The "fps Status Quo" And Ns...
Fantasmo
Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7369Members
Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7369Members
<div class="IPBDescription">A path to innovation or replication?</div> <b>Grendal</b>
<!--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-->I've played more versions of NS than anyone else on the thread by a long margin. I've played with and without knockback.
Purely going by personal experience, marines get owned with knockback because they still play in the same retarded careless way that they do when knockback is present.
Essentially what some people want here is skill in terms of co-ordinated team maneouvers, covering fire, reconnaissance. Essentially making the game more militaristic and to a degree, more "realistic".
What other people want is a computer game style of play, which rewards players for being good at computer games.
There will be no agreement on this topic, simply because the two sides want different things. Personally I think NS is moving more and more towards the "game" end of the scale and further away from the "realism" end of the scale. I think knockback will stay because suprise, people who rock at computer games want more computer game style features.
This happens with a lot of games (CS and DoD), for a variety of reasons. I think it sucks, because their are a billion different computer games with a "computer game" feel. Sadly, it also leads to a convergence of gameplay styles, so that while it is nice that games all follow certain conventions, you can hardly act dissappointed and suprised that all you get is the same generic FPS or RTS formulae appearing in each game.
It gets really frustrating watching all these arguements go round and round. Don't any of you ever look at the problem, rather than the symptoms?
Knockback, bunnyhopping, recoil etc. are all part of the same debate<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post Grendal.
I think this <b>deeper</b>, underlying issue must be addressed before we go any further into developing NS.
The question is;
<b>Do we want NS to feature the same basic dynamics where reflex skills are greater then tactics & strategy, the mainstream gameplay style of Team Deathmatch, but with a NS twist/theme?</b>
<!--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-->[some] people want is a computer game style of play, which rewards players for being good at computer games.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or
<b>Do we want NS to break free of the basic dynamics where tactics & strategy are greater then reflex skill, and pave the way to a less mainstream, more demanding gameplay style?</b>
<!--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-->some people want here is skill in terms of co-ordinated team maneouvers, covering fire, reconnaissance. Essentially making the game more militaristic and to a degree, more "realistic"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
***<i>I want to <b>EMPHASIZE</b> that this isn't a debate about which is the superior gameplay style</i>***
<b>This discussion should explore whether we, the NS community, is ready and determined enough to try to break free from everything we know from mainstream FPS games and pave the way to a higher level of teamplay.</b>
Many of us assembled behind this mod because of its' goal of teamplay action, the level and manner in which it hs accomplished its' goal is debatable.
<b>The question I would like to ask is whether there are enough people who want and is determined to strive for a higher level of teamplay, or do we really just want general team deathmatch type gameplay with an NS theme.</b>
***<i>Remember, there is no better or worse, just what you <u>prefer</u>. <b>The goal of this thread is to determine whether there is a significant percentage of people who would go through the trials and tribulations* of balancing a teamplay game.</b></i>***
*Take into mind, for those proponents of a greater, deeper teamplay game... it will be lots of work. We are literally asking, can we get total strangers to work in cohesive teams on pub servers given the gameplay structure of NS is suited for teamwork to excel.
Will the FPS in the FPS/RTS alway be the dominant feature, or are we determined and innovative enough to strive for more? Discuss.
<!--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-->I've played more versions of NS than anyone else on the thread by a long margin. I've played with and without knockback.
Purely going by personal experience, marines get owned with knockback because they still play in the same retarded careless way that they do when knockback is present.
Essentially what some people want here is skill in terms of co-ordinated team maneouvers, covering fire, reconnaissance. Essentially making the game more militaristic and to a degree, more "realistic".
What other people want is a computer game style of play, which rewards players for being good at computer games.
There will be no agreement on this topic, simply because the two sides want different things. Personally I think NS is moving more and more towards the "game" end of the scale and further away from the "realism" end of the scale. I think knockback will stay because suprise, people who rock at computer games want more computer game style features.
This happens with a lot of games (CS and DoD), for a variety of reasons. I think it sucks, because their are a billion different computer games with a "computer game" feel. Sadly, it also leads to a convergence of gameplay styles, so that while it is nice that games all follow certain conventions, you can hardly act dissappointed and suprised that all you get is the same generic FPS or RTS formulae appearing in each game.
