claimed you know nothing if you don't agree, I haven't suggested OR implied you're a troll for going against my words... I've just explained my side, given you an analogy to work with. That's all. I've taken your points onboard, and said why I don't agree. If that is Off-Topic, or a flame, or a troll (Or COULD be a troll, assuming I'm not just too stupid to know another analogy or haven't spent enough time on analogies to know how they work...) then we might as well close the forums, because that'd make *everything* off-topic.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That single statement IS untrue, and if you'd posted it fully you'll note that I credit the FULL quotation, but point out that the full quotation defeats itself.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It does not defeat itself, for reason I stated above. And you'll notice I said nothing could be done about this situation, but for the purposes of deciding if it was team skill that was the problem in this situation, we need to acknowledge the relative skill each team required to do what they did. This way, we can tell if the problem WAS caused by one team being simply inferior to the other, of if both teams were evenly matched but the situation caused, yes, an imbalance. (And note that, once again, we have gotten dragged into debating the validity of a statement as to whether it's On Topic, rather than debating the statement itself.) It isn't 'untrue', you just don't agree with it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Implication is not slander. I could call something hard and grey stone, but it could just as easily be slate.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ahh, gotcha. One of those statements you said was not an implication;

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not intending to be rude but quite honestly if you can't offer a solution, and have neither the humility nor honesty to admit that the marine comm made a tactically sound move, then you shouldn't be trolling out of your depth.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That statement didn't suggest that I might be a troll if I didn't match certain conditions you imposed. It was making a decision as to whether or not I was trolling 'in my own depth'... with no question of whether I was trolling or not. You called me a troll, out and out. the only implication there was to whether I was a GOOD troll. (And of course, I'm not, because I'm not one *at all*, good or bad.)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its poor that someone of apparent long standing in the community should stoop to entirely OT posts because he is unable to accept the opposing view.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yes. Yes, it is.

Now, I'll ask again, because you seem to have had a change of heart on the issue, based on what you said a post or two ago. Would you like to take this to e-mail? You seem to still feel it's off-topic in this forum, and want to take it elsewhere, so I'm am here stating I will gladly take this to private e-mail if you want. My e-mail is on my profile as my MSN messenger name, or I can give you my permanent one. If you still don't see the point, as you stated last time I made this offer, that's fine also.

RyoOhki · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Or you could accept poor play as a suggestion. Who lets rines relocate near a hive anyway?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It's not a question of "letting" the marines build there. No alien team wants a marine base in RwT but 9 times out of 10 <i>they have no choice</i>

Lets look at some examples. A typical game starts, with 8 players a side. The aliens decide to rush the marine spawn. The marines are, of course, expecting some kind of attack. The resulting battle will almost certainly be an alien defeat, assuming both sides have a good level of skill and teamwork. Skulks running across open ground towards marines that are expecting an attack will result in dead skulks.

Now in a relocation strat, those 8 marines will immediatly be told where the desired location is. They will move as a single coherant group. They will check their flanks and rear. Even if the entire alien side shows up to take on this group, the odds of them winning the resulting battle are woeful. Concentrated fire coupled with the advantage of ranged weaponry and a little med packing will result in the marines devestating the attacking aliens. Even if the aliens manage to kill all but one marine (at the cost of their own lives btw) that lone marine can still set up the new base by himself (however it is extreamly rare that there will be only one marine left). Once the IPs go up, the new marine location will be just as hard to assault as the marine start is right at the start of the game.

Thus even if the aliens do everything in their power to try and stop the relocation, most of the time they simply cannot stop it. A group of marines remains a potent force all through the game; much more so early on. If relocations were as easy to stop as you seem to believe then they would never occur; the aliens would defeat them almost every time before they even began. Yet the fact of the matter is that relocations happen very often. Why? Because they work. Because they are almost impossible to stop.

Cxwf · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Oct 12 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Cxwf-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Since the battle is over before the 1:30 mark of the game, there is absolutely no time to spend any alien money in any way. If even a single alien started the game by gorging to drop a res tower, he is useless for the fight, as the fight will be over by the time he evolves back to skulk. Marines may spend money instantly.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Must be an odd relocation. I dunno about your games but I see some where the relocation dominates the first ten minutes of the game, as marines pile res into securing a location they're committed to taking.

