<!--quoteo(post=1598136:date=Jan 12 2007, 06:02 PM:name=BCSeph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BCSeph @ Jan 12 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]1598136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> NS has the potential to be <i>far</i> more complicated than CS simply because of higher strategy content....many different routes, res warz, tech rushes, random hive, COMMANDAR, relocating...etc etc CS has so many pro people playing it that they have figured out every possible way to do things so it gets really competitive when choosing strategies...so you are right when you say it is because of the large playerbase CS has. But the fact of the matter is, NS has way more "elements" that can be put into a strategy. If only NS was still in the cal......meh hurray up with NS2 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No one has figured out "everything" for any game. I don't think that your statement applies to <i>anything</i> in life. Although map complexity and resources make for a more unique game, they don't really take a large part in anything other than in an opening (pistol round) tactic. Saying that a more complicated game yields more strategies is analogous to me saying that CS is already more strategy-adept because it has 10-fold the weapons that you have access to in NS (as a marine). Think about chess: it's a simple game with simple rules, but "the number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be between 10^43 and 10^50" [wikipedia].
You know what the "best strategy" was for this game when I played it competitively? Conquer the map by playing aggressively. Perhaps something better exists (albeit unlikely, given the architecture of the game and the marine team), but that's what NS is as far as we know. In a more developed and explored game like CS, individuals and teams have more options to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will be a young Einstein....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
--------- <!--quoteo(post=1598149:date=Jan 12 2007, 06:31 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Jan 12 2007, 06:31 PM) [snapback]1598149[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think you're confusing the word "complicated", with "difficult".
I have no comment on the difficulty. However I think you're confused if you're saying CS is complex.
Especially since competative CS only uses a handful of the availible equipment. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Once again, the parts of the game that are actually useful to the player is fairly irrelevant. Electrification is trash, turrets are mediocre trash, two of the chambers (this is currently in flux) are useless compared to the third, etc...
Basically, you guys (general players) have an incredibly distorted view of what goes on in a video game. e.g., What may seem like a toss-up battle inside a game to your "casual gamer" eyes is likely a battle that has already been decided long ago.
Everyone is susceptible to observational and human bias, but through experience, learning, trial-and-error, and research, more accurate results can be obtained.
CS is not complex by any means. The game rules are super simple and there are only people, guns, and a single objective (eg. bomb) to interact with - all done within just a few scant minutes. It doesn't even pass the turing test - people still play chess better than computers (save the last Big Blue win). No human can match a bot / cheater in an FPS. Face it, your local SWAT team isn't comprised of Mensa members, nor does it require it.
---
There are currently only 2 types of computer gameplay - yep, you heard me - 2. You can either outthink the enemy or outshoot the enemy and very few games rely on the former.
There lies the problem with fast paced games. The more you think, the worse you shoot. Why? Your brain has only 4 speeds/modes (5 if you include drug induced) and when you're "in the zone" you're in a non-thinking reactive state only 1 step above sleeping. For example, snipers at West Point train with neural feedback to teach themselves how to reach those lower "zen" Theta wave mental states.
Can you guess where I'm going? Yep, the dumber you are, the less thoughtful you are, the more likely you are to outshoot the enemy. Let's face it, FPSs heavily favor reflexes over thought and dumber players with better aim are still most likely to win. You may have even heard rumours of gamers taking drugs in CAL final matches 'cause he's so well aware of this fact (and he's posting in this thread) [hi dumb guy]. In the case of NS - boiling it all down - the base unit task is still just the ability to kill the enemy first. The slight advatange the marines have is they have a guy dedicated to thinking, not shooting, but he's still interupted by a mass flood of medial med/ammo drops and aiming them.
Wow guys, thanks for the CS vs NS thread, its really a thrilling read... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Can you move it somewhere else so we can carry on discussing the survey?
I think the most important thing to note from the survey is that people enjoy longer games. I've heard from all of the old school NS players I'm still in contact with that the long, epic battles are what they remember and loved about NS. I'm really glad the survey drew attention to this, as the drive for shorter games had (in my opinion) a very negative impact on NS.
