Thoughts/opnions On "gaming" Itself (long)
<div class="IPBDescription">prepare for inane babbling</div> I'm majoring in Video Game Programming at my college, so I have been thinking about what a game is, why are games fun, how can games be designed to always be fun when given the randomness of people, stuff like this. I figure this is a good place to drop my thoughts and get some feedback, cause some of my ideas and opinions have been formed from playing NS.
Just a little history: I started playing NS in 1.04 (i think..). Twas the days of JP/Shotty rushing, and lifeforms being linked to the number of hives. I have played on and off since then, never getting good enough to try clan play, or even really putting forth effort to get that good. I've also played CS some (mainly at LAN parties), WC3, Starcraft, and much console gaming. So, I have a lot of experience, but nothing "competitive", I guess you'd call it. I play to have fun.
So, what is a game? To me, a game is a set of competitions of skill, set in a structure of rules. Trying to tag that b-hopping skulk is not a game, but a competition of skills. Trying to tag that b-hopping skulk for x reasons (x is any goal you would want to achieve in a game of NS) is part of a game. To use another example, trying to run 20 yards faster than other people is not a game, yet trying to run faster than other people to score a touchdown is part of a game. Checkers is a game of mental skill, like poker and chess.
A good game has a set of skills in it that make sense. Strength, stamina, quick decision making skills fit in a football game. Spelling bees to see who kicks of first would make no sense. Yo-Yo tricks to see if a baseball player can steal another base woule not make sense.
Video games have an additional facet in that they try to be immersive and believable. Things have to make sense in video games. Not strict, scientific sense, but "comic book" sense. Things must happen for a reason, not just arbitrarily. It makes perfect sense that The Incredible Hulk can tear apart steel because he has super strong muscles. It would make no sense if he was also an excellent lounge singer when he hulks out. It makes sense that guns and medpacks appear out of nowhere in NS because the rines have advanced nanite technology. That makes sense in the NS universe. Human telepathy or extra-dimensional beings don't fit the NS universe.
What is balance? Many people confuse "balance" with "even". Balance in a game is not a 50/50 chance at any given time. A balanced game has an even chance for all sides, but each contest of skill is not even. Shotty vs. no upgrade skulk is not even, but it is <i>balanced</i>, when taken in the context of the entire game of NS. Also, eveness should not always be set in stone, and should have a healthy degree of indivdual ability involved. To the degree that individual ability affects the eveness of a contest of skills is important to the balance of a stituation, and the game as a whole.
Yes, I am leading up to the point where I explain why I think NS is fun, why it is not fun, and what I think could be done to make it better. But right now I have pressing buisiness (read: dinner). Please be concise and complete with your comments. If it's so much as "You're a friggen crackpot BB", explain why. I admit I'm a little nervous about what you people will think of my ideas, but I'll never learn if I don't express myself.
edit:oops, yea I meant 1.04.
Just a little history: I started playing NS in 1.04 (i think..). Twas the days of JP/Shotty rushing, and lifeforms being linked to the number of hives. I have played on and off since then, never getting good enough to try clan play, or even really putting forth effort to get that good. I've also played CS some (mainly at LAN parties), WC3, Starcraft, and much console gaming. So, I have a lot of experience, but nothing "competitive", I guess you'd call it. I play to have fun.
So, what is a game? To me, a game is a set of competitions of skill, set in a structure of rules. Trying to tag that b-hopping skulk is not a game, but a competition of skills. Trying to tag that b-hopping skulk for x reasons (x is any goal you would want to achieve in a game of NS) is part of a game. To use another example, trying to run 20 yards faster than other people is not a game, yet trying to run faster than other people to score a touchdown is part of a game. Checkers is a game of mental skill, like poker and chess.
A good game has a set of skills in it that make sense. Strength, stamina, quick decision making skills fit in a football game. Spelling bees to see who kicks of first would make no sense. Yo-Yo tricks to see if a baseball player can steal another base woule not make sense.
