<!--quoteo(post=1603464:date=Feb 1 2007, 10:50 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 1 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]1603464[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hrmm, could use a better cathphrase than trapdoor. One with more semantic recognition to gamers.
How about: "Glitch oriented gameplay" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds too much like exploiting >_>
<!--quoteo(post=1603560:date=Feb 2 2007, 03:38 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Feb 2 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]1603560[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Umm the best training comes from playing against players better than yourself and actually having the mindset that if you die YOU are responsible.
You learn quicker that way than playing against predictable bots or any sort of "solo training maps" (I don't even know what they are).
Playing against bots will just condition you to play worse against players that know that they are doing. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> However unless you haven't played an FPS before, aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS. Including situational awareness.
_
Now I will say, going straight to competative play can be useful But only if you have a friend with a lot of time on their hands to show you the ropes. And thats generally the exception to the rule.
As for solo training maps, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=8034377392879263744&showtopic=90930" target="_blank">More of these</a>, which are like the training maps found in TRIBES, would be ideal.
<!--quoteo(post=1603584:date=Feb 2 2007, 01:11 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 2 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]1603584[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> However unless you haven't played an FPS before, aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS. Including situational awareness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6286/tardwg7.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1603584:date=Feb 2 2007, 02:11 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 2 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]1603584[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> However unless you haven't played an FPS before, aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS. Including situational awareness.
_
Now I will say, going straight to competative play can be useful But only if you have a friend with a lot of time on their hands to show you the ropes. And thats generally the exception to the rule.
As for solo training maps, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=8034377392879263744&showtopic=90930" target="_blank">More of these</a>, which are like the training maps found in TRIBES, would be ideal. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I didn't have any special training when I went competitive, and I played for quite a few dominant teams. I didn't need anyone to show me the ropes, but then again when I started everyone was new. But so training maps against bots at the like are not going to teach you much about the game.
As far as tribes training maps went, that is the first FPS game I learned how to play with a keyboard and mouse. The jump levels were nice for learning how to move around and basic skills.
However, Tribes was a retail game, NS is a mod. The key difference being that a mod requires a host game or engine. Not many people buy HL skip it and go straight to NS. Most players have basic FPS experience before they start playing NS. While I'll agree that NS is unique with regards to the alien species, most basic FPS rules apply.
The problem with coming from previous games is that a player (especially non-competitive ones) develop bad habbits that drag down their abilities. That and a lot of players always have an excuse when they die to pad their bruised eEgos. These are more detremental than learning the percieved complexities of Natural Selection.
Spend time learning from mistakes and not making excuses, adjusting your mindset is significantly more important than whatever training map can be offered. But most players are weak-minded and won't bother to do that.
Most don't want to 'compete' like they do in real life--for jobs, for grades, etc. They just want to forget all that and frag a few people.
That said, ...
NS2 NEEDS TO MAKE ITSELF enjoyable from the first minute. Clean HUD, tips and tricks to guide new players to objectives that THEY need to participate in, and targets they can kill. If they join later than 3 minutes in, remind them to group up--get a partner--etc.
In Halo 2, all weapons are equal but some weapons are better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. You can still kill people w/ a weapon. In CS, you can kill another player w/ your pistol ...relatively easy. In NS it's almost impossible to kill a higher lifeform w/out decent guns.
My suggestion is to have an armory occasionally 'spit' out a good gun. :x. An AA spits out random higher quality guns occasionally. LOL. If the com wants to hand out more guns, that's great. But his team will still get "X" firepower for A armory. Make AA's cost more though. :x. And balance it by having a max of 2 armories spitting out guns (AA & regular). Max 1 AA, Max 1 regular armory spitting out guns at any time. This would take off some of the burden of pubs off BAD commanders that DONT hand out decent GUNS against pwnage higher life's :x. guns == life <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
<!--quoteo(post=1604057:date=Feb 5 2007, 02:54 PM:name=MasterPTG)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MasterPTG @ Feb 5 2007, 02:54 PM) [snapback]1604057[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Gamers just want to have fun. @-@
Most don't want to 'compete' like they do in real life--for jobs, for grades, etc. They just want to forget all that and frag a few people. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If thats the case then complaining about balance problems should be a non-issue, if they just want to connect and play the game, there is nothing wrong with that. However there is a problem when people want the game to be made easier because of their own lack of ability. The players who continue to exert maladaptive tendencies will always be at the mercy to those who don't. In turn they whine, rather than learn how to get better. However for those who truly just want to play, balance shouldn't be an issue at all. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That said, ...
NS2 NEEDS TO MAKE ITSELF enjoyable from the first minute. Clean HUD, tips and tricks to guide new players to objectives that THEY need to participate in, and targets they can kill. If they join later than 3 minutes in, remind them to group up--get a partner--etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This does not sound like a bad idea, but again sometimes its better to have players work alone.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Halo 2, all weapons are equal but some weapons are better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. You can still kill people w/ a weapon. In CS, you can kill another player w/ your pistol ...relatively easy. In NS it's almost impossible to kill a higher lifeform w/out decent guns. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the nature of the Quasi RTS/FPS known as Natural Selection. The RTS side creates a slippery slope, similar to that of starcraft. The only difference is in NS, human players make up the units that would be controlled by the player in starcraft. Sometimes the techs get so skewed, that one side feels like a group of firebats going against a group of guardians. That will never change in NS, unless of course they redo the way teching is done in the first place which I do not believe they will.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My suggestion is to have an armory occasionally 'spit' out a good gun. :x. An AA spits out random higher quality guns occasionally. LOL. If the com wants to hand out more guns, that's great. But his team will still get "X" firepower for A armory. Make AA's cost more though. :x. And balance it by having a max of 2 armories spitting out guns (AA & regular). Max 1 AA, Max 1 regular armory spitting out guns at any time. This would take off some of the burden of pubs off BAD commanders that DONT hand out decent GUNS against pwnage higher life's :x. guns == life <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So a game that is dominated by uncontrolable random variables that impede the balance so much that it can force players to quit a server, is supposed to be balanced by another uncontrollable variable? Hope UWE doesn't hire you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is the nature of the Quasi RTS/FPS known as Natural Selection. <b>The RTS side creates a slippery slope, similar to that of starcraft.</b> The only difference is in NS, human players make up the units that would be controlled by the player in starcraft. Sometimes the techs get so skewed, that one side feels like a group of firebats going against a group of guardians. That will never change in NS, unless of course they redo the way teching is done in the first place which I do not believe they will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Except that you don't get rewarded for a kill in Starcraft, other than eliminating the unit, instead of RFK... And that the kharaa play like the protoss in that once you are onos, you can't simply change "tech" into fade to fight jpers, unlike just dropping a spire and busting air units...