I don't know any casual gamers who play online games such as NS / CS / DOD for 10-15 minutes at a time. Even the most casual of online gamers I know play at least for an hour at a time. (In other words I dont think many 10-15 minute casual gamers play online games...)
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1598130:date=Jan 12 2007, 06:41 PM:name=Jmmsbnd007)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jmmsbnd007 @ Jan 12 2007, 06:41 PM) [snapback]1598130[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Addendum: It would be a fair argument to make note that hundreds of true invite/professional teams have played CS against each other for years, driving complexity and innovation. This has not been the case for NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This, I think, sums it up in a way both sides should agree on. The CS metagame is far more complex than the NS metagame. CS is not inherently more complex.
<!--quoteo(post=1597867:date=Jan 12 2007, 03:30 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Jan 12 2007, 03:30 AM) [snapback]1597867[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I agree with your first sentence. I don't agree with your second sentence. What the hardcore audience likes/dislikes about NS is not necessarily the info you need to go forward. It could just as easily be the source of ideals and values that will keep NS2 from appealing to a wider audience. In no way am I saying that the survey is worthless. What I am saying is that parts of it, especially those where it seems that the players are agreeing with what you are thinking, may really not be in the best interests of the game. The danger with such surveys is that since the hardcore community has stuck with you for this long, they are more likely to agree with you and to promote group-think, which can be dangerous. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I meant is that while we have lots of ideas on how to broaden the appeal of the game, we don't want to alienate the hardcore audience in the process. So knowing what the hardcore players like about the game is pretty handy.
<!--quoteo(post=1598126:date=Jan 12 2007, 07:25 PM:name=Prefix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prefix @ Jan 12 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]1598126[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> NS is clearly more complicated than planting a bomb... Didnt mean offense, but did you know how to play NS when you first game? I know i didnt.
And in my mind cs is the perfect excample of a game where you just kill eachother, which is not what ns is about. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I acutally figured out NS quite quickly and joined the top team that first came out.
Because of our early aggressive play, it wasn't really necessary to learn all the quirks and top play strategies in that stage of the game because we would crush every team using the basic FPS skills we learned in counter strike as well as new FPS skills developed in the game itself. In fact if I was not a competitive CS player I probably would not have been able to find the dominant strategies (the two or three that exist today) as well as the skills necessary to execute said strategies.
Kills are extremely important in NS, more so than the humping of legs of teammates for the false sense of teamwork that so many players of NS subscribe to.
So, given that, what exactly is it that makes you the absolute authority of NS gameplay? TBH, the fact that you actually disagree that NS has more depth than CS, and somehow believe that CS has MORE, makes me wonder if you have ever even played the game. Or at least taken a second to think about it rather than where your crosshair is on the screen. But, like someone mentioned earlier, thats what 'twitch' FPS' do to people. And dude, I dont mean hard feelings by any of this. You began spouting off these insults, and quickly. If you think someone's opinion is wrong, try logically explaining why, rather than just... insulting them. Its a quick way to get an insult back.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, your notion of twitch FPS for counter strike is simply laughable. Its kind of disappointing that you played the game for so long and you obviously think that is true.
CS is mostly NOT about twitch reflexes, is about knowing where your enemy is via sound, common sense and intuition. "Twitch" as you call it is a rapid condition response technique (I see a threat, react appropriately to eliminate said threat). Simply put, twitch is a response without prior knowledge, or at the very least, very little knowledge of the enemy location. CS is simply not about that, games like Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half Life Deathmatch, and Half Life 2 deathmatch are typical games that require good twitch reflexes, due to the speed of the game.
I've had to do more "twitch" shots in NS than in CS. I've played both games at the highest level possible over the internet (Never went to a CPL, but played CAL I, CPL for NS was a joke) Because of the nature of the game, and the speed that the players move, there is rarely an opportunity to plan out how a conflict will end up in NS, there is more time in CS. There are times in CS that twitch reflexes are required for survival, but in top competitive play, its mostly about getting intitiative, and proper positioning. There are very few squad tactics that can be setup and executed in NS simply because of how quickly the game moves, and the lack of "Fear of Death".