It gets really frustrating watching all these arguements go round and round. Don't any of you ever look at the problem, rather than the symptoms?
Knockback, bunnyhopping, recoil etc. are all part of the same debate<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post Grendal.
I think this <b>deeper</b>, underlying issue must be addressed before we go any further into developing NS.
The question is;
<b>Do we want NS to feature the same basic dynamics where reflex skills are greater then tactics & strategy, the mainstream gameplay style of Team Deathmatch, but with a NS twist/theme?</b>
<!--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-->[some] people want is a computer game style of play, which rewards players for being good at computer games.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or
<b>Do we want NS to break free of the basic dynamics where tactics & strategy are greater then reflex skill, and pave the way to a less mainstream, more demanding gameplay style?</b>
<!--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-->some people want here is skill in terms of co-ordinated team maneouvers, covering fire, reconnaissance. Essentially making the game more militaristic and to a degree, more "realistic"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
***<i>I want to <b>EMPHASIZE</b> that this isn't a debate about which is the superior gameplay style</i>***
<b>This discussion should explore whether we, the NS community, is ready and determined enough to try to break free from everything we know from mainstream FPS games and pave the way to a higher level of teamplay.</b>
Many of us assembled behind this mod because of its' goal of teamplay action, the level and manner in which it hs accomplished its' goal is debatable.
<b>The question I would like to ask is whether there are enough people who want and is determined to strive for a higher level of teamplay, or do we really just want general team deathmatch type gameplay with an NS theme.</b>
***<i>Remember, there is no better or worse, just what you <u>prefer</u>. <b>The goal of this thread is to determine whether there is a significant percentage of people who would go through the trials and tribulations* of balancing a teamplay game.</b></i>***
*Take into mind, for those proponents of a greater, deeper teamplay game... it will be lots of work. We are literally asking, can we get total strangers to work in cohesive teams on pub servers given the gameplay structure of NS is suited for teamwork to excel.
Will the FPS in the FPS/RTS alway be the dominant feature, or are we determined and innovative enough to strive for more? Discuss.
Comments
<!--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-->in terms of co-ordinated team maneouvers, covering fire, reconnaissance. Essentially making the game more militaristic and to a degree, more "realistic"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe Flayra could release a much more drastically altered teamplay beta version of 3.0... I would call it Natural-Selection:Combat Evolved.
Then NS would essentially have 3 betas running;
Natural-Selection: Combat (NS:C)
Natural-Selection (NS)
Natural-Selection: Combat Evoloved (NS:CE)
Make it quite clear that Combat Evolved is a <b>high level, uncompromising teamplay variation with very high expections</b>. This would give Flayra a place to try out really balance sensitive yet interesting features that might promote teamplay such as;
-Recoil Model
-No KB
-FF on
-No shooting and jumping at the same time
You could make minor tweaks to NS and NS:C just as you have, but NS:CE could host the major tweaks. Just a thought....
Marines on the other hand have the centralized commander and squad structure to emphasize the teaming strategic element. Marine actions should pass or fail depending on their strategic worth. One marine out on his own should have no chance when an ambush is waiting around a corner. A squad covering one another and watching corners should have a very good chance. Of late I see very little marine squads used, and I think this is because marines have been dumbed down to the point where it's not needed.
Make the marines the strategic team and the aliens the skill gamer team. Of late there's also much discussion of alien teamwork, as if they'd become the strategy team and the marines not so much. But without a central commander to focus the team or any way to give aliens waypoints, such a thing becomes impossible in public play.
concerning ns, well, it is starting to feel more like DoD or other valve owned mods. Perhaps it is it's overwhelming popularity that will be its downfall. I hope not.
Right now the winning team seems to be the one that can muster the people with the best aim, not the people with the best tactics. Maybe that should be changed.
It is a work in progress, but aren't we all. Good job Dev team - Ohh that I could program and learn to do what you do. Someday <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think that is a very interesting statement Pepe and one worth contemplating.