The specifics aren't the same but the end result is. Every battle in NS determines either favor or unfavor for a particular team. In starcraft any battle involves resources gained, lost or sustained, and in NS it is the same way. Every battle lost in NS and in SC makes it harder to succeed in the following battles, as the nature of the slope is progressive in BOTH games.
Its not like in counter strike, where to a degree there is a slope, but the other team still has a better chance to win the round better with inferior firepower due to the nature of the game. In NS and SC if you do not have the firepower now, it will be difficult (based on enemy aggression) to develop better tech than your enemy provided because of the way the resources are collected. In TFC this concept is non-existant because each side can choose what class to be at anytime.
Please if you are going analyze my post don't intend to insult my intelligence by point out the obvious differences of the game, next time try to figure out what common themes are between the two games before making almost condesending comparisons between formentioned games. Thanks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Losing a battle and suffering for it is plain common sense. If you have less units in chess, you are more inclined to lose. This is common sense. It's only when the game starts over that the balance is shifted in the middle again. So what else is obvious?
I would be careful about making analogies with CS. Just because a gun is more expensive does not mean it is "better" than another.
If you don't want to feel insulted, then simply don't. But if you are going to compare both games, you must do so accurately. There is a blatant fact that you seem to have missed and that is RFK. And the reason why it is significant is because it compounds even more advantages to the winner than would be without it. And this is important because NS battles don't end like starcrafts.
Starcraft units are designed to be balanced, while NS players aren't. Therefore, instead of requiring a group of tanks to beat dragoons, in NS, if the fade is skilled enough, he can slaughter a group of marines. Add that with the compounding nature of RFK and you've got lopsided games.
<!--quoteo(post=1604688:date=Feb 8 2007, 02:03 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 8 2007, 02:03 AM) [snapback]1604688[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Losing a battle and suffering for it is plain common sense. If you have less units in chess, you are more inclined to lose. This is common sense. It's only when the game starts over that the balance is shifted in the middle again. So what else is obvious?
I would be careful about making analogies with CS. Just because a gun is more expensive does not mean it is "better" than another.
If you don't want to feel insulted, then simply don't. But if you are going to compare both games, you must do so accurately. There is a blatant fact that you seem to have missed and that is RFK. And the reason why it is significant is because it compounds even more advantages to the winner than would be without it. And this is important because NS battles don't end like starcrafts.
Starcraft units are designed to be balanced, while NS players aren't. Therefore, instead of requiring a group of tanks to beat dragoons, in NS, if the fade is skilled enough, he can slaughter a group of marines. Add that with the compounding nature of RFK and you've got lopsided games.
So no, the end results aren't the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they are, because as I've said, every battle counts in NS as well as SC. If the marines have enough tech the greatest fade in the world will not be effective by himself. In ns when a battle is lost ground is usually gained by the victor. The same thing happens in starcraft. Whether they use that to their advantage is the up to the team/player. RFK contributes to the slippery slope, as well as in SC the units that are lost (all of their units cost money, unlike in NS) can put a significant financial burden on the loser of the battle. Just because they are not EXACTLY the same, does not mean they cannot be related. Again your trivial analysis, while amusing, is still incomplete and crude <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Clearly I cannot convince you of the parallels and commonalities of the games, so I will no longer attempt to do so.
As far as your CS reference in competitive play who ever wins the pistol round usually wins the next two or three based on the equipment they purchase, and how well the winning team survives (i.e. All 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1). Money management is the key to winning victory in the early rounds because the losing team will not be privy to the higher range, damage and accuracy of the rifle class. Therefore when I said the slippery slope kind of gets balanced, I meant so that in the middle stages of the game when both teams have similar access to the rifle class weapons, which are significantly better than the pistols, shotguns and submachine guns, due to their superior range, firepower and if used effectively, accuracy.
As far as pubs go, it is not important which round a player joins in, because players can quit and join so frequently there is no reason to bother balancing who has what weapon as due to the nature of the game, get kills with their starting weapon.
In NS it matters significantly when a player joins in as they playing field in never equal. They may join a team where no matter how skilled they are, in may not make a difference because of the slippery slope.
In CS if I join a game late I can still have an impact if I am skilled enough, in NS there comes a point of no victory, where as in CS that point does not exist until the round is over.
Competitive NS doesn't exist. And your example won't work with pubs. If the fade is good enough, not even level 3 hmgs will down him. And the problem with this example as well as yours is the determining of player skill...
Units in NS don't cost money? Holy crap, pass me some free HMGs when you com next time! Lets' all 0 res onos com chair rush right after!
Thanks for your opinions. They sure make you more credible.
Blah. The case is that pricier guns doesn't equal better performance. That's why the AK is one of the most dominant guns used in CS.
Erm, are you playing what 99% of NS players play? Pubs? One clanner joins and that throws a fairly even team balance out of whack. That one player may be enough to get an early middle hive lock down which the aliens may not recover.
Anyway, before your argument becomes pointless, RTS games are no more slippery than a game of paintball, counter-strike or whatever. However, these games can always seesaw back and forth, despite temporary gains. NS however, is clearly different as it rewards res in addition to the winner gaining territory. That alone makes shifting less frequent and players feel helpless as they are forced into the swing of power, unless of course, they are the players that are shifting the game because of their 25-3 scores as a marine or fade.