As for the whole content of your post, its based on a poor concept of how you take down IPs and CCs. What I'm saying is that if your team is dumb enough to let one skulk sneak into base and take out your IP and CCs, then you have no right to complain about imbalance. Likewise, if you're fool enough to let marines build a siege base in a hard position, you have no right to complain about imbalance. Both situations arise from poor play.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Notice how rather than answering any of my points, you dismiss my entire post with the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about.

However, I will be nice enough to answer the one point you made.

"I see some where the relocation dominates the first ten minutes of the game, as marines pile res into securing a location they're commited to taking."

Let me put it this way--if, after ten minutes, the marines have managed to secure exactly one area, they are losing the game badly. A winning marine team will secure 4 or 5 areas, roughly half the map, so as to give them the income to match what the aliens are throwing at them.

It still seems like, in your world, marines are simply no match for aliens in a fair fight, and must win every game through fortifications and seige sites. How would you recommend marines win a game where they don't immediately relocate to a hive site?

Surely you can at least see that actually building the necessary structures for the marines to call the relocation their home (say, 2 IPs, an armory, and a TF) takes only one or two minutes? And it won't take them that long to get it either, as I can assume the marine base RT is still standing since your whole team is still busy trying to stop the relocation. That means 3 rts, or 36 res per minute, plus the 100 you start with. At that rate, the marines can afford to not only build all of that, but electrify most of it, by about 2 and 1/2 minutes into the game.

So please, explain to me how the relocations in your games last ten minutes before the marines are capable of moving beyond it to do anything else?

im_lost · October 2003

Necrosis: I am assuming you are saying yes to the question of mine that you quoted. (You said I asked multiple things. I don't see that, but maybe it was just written unclearly. Anyway, I think you got the point and answered the questin I wanted answered.) Since you think relocating to a key place like that is a valid and devastating tactic, you must believe that a competent alien team has pretty good chances of stopping the relocation (at least 50%), or you would see an unbalance. I think this is where everyone disagrees with you. You claim that dedicated skulks can take the marines out of there. Everyone else believes that the marines can use a little medspam and be in a big group to stop aliens. They will get to their relocation spot and turtle in. The marines will have a good number of turrets before you get higher lifeforms to really try and break it. You can have your own opinion that relocations aren't difficult to stop, but most people are going to disagree with you. Remember, we are talking about pub games here.

Necrosis · October 2003

Slayer -

Your post is STILL OT, stop pretending to be some sort of martyr, its irrelevant here.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It is, perhaps simple to execute, IF everyone involved knows about the tactic. The marine tactics do NOT, in general, require each player to know the workings of the tactic. I'm trying to think of a workable analogy to help you understand...
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No. Its simple to conceive of, the tricky part is actual successfuly execution. By this stage, we're assuming a competent alien team who understand how the idea works once its explained to them. No analogy is really required, but I can draw an exact comparison to going on a server and countering slashburn by saying "Look, I know this strat, here's how we counter it". If people follow up, it works, because you're a good team. People ignore it, you lose, tough luck. Perhaps next time the team will listen. And yes, there's always the scenario where you try it and just don't pull it off. Rines got the edge, good effort for the rines.

Your analogy is based around how marines and aliens are different - it has nothing to do with "how you explain this strat to your fellow aliens".

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It does not defeat itself, for reason I stated above.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It does defeat itself, read it over and over - its not JUST the comm, he needs a team.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
One of those statements you said was not an implication;
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I said implication was not slander. Please take more care in reading words.

I see no point to take this to email, since its more important that the community see how having a poor concept of balance makes people say crazy things like "marines are overpowered". And I don't need my inbox filled with a 2 meg email about how you're not a troll, totally bypassing the subject at hand.

Ryo-Ohki

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It's not a question of "letting" the marines build there. No alien team wants a marine base in RwT but 9 times out of 10 they have no choice
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I really have to say I disagree. The marines can start to build it, but its the aliens responsibility to keep attempting to knock it down. Not stopping rines getting out, but focusing on killing the base. Sure, rines might relocate elsewhere, but if you've put OC in the most dangerous places then you can be aware of whats going on. Thats a separate conversation topic though, really.