The mainstream FPS Team Deathmatch (TDM), even though it has "team" in its' description, is most rewarding for someone with greater reflex ability. The challenge lies in being faster and more accurate and when your team can be faster and more accurate then the other team tactics and stategy is less important. Pure skill is always required to overcome pure skill because superior tactics/stategy will never overcome pure skill. Don't get me wrong, tactics and strategy do come into play in competitive TDM but competitive or not, an individual with good enough pure skill can overcome tactics or strategy.
Skill will always be a factor, but as we explore the future of NS as a teamplay game we should not say;
"Skill SHOULD be more important then tactics and strategy."
or
"Tactics and strategy SHOULD be more important then skill."
Maybe what we are exploring is,
"Where does skill fit into the tactics and strategy of a teamplay game?"
The question I would like to ask is whether there are enough people who want and is determined to strive for a higher level of teamplay, or do we really just want general team deathmatch type gameplay with an NS theme.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coming to NS from TFC, the main attraction is the higher level of teamplay that's possible. I definitely enjoy games that are won by teamwork rather than reflex. The idea of splitting alien and marine style goals sounds reasonable although I've started playing aliens more since 3.0 and have noticed the necessity (and enjoyability) of team cohesiveness for aliens as well, especially in the early game.
So, count me among the folks who'd like to see a more demanding gamestyle. I'm skeptical of the idea of FF, though: it seems to punish the marines unnecessarily.
I've sketched out a <a href='http://robotrevolution.org/~joseph/gamestyles.gif' target='_blank'>quick diagram</a> with some references points that most readers are probably familiar with.
I wouldn't mind seeing NS:Classic shift a bit to the left. I tend to think realistic-ish physics models make games more immersive and engaging. But I also think NS is just fine on the twitch/planning axis.
If you ask me, NS should by default set sv_friendlyfire 1 on all servers. Let them disable it if they must, but it should be the default.
EDIT: OH and I almost forgot the best benefit, onos gore knockback through structures applies to friendly aliens too, which basically means the "3-onos-gang-rape-of-phase-gate-in-2-seconds" is no longer feasible because onos are knocked away from the original gorer.
FF is gooooood
Seriously though, I have always preferred games with realism, and I'd really like for players to have to worry about things like ff. I very much enjoyed the firing model in Rogue Spear, and I'd like for marine accuracy to reflect their actions.
I have thought for a long time that friendly fire would make that skulk ambush into a group of marines a lot more intense.
So yeah, I fall on the "realism" side of the line.
I'm all for improving the RTS parts of the game, but the FPS part must remain fun. I think the majority of NS players can live without bhop, knockback, and other obscure things that only veterans know of - it depends on whether Flayra wants to cater to casual FPS/RTS players or hardcore FPS players.
There are some areas where FPS and RTS do not conflict, especially in tactical gameplay. Tactical gameplay involves fast thinking, which is a combination of reflex and thought. Hand grenades are really good example of a feature that caters to tactical gameplay.
As a compromise, I suggest the strategy aspects of the game to be developed further, but the tactical aspects of the game must also be developed to satisfy veterans.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to be blunt. Trying to make NS more "realistic" and "engaging" by removing knockback is laughable.
You are simply changing of the game's balance towards aliens. That is all.
I think it would be great to have a new, more 'serious' game mode.
briDge, I don't see why onos shouldn't be allowed to teamwork with other aliens.
I think it would be great to have a new, more 'serious' game mode.
briDge, I don't see why onos shouldn't be allowed to teamwork with other aliens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, don't make fun of me for "failing to read the thread" when you in fact could not read my own post.
Look who I quoted buddy, then try thinking again.
Next, everything in here is just hot air/talk, come on, we can all say we want more "serious" gameplay, but the truth is no one has a freaking clue of what that is or how to acheive it in NS.
Also, even the games that are "realistic" like ravensheild, racing games, Sim City, etc. are both heavily favored to skilled players with faster reaction times and crap like that. Sim City affected by reaction times? Yes, try playing on a normal speed setting and no pauses.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but making NS more like a simulation isn't exactly what I'd want, nor do I think it's exactly feasible -
"Making the game more to simulate REAL SPACE BATTLES WITH MARINES AND ALIENS!!!1"
What the....?
