Most habitual classic dod players are so conditioned to the way classic works that they couldn't play DoD:S if the changes were much more minor then they are. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that game developers shouldn't be trying to tie into conditioned markets, a conditioned market doesn't want something better, it wants something the same, it isn't worth marketing to if you develop games because real game developers don't develop to do things they have already done, they develop to do new and exciting things. If you rehash you don't have fun doing it and you make sloppy mistakes because there is no love of the project.
^ I'l agree with that, if all of mankind had the "dont fix what isnt broken" attitude, we would still be living in caves chasing animals with wooden clubs <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited September 2006
I dont think anyone is ever saying we dont have a new super duper cool NS2 game instead of a port, however that's alot more work, and if you ever read charlie's blogs, it seems he is struggling to get by the day. With 4/5 of the community gone, NS needs a quick salt water injection, and a port is a feasible option that can do just that.
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
<!--quoteo(post=1567561:date=Sep 23 2006, 10:09 AM:name=Epidemic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Epidemic @ Sep 23 2006, 10:09 AM) [snapback]1567561[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I dont think anyone is ever saying we dont have a new super duper cool NS2 game instead of a port, however that's alot more work, and if you ever read charlie's blogs, it seems he is struggling to get by the day. With 4/5 of the community gone, NS needs a quick salt water injection, and a port is a feasible option that can do just that. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really; once people see its the same game there going to leave just like they did with NS1.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Prettier graphics wont make people stay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread.
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
<!--quoteo(post=1567571:date=Sep 23 2006, 11:40 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Sep 23 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]1567571[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS:S has turned into NS2, which will now cost $$$ over steam.
Quote from swiftspear: There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Wrong. The NS players will migrate to NS:S because it is a new game, that a lot of players will hear about because upcoming HL2 mods are usually pretty popular among gamers. All current NS players know that NS isn't very popular anymore, and they will move to NS:S because it will be popular, direct port or otherwise.
Swiftspear, your points are valid, but only when you are talking about other games. The original DOD players had a choice to stay playing DOD instead of DOD:S, becuase it had a large playerbase. NS doesn't have a large playerbase, and it's popularity is the ONLY thing holding it back. It is easily CPL-material. The only thing NS needs is more players, and NS:S will provide that. No changes are needed. Even if only half of NS's current playerbase actually gets NS:S, the new players that arrive due to the popularity of Source mods will make up for that and much more.
Now if NS had thousands of players and was as popular as CS, then yes, something would have to be extra special about NS:S to make us switch over.
<!--quoteo(post=1567564:date=Sep 23 2006, 09:29 AM:name=WaterBoy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(WaterBoy @ Sep 23 2006, 09:29 AM) [snapback]1567564[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Not really; once people see its the same game there going to leave just like they did with NS1.
Prettier graphics wont make people stay. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. People left NS because it wasn't very popular, the NS forums died, and other reasons. Most of the players that I talk to who have quit NS say that still love the game and the community. NS:S would get most, if not ALL, of the current NS playerbase, most if not all of the players who have quit will come back to try it, and tons of new players who keep an eye out for HL2 mods. And steam has that update news crap that advertises all these crappy mods and games coming out like "popcap games" and stuff, so NS:S will be advertise to everyone who has steam (I could be wrong, not exactly sure how to steam advertisement works).
<!--quoteo(post=1567535:date=Sep 23 2006, 04:44 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Sep 23 2006, 04:44 AM) [snapback]1567535[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Players don't protect the sanctity of the game and want the best for it most of the time, players protect their own interests, and a players interests are buffing whatever they are best at while at the same time nerfing everything that they don't like getting countered with. There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Summary: Direct port = bad idea Partial port = terrible idea specific features = bad suggestion new game = where it's at <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got to be kidding me. The only players who want something nerfed and whatever they are good at buffed, are those pub nubs who play once a week and get mad because a bunny hopping skulk killed them because they can't aim. They think that there's something wrong with the skulk's ability to bunnyhop, and not their aim. The people who complain about this kind of stuff are generally pretty stupid, or aren't very serious gamers. If someone fails to realize that they shouldn't be trying to get things changed based around themselves, and instead attempt to change the game for the GAME's sake, their opinion can just be discarded.