Video games have an additional facet in that they try to be immersive and believable. Things have to make sense in video games. Not strict, scientific sense, but "comic book" sense. Things must happen for a reason, not just arbitrarily. It makes perfect sense that The Incredible Hulk can tear apart steel because he has super strong muscles. It would make no sense if he was also an excellent lounge singer when he hulks out. It makes sense that guns and medpacks appear out of nowhere in NS because the rines have advanced nanite technology. That makes sense in the NS universe. Human telepathy or extra-dimensional beings don't fit the NS universe.
What is balance? Many people confuse "balance" with "even". Balance in a game is not a 50/50 chance at any given time. A balanced game has an even chance for all sides, but each contest of skill is not even. Shotty vs. no upgrade skulk is not even, but it is <i>balanced</i>, when taken in the context of the entire game of NS. Also, eveness should not always be set in stone, and should have a healthy degree of indivdual ability involved. To the degree that individual ability affects the eveness of a contest of skills is important to the balance of a stituation, and the game as a whole.
Yes, I am leading up to the point where I explain why I think NS is fun, why it is not fun, and what I think could be done to make it better. But right now I have pressing buisiness (read: dinner). Please be concise and complete with your comments. If it's so much as "You're a friggen crackpot BB", explain why. I admit I'm a little nervous about what you people will think of my ideas, but I'll never learn if I don't express myself.
edit:oops, yea I meant 1.04.
Comments
Just FYI, the version you mention is 1.04, I believe. 3.04 will lead to a lot of confusion as we're currently using version 3.04. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I rather liked this quote...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It makes perfect sense that The Incredible Hulk can tear apart steel because he has super strong muscles. It would make no sense if he was also an excellent lounge singer when he hulks out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of nubs in I&S need to read your paragraph on balance and how that works, as they seem very confused about the idea of a "counter" to an ability.
Make a good point that "Blance" is not "Even" you can go as far as to say that "Balance" is not "Equality" and I agree with you... Things shouldn't be made that they have a clear opposite on the other side, but something diffrent... In NS you compare a SGer and a regular skulk, they by themselves are "Balanced"
Skulk- Usualy has the surprize advantage, fast, hard to hit
SGer- Slow, packs alot of damage, has range
The skills of the player will determine wether the Sger or the skulk use all of the abilities given to them...
Other people use games as an escape from whatever things in real life they have to deal with. Those who use gaming as a form of escapism tend to be more addicted than those who just like to compete, as they will spend hours upon hours staring at their monitors. Usually the worse someone's real life is, the more time they will spend in their virtual communities, however this is not always the case.
those and the reasons you provided make sense.
Balance in competitive multiplayer games is typically an equal chance of winning for any side given equal skill level. However, this doesn't exclude games from being balanced where one side has the "high ground". Consider Counter-Strike and how teams switch sides at the half, counter-balancing the inequality in gameplay and/or map design. Due to the length of "rounds" in NS it isn't just as easy as switching sides at the half to get a balanced game unless you're calculating score or elapsed time before defeat.
Just some thoughts... I love game theory.
Balance in competitive multiplayer games is typically an equal chance of winning for any side given equal skill level.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Just what is equal skill lvl, though? How can you quantify and anticipate skill to make any given game balanced? Can a game be balanced at all lvls of play, from all beginners to all CAL lvl pros? These are the kinda things I think about. I think that the best of games are balanced for as broad a spectrum of teams as possible. Given even teams, of course. That's why I hate team stacking. It sucks any fun out if the game for me, from both getting stacked against and when I'm on the stacking team.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, this doesn't exclude games from being balanced where one side has the "high ground". Consider Counter-Strike and how teams switch sides at the half, counter-balancing the inequality in gameplay and/or map design.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Switching team members would break the game, IMO. It would make a more even game, but the individual game in which team members were switched would be broken.