This thread is a theoretical discussion of the direction we want NS to take, namely:
a) More twitch gamer style, where quick reflexes and aim are rewarded over all else
b) More strategy gamer style, where tactics and teamwork are more important
There. Pretty easy, eh? Note that nothing was included pertaining to 1 - knockback or 2 - realistic aliens vs. marines simulators. The first is a subcategory of the overall discussion. The second really doesn't have anything to do with it.
This thread is a theoretical discussion of the direction we want NS to take, namely:
a) More twitch gamer style, where quick reflexes and aim are rewarded over all else
b) More strategy gamer style, where tactics and teamwork are more important <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aim is more important in an FPS more than anything, for obvious reasons. Other than putting in an aimbot for everyone, I don't see how it's possible to make tatics and strategy become the number one thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, don't make fun of me for "failing to read the thread" when you in fact could not read my own post.
Look who I quoted buddy, then try thinking again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You quoted Fantasmo who quite obviously wasn't thinking of knockback SPECIFICALLY, it was just an example.
While you can't exactly have a "realistic" space sim since we humans haven't actually encountered such a situation, you can realism-ify(?) it by adding various things that WOULD happen in real life- as we know it.
This means that [example]while gravity on a spaceship might not be realistic(spaceship, not station, mind you.), it is what a player would expect to happen.
Recoil for weapons, where your gun flies up or whatever, would be <u>a realistic feature</u>, even in an unrealistic environment(spaec!). If a game has many realistic features, it should be called "realistic", even if in an non-real environment.
CS might not be a good example since it's not "real-realistic", just "fake-realistic", but the scenarios in CS- where ONE terrorist sits behind a box and waits for the last surviving counter-terrorist- don't happen in real life.
But, the handling of weapons SEEM realistic(unless you have actually fired a gun I suppose), so it is deemed a realistic game.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+,--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aim is more important in an FPS more than anything, for obvious reasons. Other than putting in an aimbot for everyone, I don't see how it's possible to make tatics and strategy become the number one thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you could have the "magic aura of boost" when near teammates for ex. And various rewards for superior tactics/strategies, instead of rewarding personal skill when you kill an enemy.
And no personal score on the board either.
A game where teambalancing puts people in a 2 to 1 ratio, where marines have twice as many players as aliens, but do less damage/are easily killed. That way individual marines would be worth poop, but together they are strong. Etc.
"Making the game more to simulate REAL SPACE BATTLES WITH MARINES AND ALIENS!!!1"
What the....?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In any work of fiction, you need to have a certain number of things which occur simply by fiat. That's what makes the story fiction. So, for example, in Orwell's 1984, we have:
1. By fiat, England becomes a totalitarian state.
...and the rest of the world stems from what would reasonably happen following that one critical change.
In, say, Star Wars, we have:
1. By fiat, a long time ago, in a distant galaxy, there was a war between a galactic empire and a rebel faction.
2. By fiat, certain people have special, super-human powers.
3. By fiat, space travel exists.
4. etc.
Thus we might reasonably consider 1984 to be more "realistic" than Star Ways, simply because we are required to believe fewer initial assumptions. However, 1984 is obviously not intended to ba a documentary on modern English politics.
Likewise, even in Star Wars, our ability to suspend disbelief is predicated on the list of assumptions being finite and not significantly at odds with our own understanding of the world. In places where fictional-world-behavior differs from real-world-behavior, we generally expect to be given some justification.
Being bitten by a dog doesn't normally send people flying 10-20 feet through the air. So the fact that this happens in NS is somewhat jarring, especially when there's no fictional-world explanation for why this might happen.
<!--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-->Trying to make NS more "realistic" and "engaging" by removing knockback is laughable.
You are simply changing of the game's balance towards aliens. That is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A couple versions back when the "Marine Bunny Hopping" (BH)* Issue was raging many, many BHing proponents (<i>weren't the majority of them Vets?</i>) screamed that the removal of BHing will remove the "skill" from the marine team and that they will be slaughtered wholesale without it. We seem to be getting along fine without it.
I don't want to get sidetracked, this thread isn't about KB there is already one for that.
