<!--quoteo(post=1567274:date=Sep 21 2006, 04:54 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Sep 21 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1567274[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Although I haven't played for more than an hour or two since it was put in it's really annoying when I do play. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then don't post in threads about it. You don't know how it works. It's massively beneficial and it's removal would be a frustration, irrelevant of weather you could learn to do it in one hour or not.
Massively beneficial? I find that hard to believe. The script that let you moveup on walls with your jump key (which is now broken because of walljumping) was far more beneficial than a crappy half jump off the wall.
And what is there to know about how it works? You go on a wall, and press jump, it's not rocket science.
1. Same strategic depth and variety. Fades and lerks and skulks were cool. It takes a long time to really get good at NS, and I know for me and a lot of other players, it was the challenge that kept us playing.
2. Better playersize balancing. NS is designed for 6 vs 6, and lots of pubs run at 15 vs 15 or whatever and that really screws up the gameplay. CS and other games scale fairly well, but NS doesn't. Fix this and I bet a lot more people will stick around. I think designing for 8 vs 8 would also open up a lot more options in terms of gameplay.
To be honest, I would be satisifed with NS staying on the HL1 engine. Even if the graphics and physics etc aren't all up to date, I easily get 100 fps on it, and the hitreg is better than Source. If NS:S is as satisfying as NS, I will happily shell out the $20 for it.
I have to say I'm pretty happy with NS as is, but NS:S is a pretty thrilling prospect for me, mainly in the possibilities it opens for level design.
That said, NS is a gorgeous HL game and I hope it doesn't lose any style in the transition to a more detailed art base. Something about the technicolor Geiger feel of it keeps it an engaging world where all of the other realistically rendered sci fi whatsahuhs end up feeling plasticky and drab.
<!--quoteo(post=1567291:date=Sep 21 2006, 06:42 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Sep 21 2006, 06:42 PM) [snapback]1567291[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Massively beneficial? I find that hard to believe. The script that let you moveup on walls with your jump key (which is now broken because of walljumping) was far more beneficial than a crappy half jump off the wall.
And what is there to know about how it works? You go on a wall, and press jump, it's not rocket science. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bind +moveup...
<ol type='1'><li>Updated graphics</li><li>Flamethrowers!</li><li>More interactive maps (e.g. weld points, commander-operable switches, etc.)</li><li>Fiery explosions with plenty of sparks, ala HL1, not like HL2's rather dry explosions</li><li>Some kind of semi-fog-of-war for the commander (just to show the comm what his marines can see, so he isn't surprised when aliens appear out of thin air)</li><li>More realistic physics goes without saying, but could it be applied to buildings too? I have visions of an Onos throwing turrets across the room and things.</li><li>A single-player tutorial? I know this is a lot to ask, but I think the NS universe has a great backstory and this would be the perfect place to get people into the right frame of mind</li><li>Drop combat</li><li>More environmental hazards - fires, hull-breaches, etc.</li><li>More later...</li></ol>
<!--quoteo(post=1567274:date=Sep 21 2006, 11:54 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Sep 21 2006, 11:54 PM) [snapback]1567274[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> oh yeah and fix combat if it's still in. The fact that <b><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->Onos's and Hive3 weapons (as a start)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> are still in combat is amazing to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then you would need to remove everything above Shotgun as well. Plus HA and JP.
<!--quoteo(post=1567319:date=Sep 21 2006, 11:34 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Sep 21 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]1567319[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Bind +moveup... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Swiftspear, I was confused by Nadagast's post at first too. But after I thought about it a little bit, I realized he has a point. Binding +moveup to a key means having to use a separate key to move up as a skulk on a wall. You can move in the other directions without using any special keys. Apparently +moveup was part of the bind for the jump key, so the same key that would normally move up (jumping) could also be used for moving up when clinging to the wall. However, if jumping causes you to leave the wall, then you can't bind +moveup and jump to the same key and expect anything useful to come from it.