Yes, you can migrate a community to a port without destroying the original, if the original is almost already destroyed, as it is in this case. Even if the original wasn't destroyed, the port is going to be much more successful, popular, and will be more actively updated (if not exclusively updated) causing players to move to the port.
All I do on aliens is straight fade, and I have never ONCE said to buff fades, or nerf shotguns. And yes, 1 shotgunner with med support can kill/nullify a fade. No one who takes this game seriously with a bit of intelligence want buffs/nerfs to benefit themselves. They do what they think is right for the game.
I fail to see how changing a game up simply because some players are growing bored of it has any logic whatsoever. If something is 100% perfect in every single way, yet some people start to grow tired of it, should you change it up with a chance of breaking it? Hell no. I am in no way saying NS is 100% perfect, this is just an analogy.
Take a look at Starcraft. I can't remember a single change aside from bug fixes in the last 5 years. (i'm most likely wrong) If the game is great, don't change it. If people get bored of it, say good bye to them. Don't hurt your product because players get bored. Blizzard was smart with their game. Instead of adding new units to Starcraft, which would most likely seriously upset the players who actually cared about the game, they made an expansion. Now is NS:S the expansion, or is NS:2 the expansion? I beleive if Flayra is smart, the latter will be true.
I've been playing NS for like 3 years now and still love it to death. I love it more than any other form of electronic entertainment, let alone game.
NS:S for CPL, please.
<!--quoteo(post=1567571:date=Sep 23 2006, 10:40 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Sep 23 2006, 10:40 AM) [snapback]1567571[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty graphics are a plus. People who don't care about graphics can turn them down. It's a nice bait to get new players.
Yeah, unfortunitely it seems Flayra has changed his mind and is going to be making NS:S NS:2.
Well, small changes doesn't necessarily mean a new game. I hope that what he means is that he wants to go beyond the simple port (HL1: Source style) and jump on the occasion to make the game better, mainly because there's not the same engine limitations anymore.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I think you're Starcraft analogy is pretty good MrMakaveli considering the logevity of the player base of NS is similar even if it isn't as popular. I'm pretty sure they made a change to spawning pools cost in the last patch(harder 6 pool, which was unnecessary in most high level players opinion) but your point is still quite valid; there have been hardly any balance change over the past 5 years and no addition of units.
I'm curious as to whether other people would like to see the addition of a co-op mode and/or single player?
I think NS is in dire need of a training mission.Most notably, one that would explain what to do. For example, explain that an armory is to replenish ammo, BUT that more often than not, you don't have to fill up your reserves, etc. Good commanding comes by experience, something that can't happen if a new player gets ejected every time he hops into the chair and gets confused by the interface. And you can't train commanding alone. A simple commanding tutorial would do wonders, even if all it does is giving tips on how to start (TFacs being a bad idea due to the res cost, why you need an IP and not an extra CC, how to set your base up effectively...)
Also, I' wonder how a Co-Op mode would work. After all, you are supposed to work as a team, and the opposing force is hopefully at least as smart as very good AI. I suppose what you mean would be a fight against all odds, but a fragfest is not what makes NS interesting. And if it's for a tactical aspect, the multi suits me just fine.
<!--quoteo(post=1567596:date=Sep 23 2006, 11:43 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cereal_KillR @ Sep 23 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]1567596[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think NS is in dire need of a training mission.Most notably, one that would explain what to do. For example, explain that an armory is to replenish ammo, BUT that more often than not, you don't have to fill up your reserves, etc.
Good commanding comes by experience, something that can't happen if a new player gets ejected every time he hops into the chair and gets confused by the interface. And you can't train commanding alone. A simple commanding tutorial would do wonders, even if all it does is giving tips on how to start (TFacs being a bad idea due to the res cost, why you need an IP and not an extra CC, how to set your base up effectively...) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely agree, this needs to go in. The marine training map that someone made was pretty good, but a training map that new players will never find doesn't do much good.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Well the benefit of a single player or co-op mode with only a few other players is training, and training that is actually fun. A lot of training maps can be, quite frankly boring. As a first introduction to NS it should be exciting and promote teamwork.
If the creator of that training map is still around, I would like to say he did a good job. However I did have a hard time getting my friends who I was trying to introduce to the game to actually play it through.
