Quick Vs. Long Endgames
Maian
Join Date: 2003-02-27 Member: 14069Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Gold
Join Date: 2003-02-27 Member: 14069Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Gold
<div class="IPBDescription">poll</div> What would you prefer? Quick endgames or long endgames? Before answering, consider the following:
1) In order to have quick endgames, the game will likely end if one side has the advantage for just a couple minutes. That means that if the tide turns by some new tech, strat, or whatever, the winning team can finish the game up really fast. NS currently suffers from "slippery slope" - if you're losing even just by a bit, you're very likely to fall further and further behind. Even if NS has slippery slope, quick endgames can mask this issue, though such endings can be considered lame.
2) Right now, there are a few cases where quick endgames are possible. For marines, surprise attack on 2nd hive with shotguns, then quickly sweep up 1st hive. For aliens, onos destroys observatory and phase gate at main base while marines are attacking, then wrecks havoc and hope the comm doesn't get a successful/good relocate. Do you consider these strategies "good" or "lame"?
3) If NS were to have quicker endgames, it would need harder counters (JP counters onos better, sensories counter observatory better, etc.), or an alternate winning condition (like controlling all or one less than all RTs). Currently, some counters in NS are very hard, but some are also very soft. Some counters need to be fairly hard no matter what, especially seige weaponry and 3rd hive abilities.
4) Long endgames requires soft counters, which can be bad from the RTS perspective (too soft -> less strategy) but good from the FPS perspective (too hard -> less tactical and twitch skill). Soft counters could also partially help the slippery slope issue, since more advantages are required to assure victory.
5) One advantage of long endgames is that they can allow the possibility of epic comebacks, which were a highlight in early NS versions. However, the "slippery slope" issue has to be dealt with in this case. Besides soft counters, it should be very hard to achieve a "state of stability" - reach a point where you can easily counter any move the other team makes. An example would be the classic 2 hive lockdown and majority RT control with a complete phase gate network. There's really nothing an alien team can do at this point against a good marine team, yet the marines don't need to finish the game soon, leading to boring long endgames.
6) Shorter endgames could mean midgame no longer has to be rushed. This could lead to: tech and upgrades can take longer to research, reduce/remove RFK (which would also prevent really early fades/onos).
1) In order to have quick endgames, the game will likely end if one side has the advantage for just a couple minutes. That means that if the tide turns by some new tech, strat, or whatever, the winning team can finish the game up really fast. NS currently suffers from "slippery slope" - if you're losing even just by a bit, you're very likely to fall further and further behind. Even if NS has slippery slope, quick endgames can mask this issue, though such endings can be considered lame.
2) Right now, there are a few cases where quick endgames are possible. For marines, surprise attack on 2nd hive with shotguns, then quickly sweep up 1st hive. For aliens, onos destroys observatory and phase gate at main base while marines are attacking, then wrecks havoc and hope the comm doesn't get a successful/good relocate. Do you consider these strategies "good" or "lame"?
3) If NS were to have quicker endgames, it would need harder counters (JP counters onos better, sensories counter observatory better, etc.), or an alternate winning condition (like controlling all or one less than all RTs). Currently, some counters in NS are very hard, but some are also very soft. Some counters need to be fairly hard no matter what, especially seige weaponry and 3rd hive abilities.
4) Long endgames requires soft counters, which can be bad from the RTS perspective (too soft -> less strategy) but good from the FPS perspective (too hard -> less tactical and twitch skill). Soft counters could also partially help the slippery slope issue, since more advantages are required to assure victory.
5) One advantage of long endgames is that they can allow the possibility of epic comebacks, which were a highlight in early NS versions. However, the "slippery slope" issue has to be dealt with in this case. Besides soft counters, it should be very hard to achieve a "state of stability" - reach a point where you can easily counter any move the other team makes. An example would be the classic 2 hive lockdown and majority RT control with a complete phase gate network. There's really nothing an alien team can do at this point against a good marine team, yet the marines don't need to finish the game soon, leading to boring long endgames.
6) Shorter endgames could mean midgame no longer has to be rushed. This could lead to: tech and upgrades can take longer to research, reduce/remove RFK (which would also prevent really early fades/onos).
Comments
Quick endgames mean that once the winner has been decided, the game will end quickly.
Long endgames mean that once the winner has been decided, the game will take a long time to finish.
The way it is now, is that the endgames are really long, and the midgames are usually short. I prefer it that the midgames are really long and the endgames are really short. Once one side is reduced to 1 rt and stuck in base, it should end really quickly. Marines can end it quickly with sieges, but aliens have to spend 10 minutes killing everything.
There is? I didn't see it.
theclam, I wasn't giving a definition for endgame. I was just saying that harder counters is a way to make endgames quicker. And yes, I agree that NS could have longer midgames if it didn't have such long endgames (point #6).
So, in my long explination, it comes down to this.
<b>Long end-games are better.</b>
You keep pushing if you at least <i>think</i> that you have a chance.
The problem is, we can't even the hardcounter called 'ressources and territorial control' too much - or we'll end up making the game into a pointless TDM, instead of the highly objective driven mode we have now. However just a slight adjustment to the granularity of early and endgames would go a long way - it can't be performed though by people that think this is a matter of <b>balance</b>. Balance is per****tastitly fine, if not rather alienbiased. Its the slope of momentum that is sometimes angled too steeply, that instead of generating a strong interest in points of import it can produce a winner with little effort.
The most prominent example is the marine RT health problem. Next we come to the 2 Hive issue, or the Skulk vs Lerk vs Fade thingamajig. Lerks cost the marines alot of Res, Fades challenge their mapcontrol heavily (as do Oni, but they appear too rarely to be of import) - but marines stay largely the same with a few late-game jumps in efficiency (MT, JP, HA, boatloads of res - in that order time-wise). Don't get me wrong - asymetry is good, but well-hidden and carefully thought out there needs to a gap not too small to matter, but not too big that nothing else matters between the two teams at all times.
To say this is as simple a decision as "Do you like long games?" as the thread title suggests, is well... about as naive as posting a news announcement and expecting the positive feedback to be the loudest and most urgent.