Map design is an excellent point, btw. Many a game can be lost or made on the design of the playing field.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Just some thoughts... I love game theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me two <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not quite getting what you mean here. What do you mean by "fixed method" and "correct play"? I'm gonna take a stab and guess that fixed method means strict rock/paper/scicssors gameplay, and that correct play means knowing all the basic rules and functions in NS, stuff like how to build structures,, how the res system works, etc..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...though balancing a public game where correct play has to be approximated to some clumsy alternative results in a very dire game of opposites where broken element a balances broken element b.{<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A public game of random people who know the basic rules of NS, with a very few at the CAL lvl of skill, and most like me at merely ok, should always be balanced. "Correct play" does not have to mean CAL lvl skills, and nor should it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But who needs subtle diversity in a game which requires communication and teamwork so advanced you wont see it outside of the most experienced, dedicated and motivated teams when you can just force a simple rock paper on everyone :S<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a game requires only the best to be played in any kind of fullness, then it's a poor game, IMO. A game should have most (but not <i> all </i>) of it's subtlety and diversity available at the middle lvls of play, where everybody has the basics down. Dumbing it down for the un-leet does nothing to help a game.
Make a good point that "Blance" is not "Even" you can go as far as to say that "Balance" is not "Equality" and I agree with you... Things shouldn't be made that they have a clear opposite on the other side, but something diffrent... In NS you compare a SGer and a regular skulk, they by themselves are "Balanced"
Skulk- Usualy has the surprize advantage, fast, hard to hit
SGer- Slow, packs alot of damage, has range<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you misunderstood me. A shotty vs vanilla skulk is in no way a fair fight, but it is fair in the context of an even game of NS. You must look at the reasons the skulk is plain flavor and the rine is dark chocolate shotty. The comm had res to spend on the shotty because of the skill of his troops. The skulk has no upgrade because his team is less skilled and has no upgrade chambers. It is balanced because there are good reasons this particular matchup is not fair.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The skills of the player will determine wether the Sger or the skulk use all of the abilities given to them...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is, the rine has more than the abilities given to him. He has a shotty, a bonus. He should win vs vanilla skulk. And that is ok.
Switching team members would break the game, IMO. It would make a more even game, but the individual game in which team members were switched would be broken.
Map design is an excellent point, btw. Many a game can be lost or made on the design of the playing field. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, thats how competitive NS is played? You play too halves, one team on each side. For pubs such a system wouldn't make much sense outside of an AMX mod for masochistic server owners - you'd just be suffering the same turdburglar-infested team twice.
A fair portion of BugBrains understanding of competitive gaming (singleplayer or carebears online are different storys) is highly agreeable - although bogged down in alot of unnecessary redundancy. A matching of players or player groups abilitys - thats a game. It doesn't matter if theres any bigger picture to consider while matching up. Armwrestling is a game alright, as is russian roulette. They both kind of suck though, because all the winner knows is he has a stronger right arm or that he is luckier and less dead than the other competitor.
A good game finds a challenge objective for all competitors, and a rewarding one to fulfill. In NaturalSelection, thats eradicating the other team - but this is where actually the one thing comes in that NS wins over other games at. They've implemented a subtely refined system to achieve that - to eradicate the other team, you need to kill them all and destroy their spawn portals (either Hives or IPs). But this goal is intentionally made hard (Hives heal, IPs are cheap) without making it unattainable, while providing a whole slew of peripheral objectives that all impact the other teams ability to hold their spawn portals or attack yours.
To make it clearer why this is special, lets take Day of Defeat for example. In DoD, short of the maps with movable spawnpoints, you have absolutely no impact on the other teams respawn - the goal is to simply capture all their flags. It doesn't matter if you mow down 5 guys in a row - they'll respawn at the same old rate and be right back at the first flag. You can't cripple their ability to respawn, to get KARs, to have endless hand grenades or to get MGs. In Natural Selection, you can do all that - you can slow a teams resflow, attack their upgrades, force their team to save their own structures and all that.
The only significant weakness Natural Selection has is the lack of a reasonable beginner/tutorial mode. Combat does little to nothing - it takes out all the aforementioned ability to shape your opponents game, and leaves you with the same upgrades and lifeforms as normal NS (to a degree, even). Alot of trivial information needs to be thrown into a new players face to make it understandable - things like how much res does an RT pump, how long does a hive take to build, what should I do as commander, why am I being yelled at for gorging in Laser Drilling, how do I avoid getting spawncamped, how can I use lifeforms reasonably, whats aircontrol, are there any less crappy crosshairs, hud_fastswitch whatsthatagain and the list can go on endlessly.