Mac: I love NS to death as well, but every time I play I want to throw my mouse through a wall. It's intensely frustrating that the functional game of NS is decided between 4-7 mintues. If the aliens get the second hive up, they win, if they do not, they do not win. NS slippery slides harder then any RTS game out there I know, and I've played many. The maddening thing is that it's entirely preventable too, it just requires NS to use the same counter slip that every RTS in existence uses. Unit/counter unit innate design.
As much as I love NS it's not perfectly designed, from an RTS fan's perspective it's really quite terribly designed. NS is an amazing game and it could still be made significantly better. I wouldn't be happy with a purely graphical upgrade to try to sucker more players into the game, NS needs more then that, otherwize we would have came much closer to matching the popularity of DoD and CS back in the high day for NS.
<!--quoteo(post=1567612:date=Sep 23 2006, 03:13 PM:name=Wyzcrak)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wyzcrak @ Sep 23 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]1567612[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I want the SPEEX voice codec. Is that possible? Can we make it possible? Somehow? Before NS:S (betas, even) happens? Please?
MILES is just awful. Really, really bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
server admins just need to set "voice_codec voice_speex" (or was it sv_voicecodec voice_speex ?). miles is the default setting, too bad most admins just leave it like that ...
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1567648:date=Sep 23 2006, 08:33 PM:name=Sprengi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sprengi @ Sep 23 2006, 08:33 PM) [snapback]1567648[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> server admins just need to set "voice_codec voice_speex" (or was it sv_voicecodec voice_speex ?). miles is the default setting, too bad most admins just leave it like that ... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's my understanding that Speex is not supported in the Source engine?
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
<!--quoteo(post=1567739:date=Sep 24 2006, 01:38 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Sep 24 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]1567739[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Im biased. Im going to stop playing games soon all-together and really want to see NS:S before I stop. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not likely.
Why are you stopping gaming? Going off to college or something?
<!--quoteo(post=1567337:date=Sep 22 2006, 11:25 AM:name=im_lost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(im_lost @ Sep 22 2006, 11:25 AM) [snapback]1567337[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Swiftspear, I was confused by Nadagast's post at first too. But after I thought about it a little bit, I realized he has a point. Binding +moveup to a key means having to use a separate key to move up as a skulk on a wall. You can move in the other directions without using any special keys. Apparently +moveup was part of the bind for the jump key, so the same key that would normally move up (jumping) could also be used for moving up when clinging to the wall. However, if jumping causes you to leave the wall, then you can't bind +moveup and jump to the same key and expect anything useful to come from it.
I've never used +moveup, and I haven't noticed the difference in being able to jump off walls, so I don't know which is better. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never used +jump on a wall, since it never worked well. +moveup is fun when you can snipe a marine with parasite and you just move up and keep on shooting because of adrenaline and he hits nill. I had it on my WASD Layout on Q, but today thats my VoiceKey.
<!--quoteo(post=1567403:date=Sep 22 2006, 08:47 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cereal_KillR @ Sep 22 2006, 08:47 PM) [snapback]1567403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I for one feel that strafing around on walls seems to be slower than walking straight alongside it, especially during the transition between +forward and strafe (probably my fingers' fault), and what I had in mind was to make wallrunning just as natural as walking on the ground by making every move the same, just as if you were on the ground but with your view sideways. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's because Wallwalk is "just" a Hack of the Ladder code. Do you remember the old behaviour when you looked up and pressed +forward to jump a few units up in the air? It came from this, so it got an additional Function to check for Player = OnFloor to disable wallwalk.
BTW--- I just noticed major similarities between the <i>Intelegent Design</i> Source Mod and NS.
BTW--- I just noticed major similarities between the <i>Intelegent Design</i> Source Mod and NS. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i just think its funny (any similarities between the two games aside) that if ID looks/wants to be the main source of compitition for NS they surely picked an appropriate name.
Intelligent Design being the complete theoritical opposition to the theory of Natural Selection.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Intelligent Design being the complete theoritical opposition to the theory of Natural Selection. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the intelligent design movement takes the findings of darwinism and uses non-scientific arguments to bend it to their needs. The ID movement hasn't produced a single scientific observation but instead tries to use science to prop up the conclusions they will always try to produce - that darwinism is really creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design is just a flimsy crackpot theory, Natural Selection is a science.