On the subject of the relocation - when marines plant IPs I do agree it becomes SOMEWHAT like attacking marine spawn, but by this stage aliens will have some upgrade chambers up. I am of course assuming a team that spots the tricky relocation and understands that upgrades will possibly become essential very shortly. Strength can then be focused on this tricky relocate (unlike an inhive lockdown, which are always easier to take down).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Thus even if the aliens do everything in their power to try and stop the relocation, most of the time they simply cannot stop it.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But I don't see that as grounds for giving up and focusing on walling them into a bolthole. Its an insane counter. Better to keep the pressure on while 1 or 2 gorges do the donkey work, and let the bulk of the team beat the base down continually. With the first lerk, marine numbers become less of an issue, and then skulks can get in to mangle the IPs or TF. Rines will have to relocate, or weld. Relocating is ok with aliens because by this point you'll have upgrades and the ability to counter a NEW relocate with greater ease, whereas marines will likely lose everything in their base and be forced to start again virtually from scratch.

If you can't break the relocation, and marines manage to expand out, then marines deserve the win, because aliens have allowed them time to build. I saw this in a game on Lunixmonster, where marines took a dbl node and aliens simply refused to counter - instead assuming they could break it later. That assumption almost cost us the game, and the only reason it didnt was because of small Onos raids that kept even minor pressure on the marines.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If relocations were as easy to stop as you seem to believe then they would never occur
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well I'm not sure if we're discussing preventative measures or not. I agree that preventing a relocation isn't always possible, but stopping it (ie destroying the relocation) IS possible. And must be persisted at, lest the marines dig in too heavily. And if you let the rines dig in then you've committed a foolish tactical move, IMHO, and deserve everything which comes of it.

Cxwf-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Notice how rather than answering any of my points, you dismiss my entire post with the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because your entire post was based around a flaw. The flaw revealed, your post loses any credibility directly because it was based around a flaw.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Let me put it this way--if, after ten minutes, the marines have managed to secure exactly one area, they are losing the game badly. A winning marine team will secure 4 or 5 areas, roughly half the map, so as to give them the income to match what the aliens are throwing at them.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not SECURE. Nothing near secure. The fighting takes place over the relocation as aliens battle to knock it down and marines battle to keep it up. Marines can give up, go elsewhere.... but lose the rest they've invested (and if they've lost their MS base then they have to risk another relocation but with no fall-back plan). The aliens COULD give up.... but then marines can dig in and begin to create smaller siege bases near hives. Or aliens can fight until the base is crushed. Now, in that situation, the only clever move is for aliens to attack that base until it falls, or the marines get so spooked that they run.

You do NOT pull out and let the rines succeed.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
How would you recommend marines win a game where they don't immediately relocate to a hive site?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Relocation to a hive is foolish. Hives are easily breached, most are full of vents and tunnels. The res cost to secure a hive is insane. Better to relocate to an area within siege range that you can defend. Again, this is basic strategy.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So please, explain to me how the relocations in your games last ten minutes before the marines are capable of moving beyond it to do anything else?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Marines moving past it? You misunderstand. The relocation must be attacked until it is destroyed. Rines only succeed in holding it if they go on to win the game. For lesser relocations in non vital areas, aliens can afford to fall back once its clear marines have the advantage..... but in a vital map area, aliens simply cannot afford to give up.

i'm lost -

I stated clearly the problem with your post. You list my two points, then list two interpretations of your own. I agree with my two - thats why I said them, and thats why I again stated that I believed them to be true. I then ASKED if you wished your question to apply to MY statements or YOURS. You have ignored that, and made your own assumptions.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You claim that dedicated skulks can take the marines out of there.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, I *state* that dedicated skulks, and later evolutions when available, MUST, I repeat MUST take marines out of there. You simply cannot afford to give marines time alone to defend an already defensive position. It is FOOLISH, and STUPID, and anyone who just gives up in that scenario must later accept that marines are fully capable of crushing you from that position.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The marines will have a good number of turrets before you get higher lifeforms to really try and break it.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not if they're being continually pressured by skulks. Lerks come very quickly, fades take somewhat longer - but in that time marines must be constantly defending their base, attempting to build while dropping medspam. It'll cost more for them than it'll gain, and when the lerks appear they won't have enough for HA. Medspam will be a necessity, and skulks are able to kill in fewer bites, with more survivability due to first chamber abilities.