<!--quoteo(post=1605020:date=Feb 9 2007, 12:41 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 9 2007, 12:41 AM) [snapback]1605020[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Competitive NS doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> where did you get this piece of information from
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And your example won't work with pubs. If the fade is good enough, not even level 3 hmgs will down him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> obviously the level 3 hmgers will need to be good too. whats so bad about personal skill? or would you rather play ns with just bots
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units in NS don't cost money? Holy crap, pass me some free HMGs when you com next time! Lets' all 0 res onos com chair rush right after!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you spawn for free though. units dont cost money, equipment and upgrades do
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Erm, are you playing what 99% of NS players play? Pubs? One clanner joins and that throws a fairly even team balance out of whack. That one player may be enough to get an early middle hive lock down which the aliens may not recover.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
first of all, stop using made up statistics as a way to boost your argument. second, the teams are never even. third, that one clanner is not going to lock down the middle hive for you, he's smarter than that. please stop posting since you clearly know nothing of ns
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, before your argument becomes pointless, RTS games are no more slippery than a game of paintball, counter-strike or whatever. However, these games can always seesaw back and forth, despite temporary gains. NS however, is clearly different as it rewards res in addition to the winner gaining territory. That alone makes shifting less frequent and players feel helpless as they are forced into the swing of power, unless of course, they are the players that are shifting the game because of their 25-3 scores as a marine or fade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and that, believe it or not, appeals to some people. its exciting to know that if you screw up bad enough, youre done for. and have to try again. fast-paced rounds that leave little margin to error are the ideal; however ns does not work this way, especially not in 3.2. the slippery slope is much less slippery now.
The advantage of chess however is that if a player makes a significant mistake, the dominating player can end the game sooner rather than later.
In NS if one team makes a mistake that is unrecoverable there can be a 10, 15 or 20 minute downhill battle depending on how the other team that is winning reacts.
The same could hold true for chess, but the amount of time that would be spent would not be nearly as long.
Dying in NS isnt about giving the 1-3 rfk and just losing time. Its about everything. That marine will get to put up the rt; he'll get to move further into the map; he might get another node or even a pg. If the skulk had won the battle, he would have done the equivalent. Winning the little battles has a domino effect that we could never really know the extent of, first off because they happen constantly, and second because it would take post-game all-encompassing deep analysis to even speculate what that single kill meant.
Its actually the reasoning behind my Catpack rush strat that I use every now and then. Yeah, they're costly sons'a'b****es, but they -win battles-. Especially if you're careful with them. If your marines can get a decent amount of resnodes and you can make Cats with MT by 4mins or so, a good comm can ensure every marine goes into his battles with a bonus Damage 2.5 (though with smaller clip) and a goddamn speedhack lite.
Yes but losing a battle in chess is the same? you have less chance of winning the next battle depending on what unit you lost. And in ns you can get new fades, hives, rts or lerks giving you alot better chance off a comeback. I have seen aliens comeback after losing their hive all rts and their lerk while i doubt a chessplayer would have a chance of making a comeback after such a huge loss (dont know too much about chess so feel free to correct me).
<!--quoteo(post=1605129:date=Feb 9 2007, 12:52 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Feb 9 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]1605129[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes but losing a battle in chess is the same? you have less chance of winning the next battle depending on what unit you lost. And in ns you can get new fades, hives, rts or lerks giving you alot better chance off a comeback. I have seen aliens comeback after losing their hive all rts and their lerk while i doubt a chessplayer would have a chance of making a comeback after such a huge loss (dont know too much about chess so feel free to correct me). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But we're both competitive, and I am not doubting that you have seen that. But is that the exception, or the rule.
I would feel it is more common in competitive play because most public players would see losing all those assets as the formula for a lost game. I know teams I have played for came back from that as well as we have slaughtered teams who were down an about from those situations.
I'm not arguing that comebacks don't happen, they can happen in both games. I just say in NS there is no urgency for victory.
For example if we are playing chess and I get a leg up, then decide to toy with you, you could have a chance of coming back and beat my arrogance right back into my face.
In CS there is no point in the round due to how the weapons and gameplay work.
In NS once the dominant team is dominant, it is extremely difficult to have a come back when either team has dominance and beats the enemy back to their base. The dominant team can take as long or as little as they want to end the game.
In both chess and NS, the slope can become a 90 degree angle and go straight down. The only difference is in Chess it will take significantly less time to lose and start a new game, in NS if I am on the losing team, I often have to wait until the marines/aliens decide to finish the game, which can take 10, 15 or 20 minutes based on how experienced the leadership and players are on the other team.
If NS truly had no slippery slope, then the game would be entirely skill dependent. Unfortunately that is not the case. How many pro LMGers empty an entire clip of both their guns into an Onos just to have it chuckle and devour him.
If it were about skill, the LMGer should be able to beat the Onos. But it is not purely about skill, its also about tech. The tech is what causes the slippery slope.
<!--quoteo(post=1605076:date=Feb 9 2007, 05:25 AM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Feb 9 2007, 05:25 AM) [snapback]1605076[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> where did you get this piece of information from obviously the level 3 hmgers will need to be good too. whats so bad about personal skill? or would you rather play ns with just bots you spawn for free though. units dont cost money, equipment and upgrades do first of all, stop using made up statistics as a way to boost your argument. second, the teams are never even. third, that one clanner is not going to lock down the middle hive for you, he's smarter than that. please stop posting since you clearly know nothing of ns and that, believe it or not, appeals to some people. its exciting to know that if you screw up bad enough, youre done for. and have to try again. fast-paced rounds that leave little margin to error are the ideal; however ns does not work this way, especially not in 3.2. the slippery slope is much less slippery now. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't exist. At the state that it is in, if I were to call it "competitive", I could also call washing my dog, doing the laundry or watching TV "competitive". The latest posts in more than half of the competitive forums was made 2 years ago.
It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?
Units such as the onos DO in fact cost money. While it is true that skulks and marines are free, using only those units won't win the longer games.
Do you have a problem with my statistics? Tell me what you see when you click list servers on the steam menu. How many of these are "clan" servers? Tell me how many people are in pub servers versus clan ones?
No middle hive lockdowns? Erm, do you even play NS? Do you notice how there's always a mad rush to com core in eclipse for the marines?
The slippery slope doesn't exist in NS; it's a straight drop.
The point here is that if you make the game EASIER to play, that doesn't mean the game will not require skill. Chess takes no physical effort to play, but you wouldn't call that a skilless game. I've been hammering this point repeatedly now, but some people think that the definition of skill is how fast you can move your fingers. There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!
Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.
I feel like you're arguing for the sake of it when we both agree that NS has a slope, which doesn't prove anything at all.
So my problem is when we have 2-3 players who are extremely skilled that determine the slope and fate of the game at hand. And to narrow it down, it would be the fade and the marine positions that allow the player to do this. The game swings on the aim of the marine or the movement-slash skills of the fade.
And it's not the problem of these skilled players, the new players or the average ones. It's the design of the game that allows the potential of skilled players to be far and beyond his team, or the Kobe effect.
So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway.
If NS supposed to be more about strategy then why are you ###### about?
Again a false dichotomy is made by those who are submissive in game.
If the game was made easier more about mental skills, still the competitive players with skill would still win.
Part of being a skilled player is being intelligent with the most effective tactics and strategies. You talk as if those who are skilled are just twitchy (like how high school football players are physically buff), that is definately not the case. You seperate skill and intelligence, which is disappointing and reveals how much knowledge about the game you actually have. The whole "they have fast reflexes, therefore they are dumb" arguement just shows how ignorant you are. Just because you have inferior skills, does not mean you have superior intelligence.
dumbing down the game will not help even the skill gap. Just like in Starcraft if they made the game easier, people who micromanage will always defeat people who do not.
If you want a game that puts your mental skills to the test I recommend Supreme Commander, from what I hear its pure strategy.
It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?
The slippery slope doesn't exist in NS; it's a straight drop.
The point here is that if you make the game EASIER to play, that doesn't mean the game will not require skill. Chess takes no physical effort to play, but you wouldn't call that a skilless game. I've been hammering this point repeatedly now, but some people think that the definition of skill is how fast you can move your fingers. There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!
Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.
I feel like you're arguing for the sake of it when we both agree that NS has a slope, which doesn't prove anything at all.
So my problem is when we have 2-3 players who are extremely skilled that determine the slope and fate of the game at hand. And to narrow it down, it would be the fade and the marine positions that allow the player to do this. The game swings on the aim of the marine or the movement-slash skills of the fade.
And it's not the problem of these skilled players, the new players or the average ones. It's the design of the game that allows the potential of skilled players to be far and beyond his team, or the Kobe effect.
So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But what does RFK have to do with this, RFK contributes as much to the slippery slope as it takes away, yes if the marines kill 5 aliens and a restower they will get some extra res to keep pushing adding to the slippery slope but if the aliens kill them in the next encounter they will get some RFK and a chance to recover by using that RFK to rebuild a restower or go lerk whereas if RFK didnt exist theyd never get the chance to comeback.
With RFK the chance of winning the next battle is slightly lower but the reward greater and without RFK its the opposite.
Now the definition of slippery slope is that a lost battle gives you a harder time winning the next one so you could say RFK adds to the slippery slope but with or without it the chances of winning the game are the same.
And firewater it was more off a response to stixnstones than you.
Normally i dont like to piss on people's parades, but after spending a half hour gnawing my way through this topic, i felt i had to throw my 2 cents in with a couple of points:
that link to the "scrub" post was right on target.
I never made it to the high eschelons of clan play when i played ns competitivly, but i learned one thing on my way up and back down. for all games, there comes a point where a game reaches a certain level of popularity and attains, for lack of a better term, critical mass. it can then carry itself on under it's own weight and keep going. ut99 for example. A game's gotta be good enough to attract people in (which ns has) and keep at least 1 out of 3 people that pick up and play it. NS just did'nt (does'nt) have that. Will ns2? i hope so.
Gratz on perfecting dynamic infestation, max. looks the business. cant wait for more.
Also, first post in a long time on the NS forums. hi all.
<!--quoteo(post=1605184:date=Feb 9 2007, 05:14 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 9 2007, 05:14 PM) [snapback]1605184[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It doesn't exist. At the state that it is in, if I were to call it "competitive", I could also call washing my dog, doing the laundry or watching TV "competitive". The latest posts in more than half of the competitive forums was made 2 years ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> oh, so the last 5 seasons of ensl, all the night cups and minicups and world cups and what have you, as well as tons of pcw's played, none of that was anything but just public ns? okay then. as it is at this point quite obvious that you and i dont play the same game, i have to ask this: what game are you playing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> it seems that you are blind to see that a person can have both twitch skills and strategy. just because you dont see strategy whereever the ###### you play whatever the ###### you play, doesnt mean that the ns i play cant have both.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units such as the onos DO in fact cost money. While it is true that skulks and marines are free, using only those units won't win the longer games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> seriously. stop arguing about semantics. consider the onos as an upgrade since it only is a big fat skulk
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you have a problem with my statistics? Tell me what you see when you click list servers on the steam menu. How many of these are "clan" servers? Tell me how many people are in pub servers versus clan ones?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ok, now it seems that you ignore the fact that every clanner plays pubs whenever they cant find a scrim or pug
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No middle hive lockdowns? Erm, do you even play NS? Do you notice how there's always a mad rush to com core in eclipse for the marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> that's not a lockdown... it's done either to start up a spawncamp or kill the rt the aliens probably built there. if theres a pg and electrified turret factory with turrets in there after a few minutes then all i can say is, what a ###### server (and a ###### comm)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> theres something on your desk called a keyboard and mouse. you use those to solve problems that are related to skulks munching up your leg. guess what, it requires skill to solve them as well!
get it already; ns requires both wits and twitch skills. if you want to make the game easier then dumb it down by removing the thinking part. any idiot can learn how to shoot a skulk unless theyre physically challenged
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> the physical skills are required to exercise your mental skills to the fullest. you might be an awesome tactician at soccer but if you cant run then your capabilities are pretty much useless on the field.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> if you want to play the kind of ns where you need thinking, planning and cooperating, then start practicing because the only place youre going to find anything remotely like it are the "better" competetive teams. the problem isnt the game, the problem is that most people on your average pub are 13-16 year old kids.
<!--sizeo:6--><span style="font-size:24pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->###### slappped. <!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Well done, tmk.