Addendum :
Couldn't find a better place to put this, but the "Making sense" bit is also completely redundant unless you're trying to fashion and immersive roleplaying game, which NS uh... isn't. Otherwise you come up with a concept, and you place abit of story around it - thats pretty much how the NS nanites probably came to be. At least I can't image anyone thinking "Hey, Deus Ex Machina makes the best background story EVER".
A public game of random people who know the basic rules of NS, with a very few at the CAL lvl of skill, and most like me at merely ok, should always be balanced. "Correct play" does not have to mean CAL lvl skills, and nor should it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The shocking part about the lack of information out there is that the level of play is so insanely low. Unless you're talking about a top Delta matchup, CAL level skill means didly squat - sure its partially down to the size of the community, but alot more to the amount of ignorance.
And while technically, thats largely the players fault for being lethargic but expecting to do well and then turning around and blaming their failure on the game, blaming them doesn't do much good. Improving the entrance into NS might though.
What you describe in a game is what you enjoy, it doesn't necessitate games in their entirety; you need to go up a level to really catch what games are about... something so simple and varied that people often forget it. What is this amazing 'point' about gaming? <b>to act as a way of having fun</b>.
It doesn't need skill (snakes and ladders need any?) and it doesn't need competition (ever play animal crossing?); those are merely a section of gaming rather than it's whole.
Pedantic perhaps but I hope it helps a lil; I think people are too tied up in what <b>they</b> like when they talk about games to realise it embodies facets outside of what they expect. I'd much rather play a fun coop game than a competitive one any day :3
Games are just a replacement (of course, all of this is completely <b>IMO</b>) for that, you get given a situation (a set of rules) and then try to achieve as much as possible in those rules.
I personally have found lots of really bad or unbalanced games fun when I've succeeded and I can't stand lots of games that others love (most notably driving games) because I'm really bad at them. Of course, balanced games are the most popular because balance just means that you have a decent level of difficulty, a game that's too easy just won't give you that rush at the win and a really difficult game will just frustrate you.
Of course when balancing games it depends on what kind of challenge you are trying to create, physical or mental. Physical challenges are obviously tests of strength, reflex etc and balance revolves around creating extremely obvious rules and objectives so no thought is involved i.e. arm wrestling (and even then an experienced arm wrestler may know some tricks that a new player wouldn't. I don't arm wrestle for a living so I've got no idea <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
Of course mental removes all physical tests to it, a good example is a turn based game that removes reaction times i.e. chess or HoMMIII.
Games such as NS are obviously a mix of both which is where it gets difficult, if you can't compete in both spheres then you won't be any good (i.e. Rambos). Of course games like this provide the best rush of all as you are taxed both physically and mentally and a win is a result of you being superior in both <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
for example, I play BF2 demo with typo, swiftspear, and a couple others when Im not playing NS. Sure we try to play the game according to its rules, but forming our own squad, and doing our own thing together is what makes it fun.
When and why do we play games in first instance? During our childhood.
What do games do? They reduce (real-life's) complexity, thus helping us to develop strategies to master problems. There is no game I can think of that doesn't have a goal, even jugglery (keeping the balls, rings, whatever in the air as long as possible).
But in constrast to real-life, this goal is, to some extent, inside the game itself. It does not refer to something outside of the game (Like: You earn money to buy food, stuff; You date a girl to score her etc.).
Still, the patterns acquired in gaming can be transferred back to real-life, even if, during an application for a job, we may not directly think "hmm, back when I commed on ns_bast, I got out of a hopeless situation by [insert proper strategy here].
This is just an addition, not a counterpoint to the aspects of competition and fun, but I guess gaming theory is a very complex field of social studies.
All the best with your exam,
Barb
...ditto
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
QFT.