If marines pull off a relocation in a vital area, then good job for them, and they deserve the eventual win - but I think its unfair to call it unbalanced purely because aliens gave up over a decisive area.

im_lost · October 2003

Since I was apparently unclear the first time, I will ask again. Do you see the alien team killing the IP's ans CC as comarable to the marines successfully relocating to a key location such as what is suggested in this thread, as far as how devastating it is to the other team?

SlayerOfSkulks · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Oct 12 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Slayer -

Your post is STILL OT, stop pretending to be some sort of martyr, its irrelevant here.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
OK, you apparently have trouble answering more than one thing at a time whithout simply dismissing them, so we'll take it one point at a time. This is as good a place to start as any.

My posts are not off topic. The reason is basically this; I believe my original posts are On Topic, for reason I have stated above. You have attempted to dismiss most of what I have said as being off-Topic. Therefore, it is on-topic to defend stating my original points are on-topic. And, likewise, it is currently on-Topic to explain to you how my posts defending my posts is ALSO on topic, because you don't seem to understand this. This has got wide of the mark, but ironically, only because of your continually stating it already was. It's veered away from the central topic, but is (rather lengthily) related to it. If you like, I will explain, yet again, why my original points were on-topic.

Necrosis · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Do you see the alien team killing the IP's ans CC as comarable to the marines successfully relocating to a key location such as what is suggested in this thread, as far as how devastating it is to the other team?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I would have to agree, yes. However, that agreement is only in the terms that stupid mistakes can cost you the game. Losing the IPs and CCs don't mean you've lost, just that its getting trickier to win. Allowing marines to siege base at redroom AND rwt doesn't mean you've lost, just that it'd be trickier to win.

In a DEEP analysis, yes of course aliens can recover from 2 hive lockdowns, and no marines can't recover from IP and CC loss. However, thats a deep analysis, and my example was designed to highlight gross tactical errors.

Cold_NiTe · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Oct 12 2003, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I don't know how much you read, so I will start from the beginning. Also, I don't know how unbiased my opinion will be, but I will try to be unbiased.

First, Verus posted about a game where marines turtled in Room With Things on ns_nothing to the point where aliens could not break through, even though they controlled the rest of the map, and he asked for ideas on how to break the stalemate to win as aliens. Some ideas were given out. Eventually Necrosis said that the best way is to prevent the relocation in the first place (which I would agree is a good idea, at least to try to do). Other people wanted to discuss how to actually break the stalemate once it occurred. I don't remember how it happened, but the thread shifted to a debate about balance between the teams and also that map. This led to a flamewar between Necrosis and slayer111, with Necrosis insisting that if you allow the marines to relocate to a position that is that important and difficult to take back you deserve to lose. Several people, including me, disagreed with him. The last sentence describes the last 2 or 3 pages of the thread. I would try to recap in more detail, but I know it would be biased, as it would cover my perceptions of other people's tones, etc, so if you want more detail you will have to read through all of it (I don't think anyone can cover this in too much detail without being biased).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Thanks for you help!

**Runs away from thread**

Okay seriously though... There are times when things happen that you can't entirely account for Necrosis. <b>Sure its kinda dumb to let marines just waltz into the place and take it I agree with you there</b>, but if they do it early enough and fast enough, then <i>nobody</i> will be ready. I mean, thats what happens with good hive lockdowns right? Marines run into that hive in the beginning, lock it down and set it up, then expand onwards while teching up.