The irony of calling Jmms a twitch FPS player is that he was one of the best NS players in the world at one point.
Also, implying that CS is less complex, there for a lot of CSers are incapable of learning NS is ignorant as well as incomplete for a few reasons.
1) You are implying that NS players are more intelligent on average, because NS is a more complex game and CS is not. This is an elitist attitude that often justifies the inferior numbers that NS has consistently put up against CS. The whole "My mod has fewer players, therefore we are more intelligent people than players from a larger community because of that rarity" mindset is severely flawed. A lot of dystopia players have that mindset, I guess they must be smarter than NS players because practically nobody players dystopia anymore.
2) You are ignoring the possibility that perhaps primarily CS players have downloaded the game and simply thought it didn't meet their standards. An OVERWHELMING majority of people who download NS do NOT play it anymore. I sincerely doubt its because they didn't have the intelligence to play the game, it simply just did not appeal to them.
I hope the survey helped. Now get working on NS2! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Anyways, the whole reason I brought up the complexity issue is simply because training new players to be merely decent at <strike>CS </strike> "Quake", is much easier than training them to be decent at NS.
Hell if I know about top level, But I'm talking about, "To the point that they can have fun on a pub"
Merely saying that you're going to need a lot more training resources to achieve that.
i didn't read every post but i'd like to make a suggestion regarding improving the learning curve of the game.
There should be a single-player training mode for marines with AI commander and background voice. The computer would give the player simple tasks such as get ammo, build IP, move to waypoint and weld a vent, find a hive, shoot a skulk, etc while explaining how to do it and why it needs to be done. This gradual introduction to buildings, building and alien life forms would be very helpful to new players.
I won't reply to your other (hilarious) post because I feel that FW and Ben did an adequate job of letting you know what was wrong with your argument. However, if you feel that you'd like me to explain my reasoning more in-depth, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-depth? how can you say otherwise? You literally lose the entire 3d aspect of the shooting game when you play CS, unless you're talking competitive CS, and only for the very few examples per map of actually useful boosting areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course we're talking about competitive CS. If we were talking about pub CS, most of the points made would be largely irrelevant because all (100%) players who play only in pubs are patently horrible at their respective game (and they're <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1" target="_blank">scrubs</a> too). Also, a team can boost into much weirder and unexpected areas than just boxes in CS, but this is starting to get irrelevant. You say that NS has more 3-Dimensional action than CS, but you also fail to realize that aiming in CS requires <i>pixel precision</i> and a high amount of control, whereas aiming in NS merely requires your crosshair to be near the target (thanks to the large cones of fire used in NS, any moron can achieve kills through sheer randomness). This randomness is <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><b>BAD</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-the twitch argument, you're right. There is the tactical layer of CS, and it is definitely different than NS. But you are still against the same thing that is against you. In CS, if you can kill the enemy, he can kill you. You have to 'twitch' to that headshot before he can 'twitch' to yours. That happens whether you both know each other's location, or both dont, or whatever. Marining has a lot of twitch, but its not just about kills. Its much more about positioning. CS positioning is about getting the next kill, or maybe assaulting/defending the one (or two in DE) critical areas of the map; NS positioning is about assaulting/defending ANY area of the map, because every inch of the map can become a critical area. The hives/ms are critical examples, every siege location is a slightly less critical example, the hundreds of tactical PG locations are even less critical examples, and the ~6 non-hive/ms res nodes are variable (but important in another aspect of the game).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, to paraphrase the first half of your paragraph, CS rewards the player with more skill. Gee, I wonder why CS is so popular! CS positioning is also about taking control of a part of the map. Are you not doing the same with a phasegate? You're making a direct comparison between two games with very different gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always thought that CS could really add some solid strategic layers if they allowed a form of respawning and created secondary objectives in their maps. Maybe thats the way of thinking about the divide. NS is mostly about strategy, with a good amount of tactical elements. CS has a bit more in the tactical department, but significantly less in strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seriously, your lack of knowledge on this subject is amusing at best. Once again, the current overall marine strategy (to my knowledge) in NS is to push and control the map. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. The current overall alien strategy (t.m.k.) is to push and control the map too! Several innovative tactics (like skulk rushing at the start of the round, basically a subset of pushing and controlling the map) have been developed over time, <b>but the basic gameplay is the same</b>. I should note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and other [successful] games also share this simple overall strategy (albeit with more options available to the teams and players on a tactical level) and it does a good job of pushing aim and teamwork to a player's and a team's limit.