What is balance? Well, nobody really knows. All I know is that there's bound to be someone who'll use a weapon or item in a way it's not intended to be used.
Games are pretty much what people make them out to be, regardless of the game creator's goal. Some people play them competitively, some people play them casually. Some people think they're fun, and some think they're stupid.
All I can say is that there is no definite answer to what a game is. After all, it all depends on a person's take on the game.
Why are games fun? Well let's see....I dunno. Maybe it's just like going to the movies with friends, or making vinegar/soda bombs with plastic bottles. Maybe it's JUST fun? Again, like stated earlier, it depends on a person's taste. There are people who find the Sims fun, and people who don't. Like you said, it's pretty random (far TOO random if you ask)
That's pretty much all I can say. I don't really have much say in what makes a game fun since my ideas always seem too far fetched most of the time.
MAN, now I'm tempted to rewrite "Firstborn."
The idea is that the overall effectiveness for all weapons is the same. Say we take "effectiveness" to mean "damage dealt per hour". You can calculate that something like this...
Take the total damage a weapon does in one shot. Multiply it by the fire rate (shots per second) and you have a rough measure of damage per second. Using this metric, a machinegun style weapon can be balanced with a shotgun style weapon - the machinegun has a higher fire rate than the shotgun, but the shotgun does more damage per shot, but in terms of damage per second both weapons are equivalent.
We can refine this further by factoring in clip size. RoF x clip size = firing time between reloads. Firing time x raw damage per second now gives you a more accurate measure; you might have a weapon with a high fire rate <i>and</i> a high damage per shot, but its clip is small enough that it burns through it quickly. Even further, you can factor in reload time to get how much time per minute you're reloading instead of firing.
The result is you get heavy machineguns (NS's HMG, WolfET's MG42) which have high rate of fire, fairly high damage per shot, large clip and large endurance (endurance being how long you have to go before reloading, on average) but balanced by a high reload time.
You could go further by factoring things like accuracy, recoil, slowing down the player and others. Also you can factor in the cost of the weapon, if the game model supports that. It's reasonable to expect that a more expensive weapon will have a higher overall effectiveness than an el cheapo, so you could have a "$ per overall effectiveness" which is constant across all weapons, rather than "overall effectiveness" constant across all weapons.
Want a concrete example? Mechwarrior 2. Too tired to post the numbers now, I will tomorrow (if anyone cares).
Switching team members would break the game, IMO. It would make a more even game, but the individual game in which team members were switched would be broken.
Map design is an excellent point, btw. Many a game can be lost or made on the design of the playing field. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, thats how competitive NS is played? You play too halves, one team on each side. For pubs such a system wouldn't make much sense outside of an AMX mod for masochistic server owners - you'd just be suffering the same turdburglar-infested team twice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'm missing something here. CAL games have players switch sides halfway through a match of NS? That can't be right. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A fair portion of BugBrains understanding of competitive gaming (singleplayer or carebears online are different storys) is highly agreeable - although bogged down in alot of unnecessary redundancy. A matching of players or player groups abilitys - thats a game. It doesn't matter if theres any bigger picture to consider while matching up. Armwrestling is a game alright, as is russian roulette. They both kind of suck though, because all the winner knows is he has a stronger right arm or that he is luckier and less dead than the other competitor.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with your meaning of "game". I don't think arm restling is a game because there is no decision about what you are doing. It's a competition, not a game. Russian roulette, that's a bit tricky. I'm not sure about that.
The redundancy is there to make sure I get my point accross and there is no gray area. People tend to have slightly different meanings for words, even amongst very smart people, so I'm just covering my butt.
As for carebears, they seem to have some kind of social agenda when they play games. I just want to play the game. Instead of trying to improve and change themselves, they try to change others and the game. Of course, here I am with my own ideas for changing NS, so whateva.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A good game finds a challenge objective for all competitors, and a rewarding one to fulfill. In NaturalSelection, thats eradicating the other team - but this is where actually the one thing comes in that NS wins over other games at. They've implemented a subtely refined system to achieve that - to eradicate the other team, you need to kill them all and destroy their spawn portals (either Hives or IPs). But this goal is intentionally made hard (Hives heal, IPs are cheap) without making it unattainable, while providing a whole slew of peripheral objectives that all impact the other teams ability to hold their spawn portals or attack yours.
