<!--QuoteBegin-Maian+Feb 6 2004, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maian @ Feb 6 2004, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aliens within cloaking range of a sensory chamber gain some sort of "umbra" against electricity. A percentage of electric attacks on the "e-umbra" alien are blocked. 1 SC = 50% chance. 2 SC = 75% chance. 3 SC = 87.5% chance, and so forth.
This makes sensory much more appealing as a 1st hive chamber, and give aliens another way to counter early electricity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Motion tracking: I mentioned it a long time ago, and I believe forlorn mentioned it above, but I would like to see MT put on the mini-map only. This would allow marines to get some use out of it, but they would have to INTERPRET the info on the minimap, instead of just looking for circles on the screen. It might also increase screen draws a bit.
Electric RTs are a necessary evil, but they do make it too easy at times. I think the key is to lengthen the activation time, and so if they want that node to be protected they have to guard it until electric kicks in. I have had many an occasion when I attacked a freshly built node and the comm started the electrification as soon as I started attacking. The node would go electric BEFORE I had a chance to kill it, which is not right. I'd really like to see the electric RT activation time tied to the number of marines on a team. The more players they have the more time it takes a node to electrify. This would force commanders to have mini-squads of marines to hold res nodes for a bit while they activate instead of a group of 8 or so marines walking the map and capping all the nodes.
The Onos is a tricky situation. I do agreee that the onos is too weak. Let's look at it this way. The onos SHOULD be able to solo an level 3 HA marine regardless of the weapon they carry. Even Flarya has said that in the past. The problem is that if you make the Onos too strong, then that throws balance off in the other direction. However, I tend to think that the Onos should have more armor than health, so that it can be a tank, BUT that regeration won't be as effective for it. (since regen heals health frist then armor, if an onos was armor heavy then when their armor was lost they would be that much more vulnerable and wouldn't be able to attack as soon had they had more health.
Let's do the math...
Most Onos don't take carapace, instead opting to take regeneration or redemption. As such, an Onos' armor will only absorb 30% of incoming damage and not the 60% that lvl 3 carapace will absorb.
The current Onos is 700/500 - and since the armor will absorb 30% of damage that means health with absorb 70%. For every 10 points of damage, health goes down 7 and armor goes down 3.
So it would take 100 shots from a weapon that does 10 damage in order to kill the Onos. At this point the Onos would die with 200 armor left over.
If the Onos had carapace, the armor would absorb 60% of the damage and the health 40%. If we use the 10 damage weapon again, we have 83 shots to strip the Onos 500 armor, leaving it with only 368 health. Now health will take all damage, meaning that it can only absorb another 37 shots before being killed. A total of 120 shots, or a 20% bonus.
What if we flip around the numbers and give the Onos more armor instead of health.
Instead of 700/500 let's say the Onos is 600/900.
To a non-carapace Onos, that means there will be armor left over when it dies, and it will only be able to take 86 shots of 10 point damage before it is killed.
HOWEVER, let's look at the Onos WITH lvl 3 carapace. If you do the math here, the Onos will be able to withstand 150 shots from that same 10 damage weapon. (a 75% bonus)
While this is a significant increase, I don't think it is unbalanced since the Onos will NOT be able to rely on redemption or regeneration. Should they attack they may get caught without a D chamber nearby. If they want the armor power they will have to have defense chambers or a gorge nearby, AND they will have to retreat before their health gets too low. So a lone Onos will be at greater risk.
This would likely mean that early game Onos would be easier to kill while late game Onos would be harder to kill. The reasoning being that most people wouldn't risk an early game Onos with carapace only since they would have no way to protect their investment if they got in hot water.
I'd be interested to see how this would play out in the game. I think it would help inthe late game stalemates where aliens control the map and have res to spare since they can afford to risk an Onos with carapace, while in other situations they may prefer regen or redempt to be on the same side, BUT they won't be able to take as much damage.
I think this is where we need to look for the Onos.
Savant, you reminded me of another reason why sensory is unpopular. Onos don't gain much from sensory. Aliens must eventually get onos, which is a reason defense and movement are popular, especially defense.
Fair enough... I'm not totally up to date on the latest numbers, but I think the principle still stands.
If you give the Onos more armor than health, then it will benefit more from carapace but less when using other defensive upgrades. The benefit to taking carapace now is pretty negligible, and as such Onos are gimped most of the time. We need to give people an incentive to use carapace, which would also give marines a better chance to kill them even if they were stronger overall.