One more thing that I'd like to point out about NS: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine your first two rounds were as a marine, and they had a pro fade ###### who just smited you instantly as soon as you left MS. Not uncommon, especially when you dont have the skill nor the knowledge of how to counter a fade. But countering a fade is a lot more dynamic than countering another marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One problem that you point out is that there's no way for an amazing player to kill, say, a terrible player that happens to be an onos (barring obvious extremes). In CS or DoD, a good player can kill the <u>entire</u> enemy team, but such is rarely the case in NS. Admittedly, the different style of NS (ranged vs melee) can "sort of" compensate or explain for this shortcoming (I'm not really sure). But ultimately, NS has built-in imbalances that end up not rewarding skill as much as other games. This is <b><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->BAD<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>.
Way to make the quote look like it was me who said it. Or do i smurf as Prefix?
CS takes a different kind of skill than NS. CS takes the precision to get headshots. NS takes the skill to keep the cursor no the target for rines, and... completely different skill as all classes of aliens.
This argument is getting tedious, and digressing from the original intent (which itself was a digression from the thread). The original intent was to argue against the notion that CS has more depth than NS. The round times alone should be a good enough indicator, as well as the actual real economics of NS compared to the craps-economics (not CRAP economics) of CS. The mix of 15+ set strategic AND tactical locations per NS map, not including the infinite number of additional locations chosen by the comm, vastly overshadows CS maps who only have ONE or TWO set strategic locations (cs_ and de_ respectively), with a few tactical chokepoints and... crates. And then theres the actual built-in gameplay elements that are so vastly different from not only CS but also each other, within NS. CS, when it comes down to it, is <u>still just shooting the other guy</u>.
I do agree with gumhat, but of course things get a lot more in-depth in competitive.
We all know that Stix's arguements are for the birds, back on topic to the survey results.
I agree with Emanon, the survey has a heavy sampling bias. I recommand asking either gamespy.com or any other gaming website to offer host a survey with the same questions you just asked. I guarentee the results will be no where near as significant as it was on the NS website.
In order for NS2 to be successful, its going to need more than the current NS players. Its going to need to apply to a whole new playerbase.
<!--quoteo(post=1598438:date=Jan 13 2007, 11:31 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 13 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]1598438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In order for NS2 to be successful, its going to need more than the current NS players. Its going to need to apply to a whole new playerbase.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tribes and PlanetSide for instance?
Yeah, silly me for thinking NS was more complex than CS...
NS2 will be successful enough with just the fact that it will be officially supported. If NS had ever made it into the My Games list, the playerbase would have blown up exponentially.
Ultimately, skill, is defined as "your reliability of performing difficult tasks" Just because they aren't the same tasks doesn't mean there isn't any difficulty involved.
Otherwise by your narrow definition, games like StarCraft for instance, would require no "skill" to compete at CAL level play. Which obviously is not true.
Perhaps the heart of that arguement is that you dislike relying on Teammates. Or dislike it that completing the objective is rewarded more than frags.
Also the skill in NS is not as similar as other FPS games. Why? Because the game starts on an uneven ground, as the marines typically have an early game advantage over the aliens. The balance can potentially shift to the alien's favor when they get higher lifeforms and a 2nd hive. Now the game has become a tech war, meaning skill/tactics is now second to firepower because of the amount of upgrades the aliens are privy to at the second hive.