<!--quoteo(post=1567833:date=Sep 25 2006, 04:21 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Sep 25 2006, 04:21 AM) [snapback]1567833[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually, the intelligent design movement takes the findings of darwinism and uses non-scientific arguments to bend it to their needs. The ID movement hasn't produced a single scientific observation but instead tries to use science to prop up the conclusions they will always try to produce - that darwinism is really creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design is just a flimsy crackpot theory, Natural Selection is a science. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Natural selection isn't a creation theory, it's a theory of biological development, ID is a creation theory. They aren't opposite, they deal with totally different sciences, one is a history class theory and one is a biology class theory. Natural selection doesn't tell us anything about where things came from, it theorizes how biological entities work, and the fact of the matter is we really can't even objectively use fossil evidence to prove or disprove it anyways because we don't know what other factors resulted in the formation of those fossils.
By all means ID isn't objective, but it isn't supposed to be, it's just like any other historical theory, it's a guestimate at the way a historical event may or may not have taken place based on evidence that could really go either way. It's just like stonehenge, we'll never objectively know why whoever built it built it, but we can still study and theorize as to the purpose and reason, if anything we may learn more by barking down a tree, any tree, even if it proves to be wrong in the end.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited September 2006
That is incorrect swiftspear. The ID movement tries to present a view of darwinism that supports the existence of a designer. They talk about irreducible complexity, specified complexity and a fine-tuned universe as the three foundations of the ID theory. Do not confuse ID with Creationism, ID is a tool that creationists use to cloud the debate on Creationism vs Darwinism. ID is not about history, it is about the missuse of science as a tool against science itself. ID doesn't talk about history at all, it doesn't even talk about God. It tries to <b>prove</b> that the universe couldn't have happened by chance, using <b>only</b> scientific terminology. It is the narrow end of the wedge that the religious right are hoping to bring fundamentalism back into civic life.
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I'm hardly qualified to call others out onto the "you're going off topic" carpet, but might we take this academic stuff elsewhere (another thread, if not another forum)?
Comments
I dont think anyone is ever saying we dont have a new super duper cool NS2 game instead of a port, however that's alot more work, and if you ever read charlie's blogs, it seems he is struggling to get by the day. With 4/5 of the community gone, NS needs a quick salt water injection, and a port is a feasible option that can do just that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really; once people see its the same game there going to leave just like they did with NS1.
Prettier graphics wont make people stay.
True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread.
True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS:S has turned into NS2, which will now cost $$$ over steam.
There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Wrong. The NS players will migrate to NS:S because it is a new game, that a lot of players will hear about because upcoming HL2 mods are usually pretty popular among gamers. All current NS players know that NS isn't very popular anymore, and they will move to NS:S because it will be popular, direct port or otherwise.
Swiftspear, your points are valid, but only when you are talking about other games. The original DOD players had a choice to stay playing DOD instead of DOD:S, becuase it had a large playerbase. NS doesn't have a large playerbase, and it's popularity is the ONLY thing holding it back. It is easily CPL-material. The only thing NS needs is more players, and NS:S will provide that. No changes are needed. Even if only half of NS's current playerbase actually gets NS:S, the new players that arrive due to the popularity of Source mods will make up for that and much more.
Now if NS had thousands of players and was as popular as CS, then yes, something would have to be extra special about NS:S to make us switch over.
<!--quoteo(post=1567564:date=Sep 23 2006, 09:29 AM:name=WaterBoy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(WaterBoy @ Sep 23 2006, 09:29 AM) [snapback]1567564[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Not really; once people see its the same game there going to leave just like they did with NS1.
Prettier graphics wont make people stay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. People left NS because it wasn't very popular, the NS forums died, and other reasons. Most of the players that I talk to who have quit NS say that still love the game and the community. NS:S would get most, if not ALL, of the current NS playerbase, most if not all of the players who have quit will come back to try it, and tons of new players who keep an eye out for HL2 mods. And steam has that update news crap that advertises all these crappy mods and games coming out like "popcap games" and stuff, so NS:S will be advertise to everyone who has steam (I could be wrong, not exactly sure how to steam advertisement works).