To rehash what I said in another thread that was unfortunately locked, you cannot implement any strategy without FPS skills in the field to execute it. Even brain dead strategies like two hive lockdowns require some FPS ability in order to even get to the hive. Then the higher your FPS ability gets, the more complex but more efficient the strategies you can execute. You can remove reliance on static defense and play more offensive rounds where ones FPS ability matters and not where you hide behind your static defenses because you're incompetant. Where you can actually have an interesting match where strategy as well as FPS ability truely matter and where ultimately if you know what you're doing can win faster and more convincingly. Of course skill matters, if you're doing an early shotgun strategy you're not going to give it to your worst marine are you?! if you want an early lerk you don't choose the player who's not familiar with vertical movement, i imagine you'd like your fades to have some judgement about when to engage or for your gorges to gestate someone safe and not in the open to be gibbed. Christ, man.
Unless of course your strategy revolves around incompetance because it means longer and more <i>epic</i> games. Or perhaps you were just hoping blind luck would kill hives, lifeforms, resource towers, jetpacks, heavy armour?
Comments
which should be really part of ns source.
Might have been fixed now though..
Hrmm, could use a better cathphrase than trapdoor.
One with more semantic recognition to gamers.
How about: "Glitch oriented gameplay"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds too much like exploiting >_>
Except that CO doesn't really teach well.
Bot servers, and Solo Training Maps are much more effective.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm the best training comes from playing against players better than yourself and actually having the mindset that if you die YOU are responsible.
You learn quicker that way than playing against predictable bots or any sort of "solo training maps" (I don't even know what they are).
Playing against bots will just condition you to play worse against players that know that they are doing.
Umm the best training comes from playing against players better than yourself and actually having the mindset that if you die YOU are responsible.
You learn quicker that way than playing against predictable bots or any sort of "solo training maps" (I don't even know what they are).
Playing against bots will just condition you to play worse against players that know that they are doing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However unless you haven't played an FPS before,
aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS.
Including situational awareness.
_
Now I will say, going straight to competative play can be useful
But only if you have a friend with a lot of time on their hands to show you the ropes.
And thats generally the exception to the rule.
As for solo training maps,
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=8034377392879263744&showtopic=90930" target="_blank">More of these</a>, which are like the training maps found in TRIBES, would be ideal.
However unless you haven't played an FPS before,
aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS.
Including situational awareness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6286/tardwg7.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
However unless you haven't played an FPS before,
aiming isn't really something you need to learn.
It's all the other stuff you need to learn thats unique to NS.
Including situational awareness.
_
Now I will say, going straight to competative play can be useful
But only if you have a friend with a lot of time on their hands to show you the ropes.
And thats generally the exception to the rule.
As for solo training maps,
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=8034377392879263744&showtopic=90930" target="_blank">More of these</a>, which are like the training maps found in TRIBES, would be ideal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I didn't have any special training when I went competitive, and I played for quite a few dominant teams. I didn't need anyone to show me the ropes, but then again when I started everyone was new. But so training maps against bots at the like are not going to teach you much about the game.
As far as tribes training maps went, that is the first FPS game I learned how to play with a keyboard and mouse. The jump levels were nice for learning how to move around and basic skills.
However, Tribes was a retail game, NS is a mod. The key difference being that a mod requires a host game or engine. Not many people buy HL skip it and go straight to NS. Most players have basic FPS experience before they start playing NS. While I'll agree that NS is unique with regards to the alien species, most basic FPS rules apply.
The problem with coming from previous games is that a player (especially non-competitive ones) develop bad habbits that drag down their abilities. That and a lot of players always have an excuse when they die to pad their bruised eEgos. These are more detremental than learning the percieved complexities of Natural Selection.
Spend time learning from mistakes and not making excuses, adjusting your mindset is significantly more important than whatever training map can be offered. But most players are weak-minded and won't bother to do that.
Most don't want to 'compete' like they do in real life--for jobs, for grades, etc. They just want to forget all that and frag a few people.
That said, ...
NS2 NEEDS TO MAKE ITSELF enjoyable from the first minute. Clean HUD, tips and tricks to guide new players to objectives that THEY need to participate in, and targets they can kill. If they join later than 3 minutes in, remind them to group up--get a partner--etc.
In Halo 2, all weapons are equal but some weapons are better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. You can still kill people w/ a weapon.
In CS, you can kill another player w/ your pistol ...relatively easy.
In NS it's almost impossible to kill a higher lifeform w/out decent guns.
My suggestion is to have an armory occasionally 'spit' out a good gun. :x. An AA spits out random higher quality guns occasionally. LOL. If the com wants to hand out more guns, that's great. But his team will still get "X" firepower for A armory. Make AA's cost more though. :x. And balance it by having a max of 2 armories spitting out guns (AA & regular). Max 1 AA, Max 1 regular armory spitting out guns at any time. This would take off some of the burden of pubs off BAD commanders that DONT hand out decent GUNS against pwnage higher life's :x. guns == life <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
Gamers just want to have fun. @-@
Most don't want to 'compete' like they do in real life--for jobs, for grades, etc. They just want to forget all that and frag a few people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If thats the case then complaining about balance problems should be a non-issue, if they just want to connect and play the game, there is nothing wrong with that. However there is a problem when people want the game to be made easier because of their own lack of ability. The players who continue to exert maladaptive tendencies will always be at the mercy to those who don't. In turn they whine, rather than learn how to get better. However for those who truly just want to play, balance shouldn't be an issue at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
That said, ...
NS2 NEEDS TO MAKE ITSELF enjoyable from the first minute. Clean HUD, tips and tricks to guide new players to objectives that THEY need to participate in, and targets they can kill. If they join later than 3 minutes in, remind them to group up--get a partner--etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This does not sound like a bad idea, but again sometimes its better to have players work alone.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Halo 2, all weapons are equal but some weapons are better <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. You can still kill people w/ a weapon.
In CS, you can kill another player w/ your pistol ...relatively easy.