*<i>BH for speed</i>
<b>Forlorn</b>
<!--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-->Next, everything in here is just hot air/talk, come on, we can all say we want more "serious" gameplay, but the truth is no one has a freaking clue of what that is or how to acheive it in NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because we don't know how to get from where we are to where we prefer to be, we shouldn't talk about it.
We speculate because that is what we are expected to do... this is the Beta Forum Thread. Every reasonable observation here will hopefully be considered by Flayra. These observations are basically changes we think will make the game more fun.
<b> Forlorn, we <i>ALL</i> want NS to be more fun.</b>
It's just we all have are own version of what is fun.
<b>Forlorn</b>
<!--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-->Also, even the games that are "realistic" like ravensheild, racing games, Sim City, etc. are both heavily favored to skilled players with faster reaction times and crap like that. Sim City affected by reaction times? Yes, try playing on a normal speed setting and no pauses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree.
All games involve reflex skill. The basic requirement for all computer games that utilize a mouse and keyboard is that you have to line up a point on the screen (ie. crosshairs, cursor) with your mouse and click it over a pixilated enemy/structure/button. The speed in which you can accomplish this task can be one of the factors involved in succeeding in games that involve a mouse and keyboard interface.
<b><i>But</i></b> that isn't really what we are talking about here Forlorn... it's kind of been assumed... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Forlorn</b>
<!--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-->I don't know about the rest of you guys, but making NS more like a simulation isn't exactly what I'd want, nor do I think it's exactly feasible -<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, you just being ridiculous here. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Name one person who posted they wanted NS to be more like a Simulation.
Maybe I should restate what I would like to know/discuss;
<b>Fantasmo</b>
<!--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-->Skill will always be a factor, but as we explore the future of NS as a teamplay game we should not say;
"Skill SHOULD be more important then tactics and strategy."
or
"Tactics and strategy SHOULD be more important then skill."
Maybe what we are exploring is,
"Where does skill fit into the tactics and strategy of a teamplay game?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that make it clear what we are talking about?
<b>BobTheJanitor</b>
<!--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 me simplify:
This thread is a theoretical discussion of the direction we want NS to take, namely:
a) More twitch gamer style, where quick reflexes and aim are rewarded over all else
b) More strategy gamer style, where tactics and teamwork are more important
There. Pretty easy, eh? Note that nothing was included pertaining to 1 - knockback or 2 - realistic aliens vs. marines simulators. The first is a subcategory of the overall discussion. The second really doesn't have anything to do with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bob does a good job at simplifying it here.
<b>Forlorn</b>
<!--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-->Aim is more important in an FPS more than anything, for obvious reasons. Other than putting in an aimbot for everyone, I don't see how it's possible to make tatics and strategy become the number one thing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b><i>Nobody</i></b> is asking it to be the number one thing (we'd just go play a pure RTS).
I think everyone else who has posted here has done so intelligently and I think they are all worth a read. Nobody I read indicated they wanted it to be the number one thing, more important maybe, but not number one. Quit putting words in their mouths, this is not the first time you have done this and it is plain disrespectful.
<i><b>!</b>PLEASE.READ.DA.POSTS<b>!</b></i>
If you think NS is fine the way it is say so. <b>Express your own opinion, not everyone elses.</b>
Don't go telling us <i>WHY</i> something won't work when <i>we haven't even quite established HOW</i> we want it to work.
EDiT: TyPoS
I wanted bhop out of the marine's gameplay and always will. Bhop for marine's was rediculous. Movement advantages and range should not be given to the same team. Not to mention you could bhop silently down a hallway moving at insane speeds was also retarded.
<!--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-->I totally agree.
All games involve reflex skill. The basic requirement for all computer games that utilize a mouse and keyboard is that you have to line up a point on the screen (ie. crosshairs, cursor) with your mouse and click it over a pixilated enemy/structure/button. The speed in which you can accomplish this task can be one of the factors involved in succeeding in games that involve a mouse and keyboard interface.
But that isn't really what we are talking about here Forlorn... it's kind of been assumed... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't even understand what I'm talking about, go re-read Deacon's post with <a href='http://robotrevolution.org/~joseph/gamestyles.gif' target='_blank'>this link.</a>
He hit the nail right on the head in terms of describing NS's gameplay.