Players don't protect the sanctity of the game and want the best for it most of the time, players protect their own interests, and a players interests are buffing whatever they are best at while at the same time nerfing everything that they don't like getting countered with. There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Summary: Direct port = bad idea
Partial port = terrible idea
specific features = bad suggestion
new game = where it's at
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got to be kidding me. The only players who want something nerfed and whatever they are good at buffed, are those pub nubs who play once a week and get mad because a bunny hopping skulk killed them because they can't aim. They think that there's something wrong with the skulk's ability to bunnyhop, and not their aim. The people who complain about this kind of stuff are generally pretty stupid, or aren't very serious gamers. If someone fails to realize that they shouldn't be trying to get things changed based around themselves, and instead attempt to change the game for the GAME's sake, their opinion can just be discarded.
Yes, you can migrate a community to a port without destroying the original, if the original is almost already destroyed, as it is in this case. Even if the original wasn't destroyed, the port is going to be much more successful, popular, and will be more actively updated (if not exclusively updated) causing players to move to the port.
All I do on aliens is straight fade, and I have never ONCE said to buff fades, or nerf shotguns. And yes, 1 shotgunner with med support can kill/nullify a fade. No one who takes this game seriously with a bit of intelligence want buffs/nerfs to benefit themselves. They do what they think is right for the game.
I fail to see how changing a game up simply because some players are growing bored of it has any logic whatsoever. If something is 100% perfect in every single way, yet some people start to grow tired of it, should you change it up with a chance of breaking it? Hell no. I am in no way saying NS is 100% perfect, this is just an analogy.
Take a look at Starcraft. I can't remember a single change aside from bug fixes in the last 5 years. (i'm most likely wrong) If the game is great, don't change it. If people get bored of it, say good bye to them. Don't hurt your product because players get bored. Blizzard was smart with their game. Instead of adding new units to Starcraft, which would most likely seriously upset the players who actually cared about the game, they made an expansion. Now is NS:S the expansion, or is NS:2 the expansion? I beleive if Flayra is smart, the latter will be true.
I've been playing NS for like 3 years now and still love it to death. I love it more than any other form of electronic entertainment, let alone game.
NS:S for CPL, please.
<!--quoteo(post=1567571:date=Sep 23 2006, 10:40 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Sep 23 2006, 10:40 AM) [snapback]1567571[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
True, the game play that people enjoy will make people stay. Prettier graphics will just attract more players, which is the goal. It has to be tough working on two new games. The intention of NS:S was not to be NS 2, but the response to this thread by Flayra makes me wonder if that has changed some.
In short, sure a brand new game would attract more players than a simple port, but I imagine TWO brand new in-depth games in any resonable amount of time would be next to impossible. This community will appreciate anything they get and complain about it at the same time and that's inevitable. I just Hope Flayra was able to get some good ideas out of this thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty graphics are a plus. People who don't care about graphics can turn them down. It's a nice bait to get new players.
Yeah, unfortunitely it seems Flayra has changed his mind and is going to be making NS:S NS:2.
I'm curious as to whether other people would like to see the addition of a co-op mode and/or single player?
Good commanding comes by experience, something that can't happen if a new player gets ejected every time he hops into the chair and gets confused by the interface. And you can't train commanding alone. A simple commanding tutorial would do wonders, even if all it does is giving tips on how to start (TFacs being a bad idea due to the res cost, why you need an IP and not an extra CC, how to set your base up effectively...)
Also, I' wonder how a Co-Op mode would work. After all, you are supposed to work as a team, and the opposing force is hopefully at least as smart as very good AI. I suppose what you mean would be a fight against all odds, but a fragfest is not what makes NS interesting. And if it's for a tactical aspect, the multi suits me just fine.
I think NS is in dire need of a training mission.Most notably, one that would explain what to do. For example, explain that an armory is to replenish ammo, BUT that more often than not, you don't have to fill up your reserves, etc.
Good commanding comes by experience, something that can't happen if a new player gets ejected every time he hops into the chair and gets confused by the interface. And you can't train commanding alone. A simple commanding tutorial would do wonders, even if all it does is giving tips on how to start (TFacs being a bad idea due to the res cost, why you need an IP and not an extra CC, how to set your base up effectively...)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely agree, this needs to go in. The marine training map that someone made was pretty good, but a training map that new players will never find doesn't do much good.
If the creator of that training map is still around, I would like to say he did a good job. However I did have a hard time getting my friends who I was trying to introduce to the game to actually play it through.
MILES is just awful. Really, really bad.