Meaning the accuracy you do pull of in a full clip is minuscule to the upgrades and firepower that you have to kill the enemy in the mid and late game. The "Skill" is to abuse whatever early game advantage so that you can delay the enemy tech while at the same time, develop your own, because unlike other FPS, NS is never, if not rarely played on even ground.
NS is so full of teamwork right? But 1 player on the marines almost always, makes or breaks the game. That player is the commander, who directly influences the outcome based on aggression, tactical locations, upgrades, and soldier efficiency.
So the skill on the marines is directly influenced on the firepower and upgrades they have, and the skill of the aliens is related to how many hives they have. The more uneven the game, the less talent has to do with winning the game.
Basically, you want to substitute strategy with action, and you want to make shooting skills matter more than what lifeform you have. It should matter what weapon you use, against what lifeform. 1 marine should not be able to kill a fade with a lmg, period.
Comments
Simply follow the rule of thumb:
"If it's not part of the intended gameplay difficulty, then it shouldn't be difficult"
Setup, Training, References, Interfaces
All that should be made easy as possible.
NS has the potential to be <i>far</i> more complicated than CS simply because of higher strategy content....many different routes, res warz, tech rushes, random hive, COMMANDAR, relocating...etc etc
CS has so many pro people playing it that they have figured out every possible way to do things so it gets really competitive when choosing strategies...so you are right when you say it is because of the large playerbase CS has. But the fact of the matter is, NS has way more "elements" that can be put into a strategy. If only NS was still in the cal......meh hurray up with NS2
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one has figured out "everything" for any game. I don't think that your statement applies to <i>anything</i> in life. Although map complexity and resources make for a more unique game, they don't really take a large part in anything other than in an opening (pistol round) tactic. Saying that a more complicated game yields more strategies is analogous to me saying that CS is already more strategy-adept because it has 10-fold the weapons that you have access to in NS (as a marine). Think about chess: it's a simple game with simple rules, but "the number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be between 10^43 and 10^50" [wikipedia].
You know what the "best strategy" was for this game when I played it competitively? Conquer the map by playing aggressively. Perhaps something better exists (albeit unlikely, given the architecture of the game and the marine team), but that's what NS is as far as we know. In a more developed and explored game like CS, individuals and teams have more options to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will be a young Einstein....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
---------
<!--quoteo(post=1598149:date=Jan 12 2007, 06:31 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Jan 12 2007, 06:31 PM) [snapback]1598149[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think you're confusing the word "complicated", with "difficult".
I have no comment on the difficulty.
However I think you're confused if you're saying CS is complex.
Especially since competative CS only uses a handful of the availible equipment.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, the parts of the game that are actually useful to the player is fairly irrelevant. Electrification is trash, turrets are mediocre trash, two of the chambers (this is currently in flux) are useless compared to the third, etc...
Basically, you guys (general players) have an incredibly distorted view of what goes on in a video game.
e.g., What may seem like a toss-up battle inside a game to your "casual gamer" eyes is likely a battle that has already been decided long ago.
Everyone is susceptible to observational and human bias, but through experience, learning, trial-and-error, and research, more accurate results can be obtained.
---
There are currently only 2 types of computer gameplay - yep, you heard me - 2. You can either outthink the enemy or outshoot the enemy and very few games rely on the former.
There lies the problem with fast paced games. The more you think, the worse you shoot. Why? Your brain has only 4 speeds/modes (5 if you include drug induced) and when you're "in the zone" you're in a non-thinking reactive state only 1 step above sleeping. For example, snipers at West Point train with neural feedback to teach themselves how to reach those lower "zen" Theta wave mental states.
Can you guess where I'm going? Yep, the dumber you are, the less thoughtful you are, the more likely you are to outshoot the enemy. Let's face it, FPSs heavily favor reflexes over thought and dumber players with better aim are still most likely to win. You may have even heard rumours of gamers taking drugs in CAL final matches 'cause he's so well aware of this fact (and he's posting in this thread) [hi dumb guy]. In the case of NS - boiling it all down - the base unit task is still just the ability to kill the enemy first. The slight advatange the marines have is they have a guy dedicated to thinking, not shooting, but he's still interupted by a mass flood of medial med/ammo drops and aiming them.