Saying things like "They deserve to lose" is purposefully inflammatory and <b>gets everyone nowhere...</b>

im_lost · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In a DEEP analysis, yes of course aliens can recover from 2 hive lockdowns, and no marines can't recover from IP and CC loss. However, thats a deep analysis, and my example was designed to highlight gross tactical errors. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Why did you mention a 2-hive lockdown? Since this whole thread is about turtling with a 1-hive lockdown, I am assuming you meant that (and simply typed the wrong number). Your answer wasn't completely specific, but I am going to assume that you are saying that it is VERY difficult to stop the marines from winning if they successfully relocate to an area that is that important.

So, do you think it is reasonable to prevent the marines from successfully relocating to an area like RwT, even if you start at Power Silo hive? (By successful relocation I mean having at least 8 turrets, plus being able to start arms lab upgrades in less than 10 minutes.)

I would like to note that I do have a point in asking these questions one a time. I am trying to figure out specifically where the disagreement is between the two sides on this topic, which will allow a more narrow, and hopefully more productive, discussion of the disagreement.

Necrosis · October 2003

Because if you'd not clipped out half the post, it would have said

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Allowing marines to siege base at redroom AND rwt doesn't mean you've lost, just that it'd be trickier to win.

In a DEEP analysis, yes of course aliens can recover from 2 hive lockdowns, and no marines can't recover from IP and CC loss.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Again cited in context, as a two hive lock is an example of gross alien stupidity, as the IP CC loss is an example of gross marine stupidity. Neither occurred in this game, but I still draw parallels to leaving marines alone to lame in at a very defensible position.

Is it reasonable to PREVENT a relocation? Yes. I HAVE STATED THIS ALREADY- I've stated that prevention doesn't ALWAYS happen, but that destroying the base SHOULD happen. You MIGHT NOT be able to stop them GETTING TO RwT, but you SHOULD NOT make their life easier by LEAVING THEM to lame in. You need to aggressively attack their base continually, making it the focus of the TEAM'S effort. If you go "sod it, we'll keep them in there and then attack it later" then IMHO you're asking for trouble. Its a gross tactical error. Its forgiveable if the marines are laming in at marine start, or some easy to crush relocate - but letting them dig in at the smartest points on the map is sheer unbridled suicide.

im_lost · October 2003

So now we are discussing a 2-hive lockdown? The jp'er getting into Red Room would never have happened if the aliens had been competent/not been bored, and since we are assuming that both teams have competent players that are trying to win (right?) then the specific example that started this discussion should not include marines getting to RR (since that was due to bored/incompetent aliens, depending on your POV). So, reasonably speaking it is a 1-hive lockdown being discussed, not a 2-hive lockdown.

I believe that a competent marine team has good chances of relocating to RwT, meaning an ip, tf, and 5 turrets, plus armory and arms lab, in under 10 minutes, given that aliens start with Power Silo hive (it is easy enough to find out the alien starting hive). I believe that it would take a good deal of luck for aliens to prevent this. Also, any attacks that don't destroy any structures give the marines more res. It doesn't matter if you also get res since the point for the marines is to turtle to the point that no combination of aliens can get in. If you disagree with me, then I think this is the core of our disagreement and we will just have to agree to disagree.

Cxwf · October 2003

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

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Notice how rather than answering any of my points, you dismiss my entire post with the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because your entire post was based around a flaw. The flaw revealed, your post loses any credibility directly because it was based around a flaw.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If my entire post was based around a flaw, then yes you could say that. But at least have the courtesy to point out the flaw, rather than just saying that I'm wrong. How can I debate you if you don't tell me what it is 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'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Let me put it this way--if, after ten minutes, the marines have managed to secure exactly one area, they are losing the game badly. A winning marine team will secure 4 or 5 areas, roughly half the map, so as to give them the income to match what the aliens are throwing at them.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not SECURE. Nothing near secure. The fighting takes place over the relocation as aliens battle to knock it down and marines battle to keep it up. Marines can give up, go elsewhere.... but lose the rest they've invested (and if they've lost their MS base then they have to risk another relocation but with no fall-back plan). The aliens COULD give up.... but then marines can dig in and begin to create smaller siege bases near hives. Or aliens can fight until the base is crushed. Now, in that situation, the only clever move is for aliens to attack that base until it falls, or the marines get so spooked that they run.