As much as I love NS it's not perfectly designed, from an RTS fan's perspective it's really quite terribly designed. NS is an amazing game and it could still be made significantly better. I wouldn't be happy with a purely graphical upgrade to try to sucker more players into the game, NS needs more then that, otherwize we would have came much closer to matching the popularity of DoD and CS back in the high day for NS.
I want the SPEEX voice codec. Is that possible? Can we make it possible? Somehow? Before NS:S (betas, even) happens? Please?
MILES is just awful. Really, really bad.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
server admins just need to set "voice_codec voice_speex" (or was it sv_voicecodec voice_speex ?).
miles is the default setting, too bad most admins just leave it like that ...
server admins just need to set "voice_codec voice_speex" (or was it sv_voicecodec voice_speex ?).
miles is the default setting, too bad most admins just leave it like that ...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's my understanding that Speex is not supported in the Source engine?
Im biased. Im going to stop playing games soon all-together and really want to see NS:S before I stop.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not likely.
Why are you stopping gaming? Going off to college or something?
Swiftspear, I was confused by Nadagast's post at first too. But after I thought about it a little bit, I realized he has a point. Binding +moveup to a key means having to use a separate key to move up as a skulk on a wall. You can move in the other directions without using any special keys. Apparently +moveup was part of the bind for the jump key, so the same key that would normally move up (jumping) could also be used for moving up when clinging to the wall. However, if jumping causes you to leave the wall, then you can't bind +moveup and jump to the same key and expect anything useful to come from it.
I've never used +moveup, and I haven't noticed the difference in being able to jump off walls, so I don't know which is better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never used +jump on a wall, since it never worked well.
+moveup is fun when you can snipe a marine with parasite and you just move up and keep on shooting because of adrenaline and he hits nill.
I had it on my WASD Layout on Q, but today thats my VoiceKey.
<!--quoteo(post=1567403:date=Sep 22 2006, 08:47 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cereal_KillR @ Sep 22 2006, 08:47 PM) [snapback]1567403[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I for one feel that strafing around on walls seems to be slower than walking straight alongside it, especially during the transition between +forward and strafe (probably my fingers' fault), and what I had in mind was to make wallrunning just as natural as walking on the ground by making every move the same, just as if you were on the ground but with your view sideways.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's because Wallwalk is "just" a Hack of the Ladder code. Do you remember the old behaviour when you looked up and pressed +forward to jump a few units up in the air? It came from this, so it got an additional Function to check for Player = OnFloor to disable wallwalk.
BTW--- I just noticed major similarities between the <i>Intelegent Design</i> Source Mod and NS.
BTW--- I just noticed major similarities between the <i>Intelegent Design</i> Source Mod and NS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i just think its funny (any similarities between the two games aside) that if ID looks/wants to be the main source of compitition for NS they surely picked an appropriate name.
Intelligent Design being the complete theoritical opposition to the theory of Natural Selection.
Intelligent Design being the complete theoritical opposition to the theory of Natural Selection.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the intelligent design movement takes the findings of darwinism and uses non-scientific arguments to bend it to their needs. The ID movement hasn't produced a single scientific observation but instead tries to use science to prop up the conclusions they will always try to produce - that darwinism is really creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design is just a flimsy crackpot theory, Natural Selection is a science.
Actually, the intelligent design movement takes the findings of darwinism and uses non-scientific arguments to bend it to their needs. The ID movement hasn't produced a single scientific observation but instead tries to use science to prop up the conclusions they will always try to produce - that darwinism is really creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design is just a flimsy crackpot theory, Natural Selection is a science.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural selection isn't a creation theory, it's a theory of biological development, ID is a creation theory. They aren't opposite, they deal with totally different sciences, one is a history class theory and one is a biology class theory. Natural selection doesn't tell us anything about where things came from, it theorizes how biological entities work, and the fact of the matter is we really can't even objectively use fossil evidence to prove or disprove it anyways because we don't know what other factors resulted in the formation of those fossils.
By all means ID isn't objective, but it isn't supposed to be, it's just like any other historical theory, it's a guestimate at the way a historical event may or may not have taken place based on evidence that could really go either way. It's just like stonehenge, we'll never objectively know why whoever built it built it, but we can still study and theorize as to the purpose and reason, if anything we may learn more by barking down a tree, any tree, even if it proves to be wrong in the end.