Lets just say it, Isn't, and move on.
_
Anyways, that complexity poses a problem.
It's much harder to get people to wrap their head around Natural Selection
Without easy access to good training, you could quite easily lose players that would otherwise love the game.
Merely understanding the game enough to be decent at it shouldn't be difficult.
And if it is, then the devs are doing something wrong.
Can you move it somewhere else so we can carry on discussing the survey?
I think the most important thing to note from the survey is that people enjoy longer games. I've heard from all of the old school NS players I'm still in contact with that the long, epic battles are what they remember and loved about NS. I'm really glad the survey drew attention to this, as the drive for shorter games had (in my opinion) a very negative impact on NS.
I don't know any casual gamers who play online games such as NS / CS / DOD for 10-15 minutes at a time. Even the most casual of online gamers I know play at least for an hour at a time. (In other words I dont think many 10-15 minute casual gamers play online games...)
This, I think, sums it up in a way both sides should agree on. The CS metagame is far more complex than the NS metagame. CS is not inherently more complex.
I agree with your first sentence. I don't agree with your second sentence. What the hardcore audience likes/dislikes about NS is not necessarily the info you need to go forward. It could just as easily be the source of ideals and values that will keep NS2 from appealing to a wider audience. In no way am I saying that the survey is worthless. What I am saying is that parts of it, especially those where it seems that the players are agreeing with what you are thinking, may really not be in the best interests of the game. The danger with such surveys is that since the hardcore community has stuck with you for this long, they are more likely to agree with you and to promote group-think, which can be dangerous.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I meant is that while we have lots of ideas on how to broaden the appeal of the game, we don't want to alienate the hardcore audience in the process. So knowing what the hardcore players like about the game is pretty handy.
Max
NS is clearly more complicated than planting a bomb...
Didnt mean offense, but did you know how to play NS when you first game?
I know i didnt.
And in my mind cs is the perfect excample of a game where you just kill eachother, which is not what ns is about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I acutally figured out NS quite quickly and joined the top team that first came out.
Because of our early aggressive play, it wasn't really necessary to learn all the quirks and top play strategies in that stage of the game because we would crush every team using the basic FPS skills we learned in counter strike as well as new FPS skills developed in the game itself. In fact if I was not a competitive CS player I probably would not have been able to find the dominant strategies (the two or three that exist today) as well as the skills necessary to execute said strategies.
Kills are extremely important in NS, more so than the humping of legs of teammates for the false sense of teamwork that so many players of NS subscribe to.
Lots of stuff irrelevant to the point being made
So, given that, what exactly is it that makes you the absolute authority of NS gameplay? TBH, the fact that you actually disagree that NS has more depth than CS, and somehow believe that CS has MORE, makes me wonder if you have ever even played the game. Or at least taken a second to think about it rather than where your crosshair is on the screen. But, like someone mentioned earlier, thats what 'twitch' FPS' do to people.
And dude, I dont mean hard feelings by any of this. You began spouting off these insults, and quickly. If you think someone's opinion is wrong, try logically explaining why, rather than just... insulting them. Its a quick way to get an insult back.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, your notion of twitch FPS for counter strike is simply laughable. Its kind of disappointing that you played the game for so long and you obviously think that is true.
CS is mostly NOT about twitch reflexes, is about knowing where your enemy is via sound, common sense and intuition. "Twitch" as you call it is a rapid condition response technique (I see a threat, react appropriately to eliminate said threat). Simply put, twitch is a response without prior knowledge, or at the very least, very little knowledge of the enemy location. CS is simply not about that, games like Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half Life Deathmatch, and Half Life 2 deathmatch are typical games that require good twitch reflexes, due to the speed of the game.
I've had to do more "twitch" shots in NS than in CS. I've played both games at the highest level possible over the internet (Never went to a CPL, but played CAL I, CPL for NS was a joke) Because of the nature of the game, and the speed that the players move, there is rarely an opportunity to plan out how a conflict will end up in NS, there is more time in CS. There are times in CS that twitch reflexes are required for survival, but in top competitive play, its mostly about getting intitiative, and proper positioning. There are very few squad tactics that can be setup and executed in NS simply because of how quickly the game moves, and the lack of "Fear of Death".