<!--QuoteBegin-Maian+Feb 14 2004, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maian @ Feb 14 2004, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [However, balance not <i>imply</i> fun. How about playing a game where each side had only 1 unit and that unit was the same. Balanced? Yeah. Fun? Hell no. While balance is <i>required</i> for the game to be fun, it is not the only factor.
I think game design should be focused on introducing fun elements first, then balancing later. After all, that's how most professional game developers do it - they delay balancing until late beta and post release. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's not start putting words in my mouth here, please. I never said anything about symmetrical games. We're talking about a <i>totally asymmetrical strategy game</i>. In asymmetrical games (good example - starcraft), much of the fun aspect comes with the <i>intial design</i>. The sides are designed to be completely different, allowing for some very interesting strategies. As such, <i>strengthening one side always reuslts in weakening the other, with no counter-effect</i>. If both sides were symmetrical, your suggestions could have been considered, as that wouldn't have affected the actual balance of the game - merely the way the game is played. When considering two asymetrical sides, nerfing one side while beefing the other is bound to reduce the fun factor, as when one side has it significantly easier, it will cause team stacking, boring games where one side drives another into the corner and then slowly takes them out, resulting in one side having most of the players simply leave the server (if you have ANY exerience with NS, you know what I'm talking about here). Hence I would conclude that balance is the <i>single most important term in the equasion of "fun" considering long-term players in asymmetrical strategy games</i>. If you wish to discuss the aspect of "fun" in asymmetrical strategy games further, I would suggest starcraft/warcraft forums, these have this particular topic discussed to death and I'm not going to recite pages worth of arguments here.
As for the second part of your statement - just how long do you think this game has been out? Initial design phase ended over a year ago, all we have now are minor adjustments to some of the designs as the game gets developed further. As for "delaying balance until post release", as a beta tester for several strategy games, I will simply state that either you have absolutely no experience whatsoever in the subject, or you are trying to insult the NS team. The firms that do that are the ones that produce 3rd-rate console games, that don't get any real shelf space anywhere and vanish into oblivion weeks after the release. Any self-respecting game company/development team making an asymmterical game with strategy elements will have at least some balance-testing before the final release.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lucky said, This statement alone pretty much shows that you're not qualified to make any statements about the game's fun aspect. Reason for this is that alien team is not the only team out there with players wanting to have fun. If you consider old "every player is stronger then a dosen of enemies" concept "fun", I would suggest sven coop mod instead of natural selection. I'm quite certain that majority of NS players considers a game "fun" when it's a truly even game, both side hammering against eachother with relatively even odds. This requires fine tuned balance first, and evething else comes after. You just stated yourself that to you, fun has nothing to do with balance - you simply want to own the other team no matter how good they are and how cheap of a lifeform you use. If that is what you like, it's fine by me - I'm not trying to complain about the personal tastes here. But NS is not the mod that will suit your tastes, as majority of the fanbase here has very different tastes from yours. As such I would suggest you move along to another mod and stop trolling and insulting people that provide you with personal feedback, taking it as "personal attacks". Or stick around, try the other team and find that the old single-player style "I pwn everything that shows up in my crosshairs" concept is not the only way you can have lots of fun in a first-person shooter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should re-read the OP or start a new thread, as nothing you say in any way relates to the topic at hand. Oh, and drop the "misquote and refute" argument strategy please.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Feb 6 2004, 11:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Feb 6 2004, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It has already been tried, and it didn't work. The players rejected it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Players would have adapted, despite inital rejection.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's not start putting words in my mouth here, please. I never said anything about symmetrical games.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not. It was an example proving my point (or logically, a counterexample).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence I would conclude that balance is the single most important term in the equasion of "fun" considering long-term players in asymmetrical strategy games.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying balance isn't important, and it probably is the most important factor. However, my statement still stands. Balance does not imply fun. Even in asymmetrical games, as you put it, balance does not imply fun. Actually, "variety" fits here more properly. What's also important is the degree of variety. Not only must the races be varied and balanced, techs have to be varied and balanced, and strats have to be varied and balanced.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the second part of your statement - just how long do you think this game has been out? Initial design phase ended over a year ago, all we have now are minor adjustments to some of the designs as the game gets developed further. As for "delaying balance until post release", as a beta tester for several strategy games, I will simply state that either you have absolutely no experience whatsoever in the subject, or you are trying to insult the NS team. The firms that do that are the ones that produce 3rd-rate console games, that don't get any real shelf space anywhere and vanish into oblivion weeks after the release. Any self-respecting game company/development team making an asymmterical game with strategy elements will have at least some balance-testing before the final release.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This game really is beta. New features are constantly being added. They are bound to upset the balance of the game. This isn't like Total Annihilation where new units are occasionally added, since each new tech in NS is far more important. Remember how electricity changed the game? The goal behind 2.0 was not only to balance the game, but introduce new tactics and strategies (or make certain strategies viable). Same thing with 3.0, but to a lesser extent.