You do NOT pull out and let the rines succeed.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You are still missing the very important possiblity that the Aliens could continue attacking, not giving up, and yet still not destroy the base. The marines could simply win the battle. If it was impossible for the marines to defend their own base against constant alien attack, then far more games would see constant skulk rushes on marine spawn, and every single one of them would result in an alien victory--if not by destroying the base in the first wave, then at least by denying the marines the ability to send any of their personnel out to fight over the rest of the map for fear of leaving MS defenseless.

Again, I will acknowledge that this very scenario does happen occasionally, but only when the alien fighters are much more skilled than the marine fighters. And we are not talking about strategy at all here, just pure and simple combat skill. Unless the marines are severely outclassed by the alien combat skill, this simply doesn't happen.

</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'>
How would you recommend marines win a game where they don't immediately relocate to a hive site?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Relocation to a hive is foolish. Hives are easily breached, most are full of vents and tunnels. The res cost to secure a hive is insane. Better to relocate to an area within siege range that you can defend. Again, this is basic strategy.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You misunderstand me. I am mentally considering relocation to those spots within seige range as being essentially the same thing as relocation to a hive. I guess you disagree with me there, but that's not important. What I mean is, how do you see marines winning a game if they don't relocate at all? Can they never win by holding marine spawn?

Obviously they can't win by holding JUST marine spawn, but they can make that their main base while other areas are just outposts.

</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'>
So please, explain to me how the relocations in your games last ten minutes before the marines are capable of moving beyond it to do anything else?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Marines moving past it? You misunderstand. The relocation must be attacked until it is destroyed. Rines only succeed in holding it if they go on to win the game. For lesser relocations in non vital areas, aliens can afford to fall back once its clear marines have the advantage..... but in a vital map area, aliens simply cannot afford to give up.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, you are the one who misunderstands. It doesn't matter whether aliens can <i>afford</i> to fall back or not. A time comes when 1-Hive 1-Chamber skulks simply are not enough to defeat the marine team in their own base, and you are <i>forced</i> to fight over the rest of the map in order to build your own power as well as prevent the marines from building their power. And this point doesn't even take very long to get to...in fact, less time than it normally takes for an alien team to get their first set of 3 chambers up. If your 1-hive skulks keep rushing at the marine base for ten minutes, the marines will use that ten minutes to take over the rest of the map, and suddenly you will look at the res counter and it will say 7-2, and by then even if you take out that relocation it no longer matters.

Necrosis · October 2003

I'm lost-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So now we are discussing a 2-hive lockdown?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I believe YOU are the one hammering on about it, not me. I'm merely clarifying a very simple statement that twice now you have tried to take out of context.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I believe that it would take a good deal of luck for aliens to prevent this.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I doubt it. Luck might win rarely but player skill wins 90% of the time.... the 10% being when the other team gets lucky.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Also, any attacks that don't destroy any structures give the marines more res. It doesn't matter if you also get res since the point for the marines is to turtle to the point that no combination of aliens can get in.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Tho barring then end crush you'll rarely take down ANY structures - merely chip them. And chipping is enough, enough to distract the comm and his team.

Cxwf-

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If my entire post was based around a flaw, then yes you could say that. But at least have the courtesy to point out the flaw, rather than just saying that I'm wrong. How can I debate you if you don't tell me what it is you disagree with?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And now, a direct quote of WHAT I SAID TO YOU.