The irony of calling Jmms a twitch FPS player is that he was one of the best NS players in the world at one point.
Also, implying that CS is less complex, there for a lot of CSers are incapable of learning NS is ignorant as well as incomplete for a few reasons.
1) You are implying that NS players are more intelligent on average, because NS is a more complex game and CS is not. This is an elitist attitude that often justifies the inferior numbers that NS has consistently put up against CS. The whole "My mod has fewer players, therefore we are more intelligent people than players from a larger community because of that rarity" mindset is severely flawed. A lot of dystopia players have that mindset, I guess they must be smarter than NS players because practically nobody players dystopia anymore.
2) You are ignoring the possibility that perhaps primarily CS players have downloaded the game and simply thought it didn't meet their standards. An OVERWHELMING majority of people who download NS do NOT play it anymore. I sincerely doubt its because they didn't have the intelligence to play the game, it simply just did not appeal to them.
Now get working on NS2! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Anyways, the whole reason I brought up the complexity issue is simply because training new players to be merely decent at <strike>CS </strike> "Quake", is much easier than training them to be decent at NS.
Hell if I know about top level,
But I'm talking about, "To the point that they can have fun on a pub"
Merely saying that you're going to need a lot more training resources to achieve that.
There should be a single-player training mode for marines with AI commander and background voice. The computer would give the player simple tasks such as get ammo, build IP, move to waypoint and weld a vent, find a hive, shoot a skulk, etc while explaining how to do it and why it needs to be done. This gradual introduction to buildings, building and alien life forms would be very helpful to new players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-depth? how can you say otherwise? You literally lose the entire 3d aspect of the shooting game when you play CS, unless you're talking competitive CS, and only for the very few examples per map of actually useful boosting areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we're talking about competitive CS. If we were talking about pub CS, most of the points made would be largely irrelevant because all (100%) players who play only in pubs are patently horrible at their respective game (and they're <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1" target="_blank">scrubs</a> too). Also, a team can boost into much weirder and unexpected areas than just boxes in CS, but this is starting to get irrelevant. You say that NS has more 3-Dimensional action than CS, but you also fail to realize that aiming in CS requires <i>pixel precision</i> and a high amount of control, whereas aiming in NS merely requires your crosshair to be near the target (thanks to the large cones of fire used in NS, any moron can achieve kills through sheer randomness). This randomness is <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><b>BAD</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-the twitch argument, you're right. There is the tactical layer of CS, and it is definitely different than NS. But you are still against the same thing that is against you. In CS, if you can kill the enemy, he can kill you. You have to 'twitch' to that headshot before he can 'twitch' to yours. That happens whether you both know each other's location, or both dont, or whatever. Marining has a lot of twitch, but its not just about kills. Its much more about positioning. CS positioning is about getting the next kill, or maybe assaulting/defending the one (or two in DE) critical areas of the map; NS positioning is about assaulting/defending ANY area of the map, because every inch of the map can become a critical area. The hives/ms are critical examples, every siege location is a slightly less critical example, the hundreds of tactical PG locations are even less critical examples, and the ~6 non-hive/ms res nodes are variable (but important in another aspect of the game).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, to paraphrase the first half of your paragraph, CS rewards the player with more skill. Gee, I wonder why CS is so popular! CS positioning is also about taking control of a part of the map. Are you not doing the same with a phasegate? You're making a direct comparison between two games with very different gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always thought that CS could really add some solid strategic layers if they allowed a form of respawning and created secondary objectives in their maps. Maybe thats the way of thinking about the divide. NS is mostly about strategy, with a good amount of tactical elements. CS has a bit more in the tactical department, but significantly less in strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, your lack of knowledge on this subject is amusing at best. Once again, the current overall marine strategy (to my knowledge) in NS is to push and control the map. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. The current overall alien strategy (t.m.k.) is to push and control the map too! Several innovative tactics (like skulk rushing at the start of the round, basically a subset of pushing and controlling the map) have been developed over time, <b>but the basic gameplay is the same</b>. I should note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and other [successful] games also share this simple overall strategy (albeit with more options available to the teams and players on a tactical level) and it does a good job of pushing aim and teamwork to a player's and a team's limit.