I didn't mean that balancing is delayed until post release. Balancing starts in beta. Depending on how far the game is when the beta is released, balancing may be the priority. If the beta is riddled with bugs, balance will be delayed until late beta. This was the case with the NS 3.0 beta builds - early builds were buggy, so fixing bugs took priority over balance. I've never seen a balanced strategy game on release, so there will obviously be balancing post release.
I'll elaborate on the game design point. The first step in designing the game is to select the background (e.g. sci-fi, backstory, FPS/RTS hybrid) . Then select the global themes of the game (e.g. short respawns, teamwork). Think up races and define racial themes (e.g. aliens are mobile, marines are defensive) with a vague sense of balance (e.g. marines can't have advantage in all range, mobility, and weaponry). Then design specifics for each race (e.g. weapons, abilities, techs) with an eye toward strategies (e.g. what strategies are possible with phase gates). After programming initial builds and when the game is bug-free enough, designate builds alpha, with the priority being to add new features and fixing bugs. The line between alpha and beta depends on the developer, but let's say beta is when the priority switches to balancing. If underlying flaws are discovered that can't be fixed well with simple tweaks, add/change/remove features as necessary, debug, and test balance again. Process repeats until fully balanced (unlikely) or deadline is reached (much more likely). Then balancing will continue after release. Expansions provide an ideal opportunity to make the game beta again, as was evident in the Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne beta. I consider each major version of NS a type of "expansion", the main differences being that the expansions are free and mandatory.
Anyway, enough of that. Back on topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you give the Onos more armor than health, then it will benefit more from carapace but less when using other defensive upgrades. The benefit to taking carapace now is pretty negligible, and as such Onos are gimped most of the time. We need to give people an incentive to use carapace, which would also give marines a better chance to kill them even if they were stronger overall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ideally, every upgrade is of equal usefulness to any alien lifeform. Your goal is nice, but what about the usefulness of silence compared to celerity? My point is that unless it's intended for every upgrade to have equal usefulness to each lifeform, I don't think this is important.
If your goal is not balance between upgrades, but rather making it easier for aliens to break turtling marines endgame, then thumbs up.
Oh yea! MT in minimap only would be a blessing! Because now it's just a little movement and the whole marine team knows where you are. And the circle seems to stay a moment even if you are not moving
To stay a litte on topic(naming tings which are not fun): The most frustrating thing about NS is, that aliens have to fear death like hell. In most cases its "make or break" for aliens. While these "make or break" efforts have been strongly reduced for marines during various versions(2.01, 3.0 beta).
most marines at start hold a harakiri rush to kill all gorges and rts near the hive, if you play as alien on that moment you know you're already lost cuz you can't built up enough defences due a global credit loss.
maybe their are still bugs to be fixed, maybe we don't need to search or adjust to much in both teams defences or offences. it would help i think if we adjust the maps a bit, not all of course <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> like some more doors in the main corridors that need to be welded or broken to get to the other side, not all i say, ventilation shafts can remain as they are. but for both teams it gives a 50% more secure envirement for about 2-5 minutes.
would that help? again <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 6 2004, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 6 2004, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Electficication is bad? Huh? It takes about 4 min for an elec RT to pay itself off, please, elec RT's are barely worth it right now IMO, if anything they could stand to be more useful, actually, please don't, I really dislike fighting electricity as opposed to human players. Electricity, basically, is fine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It takes just 2 minutes to compensate extra 30 electricity cost (RT is making 15 res/minute).. So you are slowing yourself just be 2 minutes.. I agree its usually very bad idea to electrify everything in clan play, but it usually works well on pubs..
Speaking of fun and balance, I have said long ago that I feel a game should be balanced FIRST and then made fun. If you make the game fun first and then try and balance it, you usually end up sucking the fun out of it.
I think the game isn't balanced either fun or facts, with the addition weapons versus teeth and claws, you have to keep that in mind!
As for the Motiontracking and the elec rts, they need scalable upgrades, some more research options for the commander. As the aliens have to spend res on the intense of their upgrades the marines should have that too.