To make it clearer why this is special, lets take Day of Defeat for example. In DoD, short of the maps with movable spawnpoints, you have absolutely no impact on the other teams respawn - the goal is to simply capture all their flags. It doesn't matter if you mow down 5 guys in a row - they'll respawn at the same old rate and be right back at the first flag. You can't cripple their ability to respawn, to get KARs, to have endless hand grenades or to get MGs. In Natural Selection, you can do all that - you can slow a teams resflow, attack their upgrades, force their team to save their own structures and all that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good analysis. You can't state the obvious enough, because there is always someone who did not get it the last go around. This reminds me of a simple chart someone made showing where NS fit in relation to CS, chess, and some other game. It was a visual reference for how much of NS is thinking skill and how much of it is physical skill, in relation to other games.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The only significant weakness Natural Selection has is the lack of a reasonable beginner/tutorial mode. Combat does little to nothing - it takes out all the aforementioned ability to shape your opponents game, and leaves you with the same upgrades and lifeforms as normal NS (to a degree, even). Alot of trivial information needs to be thrown into a new players face to make it understandable - things like how much res does an RT pump, how long does a hive take to build, what should I do as commander, why am I being yelled at for gorging in Laser Drilling, how do I avoid getting spawncamped, how can I use lifeforms reasonably, whats aircontrol, are there any less crappy crosshairs, hud_fastswitch whatsthatagain and the list can go on endlessly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true, and this is what I think about when it comes to NS. How can the game be made easier to play for beginners, without dumbing it down? I may be over-optimistic, but pubs don't <i>have</i> to suck. They should not have the same lvl of play as competitave games, but I think they should have something to offer all players, even the very high end skilled people. Though, like you said, NS is very complicated, so this is a huge problem. I have heard of some good stuff, like NSlearn for example, and the old manual was cool. Those can only do so much because people do not want to have to study to play a game. They want to be able to jump right in a game and start playing. This is not an unreasonable thing to want. It's quicker, easier, and much more fun to learn about a game as you play, as opposed to reading a big, fat manual. In-game tutorials are excellent, and that would go a long helping NS. Still, I think NS could be a better game if it was easier for someone to jump in a learn as they go. Great games should be easy to learn, and hard to master. NS is difficult to learn, and hard to master. That's why nobody wants to play classic, and why CO maps are the majority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Addendum :
Couldn't find a better place to put this, but the "Making sense" bit is also completely redundant unless you're trying to fashion and immersive roleplaying game, which NS uh... isn't. Otherwise you come up with a concept, and you place abit of story around it - thats pretty much how the NS nanites probably came to be. At least I can't image anyone thinking "Hey, Deus Ex Machina makes the best background story EVER".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I value immersiveness more than you. Probably why I don't get into puzzle games.
What you're missing is what I meant by my post. I didn't mean to say that players should switch teams mid-round. I said that they play one round until it's finished (objectives completed, one team wins, etc.) then they switch sides and play again. It's not as ideal a solution with NS, but I'm of course not talking strictly about NS here. It's also not a solution for pubs, but I can contend that competitive balance is not as important in casual play. How many games have you played where the odds were against you and you still had fun?
As for this whole topic, I think we're biting off more than we can chew. I can see numerous discussions being jumbled into one big confusing thread full of semantic and conceptual explanation problems. Each topic (balance, what is gaming, why do people game, etc.) can be difficult to discuss on it's own and have numerous subtopics of which we've touched upon a small fraction. I'd love to talk about this more, but I'd prefer it if we narrowed it down for now and take one thing at a time so that we can actually get somewhere. I see many good points, all of which are correct but unrepresentative of the whole. I don't want to force people to try and break down gaming to fundamentals only to fail like everyone before them in that effort.