One more thing that I'd like to point out about NS:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine your first two rounds were as a marine, and they had a pro fade ###### who just smited you instantly as soon as you left MS. Not uncommon, especially when you dont have the skill nor the knowledge of how to counter a fade. But countering a fade is a lot more dynamic than countering another marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One problem that you point out is that there's no way for an amazing player to kill, say, a terrible player that happens to be an onos (barring obvious extremes). In CS or DoD, a good player can kill the <u>entire</u> enemy team, but such is rarely the case in NS. Admittedly, the different style of NS (ranged vs melee) can "sort of" compensate or explain for this shortcoming (I'm not really sure). But ultimately, NS has built-in imbalances that end up not rewarding skill as much as other games. This is <b><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->BAD<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>.
CS takes a different kind of skill than NS. CS takes the precision to get headshots. NS takes the skill to keep the cursor no the target for rines, and... completely different skill as all classes of aliens.
This argument is getting tedious, and digressing from the original intent (which itself was a digression from the thread). The original intent was to argue against the notion that CS has more depth than NS. The round times alone should be a good enough indicator, as well as the actual real economics of NS compared to the craps-economics (not CRAP economics) of CS. The mix of 15+ set strategic AND tactical locations per NS map, not including the infinite number of additional locations chosen by the comm, vastly overshadows CS maps who only have ONE or TWO set strategic locations (cs_ and de_ respectively), with a few tactical chokepoints and... crates. And then theres the actual built-in gameplay elements that are so vastly different from not only CS but also each other, within NS. CS, when it comes down to it, is <u>still just shooting the other guy</u>.
I do agree with gumhat, but of course things get a lot more in-depth in competitive.
I agree with Emanon, the survey has a heavy sampling bias. I recommand asking either gamespy.com or any other gaming website to offer host a survey with the same questions you just asked. I guarentee the results will be no where near as significant as it was on the NS website.
In order for NS2 to be successful, its going to need more than the current NS players. Its going to need to apply to a whole new playerbase.
In order for NS2 to be successful, its going to need more than the current NS players. Its going to need to apply to a whole new playerbase.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tribes and PlanetSide for instance?
NS2 will be successful enough with just the fact that it will be officially supported. If NS had ever made it into the My Games list, the playerbase would have blown up exponentially.
Just because they aren't the same tasks doesn't mean there isn't any difficulty involved.
Otherwise by your narrow definition, games like StarCraft for instance,
would require no "skill" to compete at CAL level play.
Which obviously is not true.
Perhaps the heart of that arguement is that you dislike relying on Teammates.
Or dislike it that completing the objective is rewarded more than frags.
Also the skill in NS is not as similar as other FPS games. Why? Because the game starts on an uneven ground, as the marines typically have an early game advantage over the aliens. The balance can potentially shift to the alien's favor when they get higher lifeforms and a 2nd hive. Now the game has become a tech war, meaning skill/tactics is now second to firepower because of the amount of upgrades the aliens are privy to at the second hive.
Meaning the accuracy you do pull of in a full clip is minuscule to the upgrades and firepower that you have to kill the enemy in the mid and late game. The "Skill" is to abuse whatever early game advantage so that you can delay the enemy tech while at the same time, develop your own, because unlike other FPS, NS is never, if not rarely played on even ground.
NS is so full of teamwork right? But 1 player on the marines almost always, makes or breaks the game. That player is the commander, who directly influences the outcome based on aggression, tactical locations, upgrades, and soldier efficiency.
So the skill on the marines is directly influenced on the firepower and upgrades they have, and the skill of the aliens is related to how many hives they have. The more uneven the game, the less talent has to do with winning the game.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->be nice - puzl<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->