I've never used +moveup, and I haven't noticed the difference in being able to jump off walls, so I don't know which is better.
Yeah sorry for not being clear the script is something like alias +stuff "+jump;+moveup" alias -stuff "-moveup;-jump"
With an optional 3jump added in, and it was extremely useful (and felt very natural) for climbing up walls. At least NS:S (or NS on HL1) should give you the option to turn off walljumping clientside?
Skulks should be nearly as mobile on walls compared to the ground. Instead of nerfing walljumping, make it more efficient. Instead of having any moveup bind, make it so we don't have to look up at all to go up and so that we can look away from the walls while staying on the wall. Perhaps make strafing on walls act as up/down buttons, and making you stick to walls quite better? Like this, we can go up and down walls while looking elsewhere, while allowing us to jump high, low, or straight at full speed.
<!--quoteo(post=1567382:date=Sep 22 2006, 12:29 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cereal_KillR @ Sep 22 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]1567382[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of having any moveup bind, make it so we don't have to look up at all to go up and so that we can look away from the walls while staying on the wall. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, this is exactly what moveup does. You can look horizontal while on a wall, press moveup and you glide upwards. It's like pressing your jump key while underwater.
Yes, note the "instead of". I love walljumping, it fits the skulk perfectly, but its current implementation is weak. You can't jump off a wall anywhere near as effectively as from the ground. In general, the fact that your view has to be in a certain position to move while staying on a wall is the biggest holdback towards effective use of walls. Pressing moveup makes you move vertically on the wall, but if you want to move forward at the same time, you still can't look too far away from the wall.
Yes you can, if you're on a wall thats to your right, you can look left away from the wall up to 45 degrees by just using right strafe + forward, and more than that, up to 90 degrees, by just using right strafe.
45 degrees is not that far away in fact, I was more thinking about being able to move as freely on walls as you do on the ground, without real limitation to where you look. Because when you're on the groundm you can strafe or move backwards/frontwards even if your eyes are stuck to the ceiling, the floor, constantly gazing towards a vent, etc. I for one feel that strafing around on walls seems to be slower than walking straight alongside it, especially during the transition between +forward and strafe (probably my fingers' fault), and what I had in mind was to make wallrunning just as natural as walking on the ground by making every move the same, just as if you were on the ground but with your view sideways. I guess it can be a pain to explain, but in my imagination, it really seems perfect both intuitively and practically.
I would love an AvP style view rotation, but then again I think it was decided it can get much too confusing.
Great thread guys. I think what we need to do is send out a massive survey to make sure we're picking and choosing the right features here.
I don't think we'd be happy doing a straight port and will try some big new gameplay ideas. We've just started prototyping a big one that will change many aspects of the game (visual, immersive, gameplay) that we can't wait to share with you when it's ready. You can bet we're going to push harder for CPL and wide competitive play as well. But no matter what features go in the game, it will definitely "feel" like NS.
To summarize:<ul><li>Balance Alien Chambers so there is no, one "best" chamber. If MC first is the only real option Aliens lose the ability to force the Marines to adapt their strategy. Because the first game-deciding decision made by the Aliens is immediately known to the Marines, Aliens are always on the back foot in terms of strategy. The Marines can decide to drop a few shotties at the start or go plough it into upgrades but Aliens realistically only have one choice in terms of how they begin the match... they drop an MC. Fighting an uphill battle is unfair, and even if in competitive games the two teams swap sides, losing the first round is demoralising and puts you at a further disadvantage, all through losing a coin toss. This should be the main focus of the dev team once a port of the backbone of NS is complete.</li><li>The Onos needs completely revamping. However, this should only be attempted once the chambers are sorted since the chambers will affect how he behaves.</li><li>Balance the maps properly (with a particular focus on Hive rooms). There seems to be a trend in NS to shy away from making alterations to the original contributors work instead of improving on the work already done. Either fix the maps or lose them in favour of new maps.