MT should work like a radar that shows the position of movement but only in that moment the scanner that is going round detects it and then the circle is fading away. This would prevent marines from seeing every move of the skulks basic tatic of fast movement, what is the aiming for the marine. This should be upgraded in three steps, with a faster turning radar per level.
electric RTs should be also upgradable in three steps so that early game elec RTs are not as heavy as late game RTs, like the aliens have just one attack or upgrade per hive, the marines now have to evolve in a certain way too.
The idea with the onos is great i think, most of marine players **** in their pants when thinking of a smahing onos. Well if just the front is invincible, marines need to try to kill the onos in another way then just simply shooting it. Then the GL would even become a value and need, not a mobile siege.
Comments
This makes sensory much more appealing as a 1st hive chamber, and give aliens another way to counter early electricity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that idea.
<!--QuoteBegin-Maian+Feb 6 2004, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maian @ Feb 6 2004, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1) Onos can "walk" over skulks, lerks, and gorges.
2) Half devour time. This would kill 2 birds with 1 stone: less frustrating for the devoured, and the devourer would be more effective against HA.
3) Make charge useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All three would be nice, especially #3 and #1.
Electric RTs are a necessary evil, but they do make it too easy at times. I think the key is to lengthen the activation time, and so if they want that node to be protected they have to guard it until electric kicks in. I have had many an occasion when I attacked a freshly built node and the comm started the electrification as soon as I started attacking. The node would go electric BEFORE I had a chance to kill it, which is not right. I'd really like to see the electric RT activation time tied to the number of marines on a team. The more players they have the more time it takes a node to electrify. This would force commanders to have mini-squads of marines to hold res nodes for a bit while they activate instead of a group of 8 or so marines walking the map and capping all the nodes.
The Onos is a tricky situation. I do agreee that the onos is too weak. Let's look at it this way. The onos SHOULD be able to solo an level 3 HA marine regardless of the weapon they carry. Even Flarya has said that in the past. The problem is that if you make the Onos too strong, then that throws balance off in the other direction. However, I tend to think that the Onos should have more armor than health, so that it can be a tank, BUT that regeration won't be as effective for it. (since regen heals health frist then armor, if an onos was armor heavy then when their armor was lost they would be that much more vulnerable and wouldn't be able to attack as soon had they had more health.
Let's do the math...
Most Onos don't take carapace, instead opting to take regeneration or redemption. As such, an Onos' armor will only absorb 30% of incoming damage and not the 60% that lvl 3 carapace will absorb.
The current Onos is 700/500 - and since the armor will absorb 30% of damage that means health with absorb 70%. For every 10 points of damage, health goes down 7 and armor goes down 3.
So it would take 100 shots from a weapon that does 10 damage in order to kill the Onos. At this point the Onos would die with 200 armor left over.
If the Onos had carapace, the armor would absorb 60% of the damage and the health 40%. If we use the 10 damage weapon again, we have 83 shots to strip the Onos 500 armor, leaving it with only 368 health. Now health will take all damage, meaning that it can only absorb another 37 shots before being killed. A total of 120 shots, or a 20% bonus.
What if we flip around the numbers and give the Onos more armor instead of health.
Instead of 700/500 let's say the Onos is 600/900.
To a non-carapace Onos, that means there will be armor left over when it dies, and it will only be able to take 86 shots of 10 point damage before it is killed.
HOWEVER, let's look at the Onos WITH lvl 3 carapace. If you do the math here, the Onos will be able to withstand 150 shots from that same 10 damage weapon. (a 75% bonus)
While this is a significant increase, I don't think it is unbalanced since the Onos will NOT be able to rely on redemption or regeneration. Should they attack they may get caught without a D chamber nearby. If they want the armor power they will have to have defense chambers or a gorge nearby, AND they will have to retreat before their health gets too low. So a lone Onos will be at greater risk.
This would likely mean that early game Onos would be easier to kill while late game Onos would be harder to kill. The reasoning being that most people wouldn't risk an early game Onos with carapace only since they would have no way to protect their investment if they got in hot water.
I'd be interested to see how this would play out in the game. I think it would help inthe late game stalemates where aliens control the map and have res to spare since they can afford to risk an Onos with carapace, while in other situations they may prefer regen or redempt to be on the same side, BUT they won't be able to take as much damage.
I think this is where we need to look for the Onos.