<!--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-->I'm sorry, you just being ridiculous here.
Name one person who posted they wanted NS to be more like a Simulation.
Maybe I should restate what I would like to know/discuss;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it sounds rediculous, you still haven't read deacon's post nor looked at his diagram.
See, BoBTheJanitor said this:
<!--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-->This thread is a theoretical discussion of the direction we want NS to take, namely:
a) More twitch gamer style, where quick reflexes and aim are rewarded over all else
b) More strategy gamer style, where tactics and teamwork are more important<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To which I responded:
<!--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-->Aim is more important in an FPS more than anything, for obvious reasons. Other than putting in an aimbot for everyone, I don't see how it's possible to make tatics and strategy become the number one thing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm basically saying how is it possible to have a type b scenerio?
<!--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-->!PLEASE.READ.DA.POSTS! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After you, I would also appreciate it if you would figure out my implied meanings as well as my literal ones.
<!--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-->
In any work of fiction, you need to have a certain number of things which occur simply by fiat. That's what makes the story fiction. So, for example, in Orwell's 1984, we have:
1. By fiat, England becomes a totalitarian state.
...and the rest of the world stems from what would reasonably happen following that one critical change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In 1984, Orwell tells the reader England becomes a totalitarian state because of "socalism gone wrong".
Starwars is a fiat, agreed.
<!--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-->Well, you could have the "magic aura of boost" when near teammates for ex. And various rewards for superior tactics/strategies, instead of rewarding personal skill when you kill an enemy.
And no personal score on the board either.
A game where teambalancing puts people in a 2 to 1 ratio, where marines have twice as many players as aliens, but do less damage/are easily killed. That way individual marines would be worth poop, but together they are strong. Etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, marines together should be strong because of obvious reasons, like it is right now. Marines massed together = firepower++. Not because of some special aura, not only is this unintuitive but it's just weird.
Also, tell me <b>one</b> good reason why marines shouldn't be able to be by themselves without being a total weak little crap in the playing field. Contrary to what you may believe, but teamwork isn't going around on a map in a giant orgy with other teammates shooting skulks. Not only is being a weak piece of crap when you are alone not fun, but I still can't understand why lone marines shouldn't be not be strong, or should instantly lose. The way I see it, if an alien or marine wants to be by himself he should be very aware that he will be pitting his skill directly against someone else's. There shouldn't be numbers that inherantly tell the marine/skulk that he is 100% screwed. (Well, not in the early game anyways)
This thread claims to want to make NS better, but what does this entail of? I really like NS how it is now for the most part. A couple of things I wouldn't mind seeing in the actual balance of things, but as far as the theme goes I think NS is the best mix of teamplay/strategy/fpsskill I've seen in my entire life.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think some people in this thread are asserting that more realistic physics somehow implies more strategic gameplay. Which is sort of bizarre.
My gf is a regular Age of Wonders player. The game's trade, production and unit rules are designed to be unrealistic, but to also encourage lots of different strategies. In fact, the lack of realism specifically allows the designers to up the tactical complexity; IRL there are no teleportation gates.
Specifically regardng NS, I suspect more realistic physics would simply change the character of the game. We've seen this before in R6 and Ghost Recon. Instead of complaining about bunny hopping, people complain about players with excellent aim or good situational awareness.
Finally, as I've said before, I think the skill/strategy balance is peachy. IME, things which shift the balance toward strategy (like static defenses) tend to suck the fun out of the game.
The problem is not with the game itself. If more people actually paid attention to the atmosphere of the game, they would realise that they <i><b>really are</b></i> helpless against aliens alone, and the only way they can survive is by sticking together. The problem is people's attitude to NS - they play it like a game because that's what they are used to (they think that they are supposed to be some sort of unstoppable "hero"-like character which is fully capable of defeating an entire enemy team single-handedly, obviously not realistic - now that I've typed that it bears a striking resemblance to CS, which is supposed to be realistic. But I digress.)