In NS it's almost impossible to kill a higher lifeform w/out decent guns.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the nature of the Quasi RTS/FPS known as Natural Selection. The RTS side creates a slippery slope, similar to that of starcraft. The only difference is in NS, human players make up the units that would be controlled by the player in starcraft. Sometimes the techs get so skewed, that one side feels like a group of firebats going against a group of guardians. That will never change in NS, unless of course they redo the way teching is done in the first place which I do not believe they will.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My suggestion is to have an armory occasionally 'spit' out a good gun. :x. An AA spits out random higher quality guns occasionally. LOL. If the com wants to hand out more guns, that's great. But his team will still get "X" firepower for A armory. Make AA's cost more though. :x. And balance it by having a max of 2 armories spitting out guns (AA & regular). Max 1 AA, Max 1 regular armory spitting out guns at any time. This would take off some of the burden of pubs off BAD commanders that DONT hand out decent GUNS against pwnage higher life's :x. guns == life <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So a game that is dominated by uncontrolable random variables that impede the balance so much that it can force players to quit a server, is supposed to be balanced by another uncontrollable variable? Hope UWE doesn't hire you.
Its not like in counter strike, where to a degree there is a slope, but the other team still has a better chance to win the round better with inferior firepower due to the nature of the game. In NS and SC if you do not have the firepower now, it will be difficult (based on enemy aggression) to develop better tech than your enemy provided because of the way the resources are collected. In TFC this concept is non-existant because each side can choose what class to be at anytime.
Please if you are going analyze my post don't intend to insult my intelligence by point out the obvious differences of the game, next time try to figure out what common themes are between the two games before making almost condesending comparisons between formentioned games. Thanks <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I would be careful about making analogies with CS. Just because a gun is more expensive does not mean it is "better" than another.
If you don't want to feel insulted, then simply don't. But if you are going to compare both games, you must do so accurately. There is a blatant fact that you seem to have missed and that is RFK. And the reason why it is significant is because it compounds even more advantages to the winner than would be without it. And this is important because NS battles don't end like starcrafts.
Starcraft units are designed to be balanced, while NS players aren't. Therefore, instead of requiring a group of tanks to beat dragoons, in NS, if the fade is skilled enough, he can slaughter a group of marines. Add that with the compounding nature of RFK and you've got lopsided games.
So no, the end results aren't the same.
Losing a battle and suffering for it is plain common sense. If you have less units in chess, you are more inclined to lose. This is common sense. It's only when the game starts over that the balance is shifted in the middle again. So what else is obvious?
I would be careful about making analogies with CS. Just because a gun is more expensive does not mean it is "better" than another.
If you don't want to feel insulted, then simply don't. But if you are going to compare both games, you must do so accurately. There is a blatant fact that you seem to have missed and that is RFK. And the reason why it is significant is because it compounds even more advantages to the winner than would be without it. And this is important because NS battles don't end like starcrafts.
Starcraft units are designed to be balanced, while NS players aren't. Therefore, instead of requiring a group of tanks to beat dragoons, in NS, if the fade is skilled enough, he can slaughter a group of marines. Add that with the compounding nature of RFK and you've got lopsided games.
So no, the end results aren't the same.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they are, because as I've said, every battle counts in NS as well as SC. If the marines have enough tech the greatest fade in the world will not be effective by himself. In ns when a battle is lost ground is usually gained by the victor. The same thing happens in starcraft. Whether they use that to their advantage is the up to the team/player. RFK contributes to the slippery slope, as well as in SC the units that are lost (all of their units cost money, unlike in NS) can put a significant financial burden on the loser of the battle. Just because they are not EXACTLY the same, does not mean they cannot be related. Again your trivial analysis, while amusing, is still incomplete and crude <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Clearly I cannot convince you of the parallels and commonalities of the games, so I will no longer attempt to do so.
As far as your CS reference in competitive play who ever wins the pistol round usually wins the next two or three based on the equipment they purchase, and how well the winning team survives (i.e. All 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1). Money management is the key to winning victory in the early rounds because the losing team will not be privy to the higher range, damage and accuracy of the rifle class. Therefore when I said the slippery slope kind of gets balanced, I meant so that in the middle stages of the game when both teams have similar access to the rifle class weapons, which are significantly better than the pistols, shotguns and submachine guns, due to their superior range, firepower and if used effectively, accuracy.
As far as pubs go, it is not important which round a player joins in, because players can quit and join so frequently there is no reason to bother balancing who has what weapon as due to the nature of the game, get kills with their starting weapon.
In NS it matters significantly when a player joins in as they playing field in never equal. They may join a team where no matter how skilled they are, in may not make a difference because of the slippery slope.
In CS if I join a game late I can still have an impact if I am skilled enough, in NS there comes a point of no victory, where as in CS that point does not exist until the round is over.
Units in NS don't cost money? Holy crap, pass me some free HMGs when you com next time! Lets' all 0 res onos com chair rush right after!
Thanks for your opinions. They sure make you more credible.
Blah. The case is that pricier guns doesn't equal better performance. That's why the AK is one of the most dominant guns used in CS.
Erm, are you playing what 99% of NS players play? Pubs? One clanner joins and that throws a fairly even team balance out of whack. That one player may be enough to get an early middle hive lock down which the aliens may not recover.
Anyway, before your argument becomes pointless, RTS games are no more slippery than a game of paintball, counter-strike or whatever. However, these games can always seesaw back and forth, despite temporary gains. NS however, is clearly different as it rewards res in addition to the winner gaining territory. That alone makes shifting less frequent and players feel helpless as they are forced into the swing of power, unless of course, they are the players that are shifting the game because of their 25-3 scores as a marine or fade.
Competitive NS doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
where did you get this piece of information from
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And your example won't work with pubs. If the fade is good enough, not even level 3 hmgs will down him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
obviously the level 3 hmgers will need to be good too. whats so bad about personal skill? or would you rather play ns with just bots
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units in NS don't cost money? Holy crap, pass me some free HMGs when you com next time! Lets' all 0 res onos com chair rush right after!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you spawn for free though. units dont cost money, equipment and upgrades do
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Erm, are you playing what 99% of NS players play? Pubs? One clanner joins and that throws a fairly even team balance out of whack. That one player may be enough to get an early middle hive lock down which the aliens may not recover.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
first of all, stop using made up statistics as a way to boost your argument. second, the teams are never even. third, that one clanner is not going to lock down the middle hive for you, he's smarter than that. please stop posting since you clearly know nothing of ns
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, before your argument becomes pointless, RTS games are no more slippery than a game of paintball, counter-strike or whatever. However, these games can always seesaw back and forth, despite temporary gains. NS however, is clearly different as it rewards res in addition to the winner gaining territory. That alone makes shifting less frequent and players feel helpless as they are forced into the swing of power, unless of course, they are the players that are shifting the game because of their 25-3 scores as a marine or fade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and that, believe it or not, appeals to some people. its exciting to know that if you screw up bad enough, youre done for. and have to try again. fast-paced rounds that leave little margin to error are the ideal; however ns does not work this way, especially not in 3.2. the slippery slope is much less slippery now.