Regards,
Savant
Armor for aliens now always absorbs 70% of the damage dealt to the alien and 30% goes to it's hitpoints.
Making the onos 600/900 would make him very powerful.
Also, each armor point takes 2 points of damage at the one hive level, and 3 points at the 3 hive level.
If you give the Onos more armor than health, then it will benefit more from carapace but less when using other defensive upgrades. The benefit to taking carapace now is pretty negligible, and as such Onos are gimped most of the time. We need to give people an incentive to use carapace, which would also give marines a better chance to kill them even if they were stronger overall.
Regards,
Savant
I think game design should be focused on introducing fun elements first, then balancing later. After all, that's how most professional game developers do it - they delay balancing until late beta and post release. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's not start putting words in my mouth here, please. I never said anything about symmetrical games. We're talking about a <i>totally asymmetrical strategy game</i>.
In asymmetrical games (good example - starcraft), much of the fun aspect comes with the <i>intial design</i>. The sides are designed to be completely different, allowing for some very interesting strategies. As such, <i>strengthening one side always reuslts in weakening the other, with no counter-effect</i>. If both sides were symmetrical, your suggestions could have been considered, as that wouldn't have affected the actual balance of the game - merely the way the game is played.
When considering two asymetrical sides, nerfing one side while beefing the other is bound to reduce the fun factor, as when one side has it significantly easier, it will cause team stacking, boring games where one side drives another into the corner and then slowly takes them out, resulting in one side having most of the players simply leave the server (if you have ANY exerience with NS, you know what I'm talking about here). Hence I would conclude that balance is the <i>single most important term in the equasion of "fun" considering long-term players in asymmetrical strategy games</i>.
If you wish to discuss the aspect of "fun" in asymmetrical strategy games further, I would suggest starcraft/warcraft forums, these have this particular topic discussed to death and I'm not going to recite pages worth of arguments here.
As for the second part of your statement - just how long do you think this game has been out? Initial design phase ended over a year ago, all we have now are minor adjustments to some of the designs as the game gets developed further. As for "delaying balance until post release", as a beta tester for several strategy games, I will simply state that either you have absolutely no experience whatsoever in the subject, or you are trying to insult the NS team. The firms that do that are the ones that produce 3rd-rate console games, that don't get any real shelf space anywhere and vanish into oblivion weeks after the release. Any self-respecting game company/development team making an asymmterical game with strategy elements will have at least some balance-testing before the final release.
This statement alone pretty much shows that you're not qualified to make any statements about the game's fun aspect. Reason for this is that alien team is not the only team out there with players wanting to have fun. If you consider old "every player is stronger then a dosen of enemies" concept "fun", I would suggest sven coop mod instead of natural selection.
I'm quite certain that majority of NS players considers a game "fun" when it's a truly even game, both side hammering against eachother with relatively even odds. This requires fine tuned balance first, and evething else comes after. You just stated yourself that to you, fun has nothing to do with balance - you simply want to own the other team no matter how good they are and how cheap of a lifeform you use. If that is what you like, it's fine by me - I'm not trying to complain about the personal tastes here. But NS is not the mod that will suit your tastes, as majority of the fanbase here has very different tastes from yours. As such I would suggest you move along to another mod and stop trolling and insulting people that provide you with personal feedback, taking it as "personal attacks". Or stick around, try the other team and find that the old single-player style "I pwn everything that shows up in my crosshairs" concept is not the only way you can have lots of fun in a first-person shooter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should re-read the OP or start a new thread, as nothing you say in any way relates to the topic at hand. Oh, and drop the "misquote and refute" argument strategy please.
Players would have adapted, despite inital rejection.
I'm not. It was an example proving my point (or logically, a counterexample).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence I would conclude that balance is the single most important term in the equasion of "fun" considering long-term players in asymmetrical strategy games.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying balance isn't important, and it probably is the most important factor. However, my statement still stands. Balance does not imply fun. Even in asymmetrical games, as you put it, balance does not imply fun. Actually, "variety" fits here more properly. What's also important is the degree of variety. Not only must the races be varied and balanced, techs have to be varied and balanced, and strats have to be varied and balanced.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the second part of your statement - just how long do you think this game has been out? Initial design phase ended over a year ago, all we have now are minor adjustments to some of the designs as the game gets developed further. As for "delaying balance until post release", as a beta tester for several strategy games, I will simply state that either you have absolutely no experience whatsoever in the subject, or you are trying to insult the NS team. The firms that do that are the ones that produce 3rd-rate console games, that don't get any real shelf space anywhere and vanish into oblivion weeks after the release. Any self-respecting game company/development team making an asymmterical game with strategy elements will have at least some balance-testing before the final release.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This game really is beta. New features are constantly being added. They are bound to upset the balance of the game. This isn't like Total Annihilation where new units are occasionally added, since each new tech in NS is far more important. Remember how electricity changed the game? The goal behind 2.0 was not only to balance the game, but introduce new tactics and strategies (or make certain strategies viable). Same thing with 3.0, but to a lesser extent.