I think that NS:Combat was probably meant to seperate the "twitch"-gamers from the "strategy"-gamers who presumably prefer NS Classic. If that <b><i>is</i></b> what it was supposed to be, I think that the numbers for each game mode need to be tweaked seperately, rather than trying to keep both game styles as similar as possible - mainly because they're not supposed to be similar in the first place.
I also think it would be nice to tweek NS:Classic and NS:Combat differently. Combat is more focused on player skill while Classic should be more focused on groups.
Some more realism in NS:Classic I thing would add a lot to the game. Realism is always nice but as a rule (unwritten rule) you should never sacrifice fun for realism. It doesn't matter if the game simulates reality exectly if it's no fun. I liked that diagram posted earlier. I think it explains things pretty well. I'm kinda rambling now but I think this discussion is going very well. It will be intresting to keep up on.
I myself prefer moving in an effective squad, but NO ONE knows how to do that. FF is probably not a good thing for normal NS, as people constantly run into your shots trying to get the kill or dodge. I mean, a squad of a marine with a shotgun at point covered with 3 LMGs could take anything down, but nooo, people have to go out alone and go killhunting. Currently, even I have no real fear of ramboing, as aliens have really lost their edge. It isn't hard to take a few skulks or gorges down, but then again I guess you do get better after playing since the 1st version. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Still, I would LOVE to see more tactics and squad based Marines and Aliens to be more skill and cooperative based. The various alien lifeforms all complement each other in some form, so they're basically ok I think.
That's getting a bit off topic, but like you said, aliens do complement each other to a degree that marines can't even dream of.
The only problem with that is that the CO maps are so much physically smaller. In NS maps, even with good teamwork it is often necessary to split up into small groups (twos and <i>gasp!</i> even ones), where in CO maps you will usually find yourself in a squad even without trying just because you only have like 2 different directions to go in. So you will have a difficult time trying to balance CO to be the "rambo version".
Now having established that NS (perhaps not Combat though) is in fact much more strategic than Quake 3, in which only reflexes and environmental awareness count, I will go out on a limb and assert that it is possible for it to have achieved what, according to my compressed argument above, it demonstrably HAS achieved. To summarize: NS has made FPS strategic, therefore it is possible to make FPS strategic. Moreover, this suggests to me that it would be possible to make NS MORE strategic, if only by awarding greater combat effectiveness to teams that spent more time and energy on map control, unit coordination, and build order.
There are a dozen games out there that do bland old team deathmatch, and many do it better than NS ever will because they have been developed on better engines with bigger teams over more hours. They are all however bland team deathmatch, which I personally have become bored with and frankly so has everyone I know. If NS tries to imitate them it will lose its appeal, but I have nothing against NS Combat provided NS Classic isn't neglected or shelved. I'm all for strategy, and I'm all for lone marines getting eaten like the dumb white meat they are, just as I am all for lone skulks charging into a prepared marine position getting killed stone motherless dead. The stupid SHOULD die, viva la Natural Selection.
The idea that marines play a more strategic team game than aliens and aliens play a more tactical squad game than marines is fine by me.
This thread is a theoretical discussion of the direction we want NS to take, namely:
a) More twitch gamer style, where quick reflexes and aim are rewarded over all else
b) More strategy gamer style, where tactics and teamwork are more important <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since "we" don't really have any say in where NS goes, it doesn't matter what "we" say. Unless one of the Higher Ups decides to drop in and discuss the matter (and actually be willing to acknowledge "our" opinion), this is a waste of space. :/
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This same topic was brought up during the 2.0 beta. People argued marines need to have incentive to stick together by some magical aura or making each marine weak individually. The counterargument was teamplay does not necessarily equal sticking together. Maybe you have a pressure team and you have the rest of your guys go on RT patrol solo because you want to get as many RTs at once while your attacking team is keeping them busy. This same idea is how alien teamplay works. And that is indisputable fact.
Anyway, this thread at first seemed like realism vs gameplay. And we all know that gameplay > realism. But seemed more like an excuse to remove knockback. Let me tell you this, removing knockback != realistic. In fact, when a fade swipes you should probably recoil back a little bit, but if we are going for absolute realism you should be dead. And if an onos gores you it would be more realistic that he knock you back 15 ft. So when the issue of knockback is brought up everybody is all of sudden all for realism.