</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 the whole content of your post, its based on a poor concept of how you take down IPs and CCs. What I'm saying is that if your team is dumb enough to let one skulk sneak into base and take out your IP and CCs, then you have no right to complain about imbalance. Likewise, if you're fool enough to let marines build a siege base in a hard position, you have no right to complain about imbalance. Both situations arise from poor play.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You are still missing the very important possiblity that the Aliens could continue attacking, not giving up, and yet still not destroy the base.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which I call "losing". If the marine team turtles better than you can counter, then they win. And, in fact, I believe I covered this eventuality in another post in this thread. Ho hum. I don't see how its an imbalance if the other team plays to their strengths better than you can.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You misunderstand me. I am mentally considering relocation to those spots within seige range as being essentially the same thing as relocation to a hive.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not really. A relocation inside a hive is dangerous and flawed - hives are easy to get into, hard to defend. I would argue that they're hard to defend despite the marine turtling skills. A really hard relocation is the one in siege range but at a better location. IMHO there's a very important distinction between these two types, hence my insistence on being precise in their usage.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What I mean is, how do you see marines winning a game if they don't relocate at all? Can they never win by holding marine spawn?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't see how this is relevant to this thread. This is an entirely new subject in itself. In terms of a balance issue, I can say that yes marines CAN win without a relocate, but its rare because aliens insist on destroying marine bases - usually spawn (I am of course assuming equal average skill, because good marines vs poor aliens would achieve this easily).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It doesn't matter whether aliens can afford to fall back or not.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh but it does - regardless of how hard it is to kill the marines. Letting them build up their base in a good location is only going to cripple aliens in the end - just as happened in the game from the first post. And if the rines should break out - then base still needs to be destroyed, because otherwise it'll sit perfectly protected until endgame, while the marines can afford to spend their res on expansion. If base is continually rushed, res must be diverted to maintainance, rines must be called back to weld, little details like that.

Let me clarify AGAIN that for bog standard relocations, you can afford to concede the area to marines. But for near hive relocations in tough spots, you absolutely cannot afford to concede the area. Gross tactical errors like that simply cannot be brought into balance discussion.

im_lost · October 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'>
You are still missing the very important possiblity that the Aliens could continue attacking, not giving up, and yet still not destroy the base.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which I call "losing". If the marine team turtles better than you can counter, then they win. And, in fact, I believe I covered this eventuality in another post in this thread. Ho hum. I don't see how its an imbalance if the other team plays to their strengths better than you can.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I believe this is where many of us disagree with you Necrosis. We believe that marines have a good chance of successfully relocating to a spot like this against alien resistance, eventually getting to the point where attacking simply gives the marines rfk. You believe that the marines have to have a noticeably better team to realistically pull this off.

I think that all of us believe that if marines do successfully turtle, then they can eventually put together an HA train and charge out, which can be very difficult to stop. Done enough times, they can win doing this. Or they can use a completely different method, such as building lots of turrets to expand a few feet at a time until they take over the map (which has also been discussed in previous threads).

Since most of us believe that marines can relocate even when all you try to do is destroy the relocation, and since we see this as leading to a stalemate/marine win, we believe the game is unbalanced. Since you believe that the relocation can be stopped by a competent alien team, you don't see an imbalance. That is the fundamental difference in the two opinions, I believe, and since no one has changed their view over the course of this thread, probably no one will. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Cold_NiTe · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (I'm Lost @ Some time before this post...)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So now we are discussing a 2-hive lockdown?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, Necrosis was just citing a situation in which he thought could be considered a parallel. You missed that part of his post. Basically he said that a similar situation would be one in which Marines accomplish a two hive lockdown. And then he went on to say that aliens <i>could</i> possibly fight their way out of this, though it is rare, I too have witnessed such an even happening. Coordination is the key there.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cwxf @ Some time today)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Obviously they can't win by holding JUST marine spawn, but they can make that their main base while other areas are just outposts.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Define <b><u>Main Base</u></b> for me please. Because thanks to phase tech the concept of a main base is somewhat inconsequential. If you mean by main base, the place where the marine CC and IP(s) are located alright. But as far as I can see, the concept of MB does not matter, because every area they hold must be attended to to allow them to keep holding it. Lest Necrosis's continuous attacks take down the area with the least attention paid to it.

**EDIT**
Well I have been beaten to a reply thanks to my d/ling Steam...

Anyway I guess I was wrong about who said this first:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Some time before this post)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe YOU are the one hammering on about it, not me. I'm merely clarifying a very simple statement that twice now you have tried to take out of context.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

im_lost · October 2003

Not that it really matters, but Necrosis was the first one to mention a 2-hive lockdown, which occurred in the part that I quoted. I hammered on about it because I couldn't understand how it was relevant or why it was brought up. Apparently, a 2-hive lockdown was being compared to losing the CC plus IP's. So, now I am confused, because I thought that a 1-hive lockdown was being compared to losing CC plus IP's, and clearly a 1-hive lockdown and 2-hive lockdown are different things.