In NS if one team makes a mistake that is unrecoverable there can be a 10, 15 or 20 minute downhill battle depending on how the other team that is winning reacts.
The same could hold true for chess, but the amount of time that would be spent would not be nearly as long.
Its actually the reasoning behind my Catpack rush strat that I use every now and then. Yeah, they're costly sons'a'b****es, but they -win battles-. Especially if you're careful with them. If your marines can get a decent amount of resnodes and you can make Cats with MT by 4mins or so, a good comm can ensure every marine goes into his battles with a bonus Damage 2.5 (though with smaller clip) and a goddamn speedhack lite.
And in ns you can get new fades, hives, rts or lerks giving you alot better chance off a comeback.
I have seen aliens comeback after losing their hive all rts and their lerk while i doubt a chessplayer would have a chance of making a comeback after such a huge loss (dont know too much about chess so feel free to correct me).
Yes but losing a battle in chess is the same? you have less chance of winning the next battle depending on what unit you lost.
And in ns you can get new fades, hives, rts or lerks giving you alot better chance off a comeback.
I have seen aliens comeback after losing their hive all rts and their lerk while i doubt a chessplayer would have a chance of making a comeback after such a huge loss (dont know too much about chess so feel free to correct me).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But we're both competitive, and I am not doubting that you have seen that. But is that the exception, or the rule.
I would feel it is more common in competitive play because most public players would see losing all those assets as the formula for a lost game. I know teams I have played for came back from that as well as we have slaughtered teams who were down an about from those situations.
I'm not arguing that comebacks don't happen, they can happen in both games. I just say in NS there is no urgency for victory.
For example if we are playing chess and I get a leg up, then decide to toy with you, you could have a chance of coming back and beat my arrogance right back into my face.
In CS there is no point in the round due to how the weapons and gameplay work.
In NS once the dominant team is dominant, it is extremely difficult to have a come back when either team has dominance and beats the enemy back to their base. The dominant team can take as long or as little as they want to end the game.
In both chess and NS, the slope can become a 90 degree angle and go straight down. The only difference is in Chess it will take significantly less time to lose and start a new game, in NS if I am on the losing team, I often have to wait until the marines/aliens decide to finish the game, which can take 10, 15 or 20 minutes based on how experienced the leadership and players are on the other team.
If NS truly had no slippery slope, then the game would be entirely skill dependent. Unfortunately that is not the case. How many pro LMGers empty an entire clip of both their guns into an Onos just to have it chuckle and devour him.
If it were about skill, the LMGer should be able to beat the Onos. But it is not purely about skill, its also about tech. The tech is what causes the slippery slope.
where did you get this piece of information from
obviously the level 3 hmgers will need to be good too. whats so bad about personal skill? or would you rather play ns with just bots
you spawn for free though. units dont cost money, equipment and upgrades do
first of all, stop using made up statistics as a way to boost your argument. second, the teams are never even. third, that one clanner is not going to lock down the middle hive for you, he's smarter than that. please stop posting since you clearly know nothing of ns
and that, believe it or not, appeals to some people. its exciting to know that if you screw up bad enough, youre done for. and have to try again. fast-paced rounds that leave little margin to error are the ideal; however ns does not work this way, especially not in 3.2. the slippery slope is much less slippery now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't exist. At the state that it is in, if I were to call it "competitive", I could also call washing my dog, doing the laundry or watching TV "competitive". The latest posts in more than half of the competitive forums was made 2 years ago.
It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?
Units such as the onos DO in fact cost money. While it is true that skulks and marines are free, using only those units won't win the longer games.
Do you have a problem with my statistics? Tell me what you see when you click list servers on the steam menu. How many of these are "clan" servers? Tell me how many people are in pub servers versus clan ones?
No middle hive lockdowns? Erm, do you even play NS? Do you notice how there's always a mad rush to com core in eclipse for the marines?
The slippery slope doesn't exist in NS; it's a straight drop.
The point here is that if you make the game EASIER to play, that doesn't mean the game will not require skill. Chess takes no physical effort to play, but you wouldn't call that a skilless game. I've been hammering this point repeatedly now, but some people think that the definition of skill is how fast you can move your fingers. There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!
Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.
I feel like you're arguing for the sake of it when we both agree that NS has a slope, which doesn't prove anything at all.
So my problem is when we have 2-3 players who are extremely skilled that determine the slope and fate of the game at hand. And to narrow it down, it would be the fade and the marine positions that allow the player to do this. The game swings on the aim of the marine or the movement-slash skills of the fade.
And it's not the problem of these skilled players, the new players or the average ones. It's the design of the game that allows the potential of skilled players to be far and beyond his team, or the Kobe effect.
So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway.
Again a false dichotomy is made by those who are submissive in game.
If the game was made easier more about mental skills, still the competitive players with skill would still win.
Part of being a skilled player is being intelligent with the most effective tactics and strategies. You talk as if those who are skilled are just twitchy (like how high school football players are physically buff), that is definately not the case. You seperate skill and intelligence, which is disappointing and reveals how much knowledge about the game you actually have. The whole "they have fast reflexes, therefore they are dumb" arguement just shows how ignorant you are. Just because you have inferior skills, does not mean you have superior intelligence.
dumbing down the game will not help even the skill gap. Just like in Starcraft if they made the game easier, people who micromanage will always defeat people who do not.
If you want a game that puts your mental skills to the test I recommend Supreme Commander, from what I hear its pure strategy.
It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?
The slippery slope doesn't exist in NS; it's a straight drop.
The point here is that if you make the game EASIER to play, that doesn't mean the game will not require skill. Chess takes no physical effort to play, but you wouldn't call that a skilless game. I've been hammering this point repeatedly now, but some people think that the definition of skill is how fast you can move your fingers. There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!
Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.
I feel like you're arguing for the sake of it when we both agree that NS has a slope, which doesn't prove anything at all.
So my problem is when we have 2-3 players who are extremely skilled that determine the slope and fate of the game at hand. And to narrow it down, it would be the fade and the marine positions that allow the player to do this. The game swings on the aim of the marine or the movement-slash skills of the fade.
And it's not the problem of these skilled players, the new players or the average ones. It's the design of the game that allows the potential of skilled players to be far and beyond his team, or the Kobe effect.
So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what does RFK have to do with this, RFK contributes as much to the slippery slope as it takes away, yes if the marines kill 5 aliens and a restower they will get some extra res to keep pushing adding to the slippery slope but if the aliens kill them in the next encounter they will get some RFK and a chance to recover by using that RFK to rebuild a restower or go lerk whereas if RFK didnt exist theyd never get the chance to comeback.
With RFK the chance of winning the next battle is slightly lower but the reward greater and without RFK its the opposite.
Now the definition of slippery slope is that a lost battle gives you a harder time winning the next one so you could say RFK adds to the slippery slope but with or without it the chances of winning the game are the same.
And firewater it was more off a response to stixnstones than you.
that link to the "scrub" post was right on target.
I never made it to the high eschelons of clan play when i played ns competitivly, but i learned one thing on my way up and back down. for all games, there comes a point where a game reaches a certain level of popularity and attains, for lack of a better term, critical mass. it can then carry itself on under it's own weight and keep going. ut99 for example. A game's gotta be good enough to attract people in (which ns has) and keep at least 1 out of 3 people that pick up and play it. NS just did'nt (does'nt) have that. Will ns2? i hope so.
Gratz on perfecting dynamic infestation, max. looks the business. cant wait for more.
Also, first post in a long time on the NS forums. hi all.
Current one: NS and CO (sub: siege maps)
Single player...
And i say again <b>S I N G L E P L A Y E R ! ! !</b> <b>Co-orp option a must...</b>
And my personal dream vision... the now decades old microsoft game: "Freelancer" in the NS univers.
It doesn't exist. At the state that it is in, if I were to call it "competitive", I could also call washing my dog, doing the laundry or watching TV "competitive". The latest posts in more than half of the competitive forums was made 2 years ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh, so the last 5 seasons of ensl, all the night cups and minicups and world cups and what have you, as well as tons of pcw's played, none of that was anything but just public ns? okay then. as it is at this point quite obvious that you and i dont play the same game, i have to ask this: what game are you playing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not so much I have a problem with personal skill. It just seems that everyone is blind to see that games can be more than just twitch skills. NS is supposed to be fused with strategy remember? Does it take twitch skills to play chess?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it seems that you are blind to see that a person can have both twitch skills and strategy. just because you dont see strategy whereever the ###### you play whatever the ###### you play, doesnt mean that the ns i play cant have both.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units such as the onos DO in fact cost money. While it is true that skulks and marines are free, using only those units won't win the longer games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
seriously. stop arguing about semantics. consider the onos as an upgrade since it only is a big fat skulk
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you have a problem with my statistics? Tell me what you see when you click list servers on the steam menu. How many of these are "clan" servers? Tell me how many people are in pub servers versus clan ones?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, now it seems that you ignore the fact that every clanner plays pubs whenever they cant find a scrim or pug
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No middle hive lockdowns? Erm, do you even play NS? Do you notice how there's always a mad rush to com core in eclipse for the marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's not a lockdown... it's done either to start up a spawncamp or kill the rt the aliens probably built there. if theres a pg and electrified turret factory with turrets in there after a few minutes then all i can say is, what a ###### server (and a ###### comm)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's something called a brain that you use to solve problems logically. And guess what? I think it requires skills as well!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
theres something on your desk called a keyboard and mouse. you use those to solve problems that are related to skulks munching up your leg. guess what, it requires skill to solve them as well!
get it already; ns requires both wits and twitch skills. if you want to make the game easier then dumb it down by removing the thinking part. any idiot can learn how to shoot a skulk unless theyre physically challenged
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, there's a thing called PHYSICAL skill which is reaction time and precision that we all agree on. But there's also something called MENTAL skill which is about figuring something out logically. What can be done with NS is to lower the physical requirements such as the twitch fast aiming, the bunny hopping or whatever and instead find ways to push the mental aspect of the game. That's why some players are better than others at chess; they have more mental skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the physical skills are required to exercise your mental skills to the fullest. you might be an awesome tactician at soccer but if you cant run then your capabilities are pretty much useless on the field.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we aren't going to "nerf" skilled players or "buff" the lesser ones right? Than make the game easier to play so the potential of any player is relatively similar to each other. That's why a pawn is a pawn is a pawn in chess. Or a marine is a marine is a marine in starcraft. I'd opt for a game that's less about twitch skills and more about thinking, planning and cooperating. We already have too many of those games anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you want to play the kind of ns where you need thinking, planning and cooperating, then start practicing because the only place youre going to find anything remotely like it are the "better" competetive teams. the problem isnt the game, the problem is that most people on your average pub are 13-16 year old kids.
To rehash what I said in another thread that was unfortunately locked, you cannot implement any strategy without FPS skills in the field to execute it. Even brain dead strategies like two hive lockdowns require some FPS ability in order to even get to the hive. Then the higher your FPS ability gets, the more complex but more efficient the strategies you can execute. You can remove reliance on static defense and play more offensive rounds where ones FPS ability matters and not where you hide behind your static defenses because you're incompetant. Where you can actually have an interesting match where strategy as well as FPS ability truely matter and where ultimately if you know what you're doing can win faster and more convincingly. Of course skill matters, if you're doing an early shotgun strategy you're not going to give it to your worst marine are you?! if you want an early lerk you don't choose the player who's not familiar with vertical movement, i imagine you'd like your fades to have some judgement about when to engage or for your gorges to gestate someone safe and not in the open to be gibbed. Christ, man.
Unless of course your strategy revolves around incompetance because it means longer and more <i>epic</i> games. Or perhaps you were just hoping blind luck would kill hives, lifeforms, resource towers, jetpacks, heavy armour?