I didn't mean that balancing is delayed until post release. Balancing starts in beta. Depending on how far the game is when the beta is released, balancing may be the priority. If the beta is riddled with bugs, balance will be delayed until late beta. This was the case with the NS 3.0 beta builds - early builds were buggy, so fixing bugs took priority over balance. I've never seen a balanced strategy game on release, so there will obviously be balancing post release.
I'll elaborate on the game design point. The first step in designing the game is to select the background (e.g. sci-fi, backstory, FPS/RTS hybrid) . Then select the global themes of the game (e.g. short respawns, teamwork). Think up races and define racial themes (e.g. aliens are mobile, marines are defensive) with a vague sense of balance (e.g. marines can't have advantage in all range, mobility, and weaponry). Then design specifics for each race (e.g. weapons, abilities, techs) with an eye toward strategies (e.g. what strategies are possible with phase gates). After programming initial builds and when the game is bug-free enough, designate builds alpha, with the priority being to add new features and fixing bugs. The line between alpha and beta depends on the developer, but let's say beta is when the priority switches to balancing. If underlying flaws are discovered that can't be fixed well with simple tweaks, add/change/remove features as necessary, debug, and test balance again. Process repeats until fully balanced (unlikely) or deadline is reached (much more likely). Then balancing will continue after release. Expansions provide an ideal opportunity to make the game beta again, as was evident in the Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne beta. I consider each major version of NS a type of "expansion", the main differences being that the expansions are free and mandatory.
Anyway, enough of that. Back on topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you give the Onos more armor than health, then it will benefit more from carapace but less when using other defensive upgrades. The benefit to taking carapace now is pretty negligible, and as such Onos are gimped most of the time. We need to give people an incentive to use carapace, which would also give marines a better chance to kill them even if they were stronger overall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ideally, every upgrade is of equal usefulness to any alien lifeform. Your goal is nice, but what about the usefulness of silence compared to celerity? My point is that unless it's intended for every upgrade to have equal usefulness to each lifeform, I don't think this is important.
If your goal is not balance between upgrades, but rather making it easier for aliens to break turtling marines endgame, then thumbs up.
The most frustrating thing about NS is, that aliens have to fear death like hell. In most cases its "make or break" for aliens. While these "make or break" efforts have been strongly reduced for marines during various versions(2.01, 3.0 beta).
maybe their are still bugs to be fixed, maybe we don't need to search or adjust to much in both teams defences or offences.
it would help i think if we adjust the maps a bit, not all of course <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
like some more doors in the main corridors that need to be welded or broken to get to the other side, not all i say, ventilation shafts can remain as they are.
but for both teams it gives a 50% more secure envirement for about 2-5 minutes.
would that help?
again <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It takes just 2 minutes to compensate extra 30 electricity cost (RT is making 15 res/minute).. So you are slowing yourself just be 2 minutes..
I agree its usually very bad idea to electrify everything in clan play, but it usually works well on pubs..
That's my experience in beta testing anyway...
Regards,
Savant
with the addition weapons versus teeth and claws, you have to keep that in mind!
As for the Motiontracking and the elec rts, they need scalable upgrades, some more research options for the commander. As the aliens have to spend res on the intense of their upgrades the marines should have that too.
MT should work like a radar that shows the position of movement but only in that moment the scanner that is going round detects it and then the circle is fading away. This would prevent marines from seeing every move of the skulks basic tatic of fast movement, what is the aiming for the marine. This should be upgraded in three steps, with a faster turning radar per level.
electric RTs should be also upgradable in three steps so that early game elec RTs are not as heavy as late game RTs, like the aliens have just one attack or upgrade per hive, the marines now have to evolve in a certain way too.
The idea with the onos is great i think, most of marine players **** in their pants when thinking of a smahing onos.
Well if just the front is invincible, marines need to try to kill the onos in another way then just simply shooting it. Then the GL would even become a value and need, not a mobile siege.
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you want one, build a TF nearby and elec it.