Anyway, I asked what I thought was a clear question about a 1-hive lockdown, and Necrosis answered yes to it, then proceeded to discuss a 2-hive lockdown.

Cold_NiTe · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Oct 12 2003, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Anyway, I asked what I thought was a clear question about a 1-hive lockdown, and Necrosis answered yes to it, then proceeded to discuss a 2-hive lockdown.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
When specifically did he compare a 1-hive lockdown to the marines losing their CC and IP's, because those are <b>not</b> equal situations...

FlashFrog · October 2003

Uh... I was thinking... if only one Onos can fit in this corridor, then anything behind would be pretty safe, right?

How many adrenaline gorges using healspray on a single onos would it take to keep that onos at max health while it took grenades and hmgs to the face? (They do have to reload every once in a while don't forget) I don't think it would take more than 5, would it? Maybe make that last gorge a lerk using umbra instead? Just a maybe... would it work? If you're on a pub, maybe the marines wouldn't get the bright idea to shoot the gorges behind the onos until it was too late.

Well, any good way to break this siege takes a level of teamwork you usually don't see on pubs, especially if you have a bunch of aliens that are already bored and frustrated. I just know it urks me when somebody responds to a concern like this with "Your problem is you suck! Next!"

im_lost · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Oct 12 2003, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Since I was apparently unclear the first time, I will ask again. Do you see the alien team killing the IP's ans CC as comarable to the marines successfully relocating to a key location such as what is suggested in this thread, as far as how devastating it is to the other team? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
This is where I asked Necrosis if he thought the two were comparable.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Oct 12 2003, 7:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would have to agree, yes. However, that agreement is only in the terms that stupid mistakes can cost you the game. Losing the IPs and CCs don't mean you've lost, just that its getting trickier to win. Allowing marines to siege base at redroom AND rwt doesn't mean you've lost, just that it'd be trickier to win.

In a DEEP analysis, yes of course aliens can recover from 2 hive lockdowns, and no marines can't recover from IP and CC loss. However, thats a deep analysis, and my example was designed to highlight gross tactical errors.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That is is full response. Maybe it wasn't clear that I mean't the one hive lockdown (before marines got to red room). I can't find any specific examples where he compared the two, so I could be wrong. He did bring up marines losing their CC and IP several times on page 7, but I can't specifically say why. I <i>thought</i> he was saying that allowing a 1-hive lockdown is comparable to losing the CC and IP in terms of a strategic screw-up, and that they both significantly reduce the chances of victory to the point where there isn't much point in continuing the game.

Cxwf · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (i'm lost @ Oct 12 2003, 11:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> He did bring up marines losing their CC and IP several times on page 7, but I can't specifically say why. I <i>thought</i> he was saying that allowing a 1-hive lockdown is comparable to losing the CC and IP in terms of a strategic screw-up, and that they both significantly reduce the chances of victory to the point where there isn't much point in continuing the game.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Yes, that is exactly what he was saying, and exactly where I (and I think most of the rest of us) disagree with him.

1st--Protecting your CC and IPs is <i>far</i> easier than simultaneously protecting all 3 hives, especially near the beginning of the game where you only have any defensive bonus in one of the hives. In short, 1 hive lockdowns <i>will</i> happen, even to good alien teams. This is not a game imbalance in any way.

2nd--1 Hive lockdowns <i>can</i> be broken, even in good places like the passages outside of Cargo hive. Turtling effectively in one spot, even a very good spot, does <i>not</i> give you a victory. This is what prevents point 1 from being a game imbalance, although certain map locations get close to being imbalances (Processing springs to mind...)

3rd--This game was not designed to be a turtling game, and even though the marines are better at turtling than aliens, they were <i>not</i> intended to win by turtling. If they <i>can</i> win games simply by setting up large amounts of defenses in one place, <i>that</i> is a gam imbalance. Winning by defending a single spot should require more skill than taking that one spot.

Long, Cramped Corridor Stalemates (balance Issue)

Comments