It's more likely that new maps will need to be made for NS:S if it is to be sold commercially (ownership, etc.). This is both boon and bane to NS:S' development since it means it will take longer but it should ensure the maps are more thoroughly playtested and fine-tuned to create a level playing ground for both teams. Maps in multiplayer games play two roles: they act as a venue for the game and they sustain or, preferably, enhance the existing gameplay. At the moment there are too many maps in NS that only fulfil the first of these requirements.</li></ul> [Edit] Oh and I could say more, but I don't want to spoil all of the surprises ND has to offer! [/shameless plug]
<!--quoteo(post=1567331:date=Sep 22 2006, 03:32 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RobB @ Sep 22 2006, 03:32 AM) [snapback]1567331[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Then you would need to remove everything above Shotgun as well. Plus HA and JP. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly. Marine top-tier tech (HA HMG A3/W3) is balanced against hive2 aliens. That means 2 upgrades each. Not 3 which you can then expand beyond your normal tech tree. When was the last time you saw a HA/JP HMG/SG toting marine in combat? That's the same as a cara/regen adren/celer fade. It's unbalanced and I'm amazed that the underlying design flaw in CO wasn't addressed by the development team.
Hive3 upgrades and abilites > top tier marine upgrades and abilities
The fact that you can get a hive3 ability by the time a marine has resupply and a shotgun is absurd.
<!--quoteo(post=1567416:date=Sep 22 2006, 03:51 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Sep 22 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]1567416[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Great thread guys. I think what we need to do is send out a massive survey to make sure we're picking and choosing the right features here.
I don't think we'd be happy doing a straight port and will try some big new gameplay ideas. We've just started prototyping a big one that will change many aspects of the game (visual, immersive, gameplay) that we can't wait to share with you when it's ready. You can bet we're going to push harder for CPL and wide competitive play as well. But no matter what features go in the game, it will definitely "feel" like NS. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm I'm not sure letting the average joe decide gameplay features is a good idea. I can definitely see dumb stuff like LerkLift and other things (50 lvl combat, /menu, buildings in combat?) getting put in. I know my help probably isn't wanted but I'd love to give input if you need some.
Another thing I'd like to see: Quake-style jumping (ala Warsow/CPMA/Q1) so you don't need a script/mwheel to bhop.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm I'm not sure letting the average joe decide gameplay features is a good idea<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
1) Much improved combat (not the game mode - that should be obsolete) that everyone can enjoy. 2) A quality AAA game feel about the presentation & execution. Even if not perfect, this should be something for NS:S to aspire to. NS is far from AAA quality at the moment, IMO...but thats understandable considering the engine its on and what its trying to achieve. 3) Realism. As much realism as possible before it starts affecting gameplay - as a marine I want to be immersed as possible, achieved by the simplest things such as being able to see each other's faces and there being a good mix of different faces to choose from so it feels less like you're the part of the GI Joe parade and more like you're actually a real person on a mission with real squad mates. 4) Sloooowwwwer...NS is so fast that at times I wonder how anyone can play it without a preceeding dose of amphetamines. Slower combat would help with tracking enemies from a network standpoint as well as making it more accessible to players - the faster something moves, the more inaccurate the data determning whether a bullter/bite/pleghm ball hit. Don't get me wrong, the game should still be frantic and fun...just not super-frantic. 5) Maps with rich nurtured character (I <3 NS maps and the possibilities for future maps). Or rather, not maps with character...maps that <i>are</i> characters. Maps are the biggest characters in NS, aside from the actual game units. 6) An end to marine-hopping. Anyone who thinks that marine hopping should stay in should just not bother trying to defend their opinion...you're wrong, and you'll never be right. An alternative must be introduced for the sake of the game's credibility. 7) ... 8) Oh yea, ATMOSPHERE OUT THE EARS!
I think that's about it for me at this time...I could suggest all manner of abilities, weapons, cool little touches...but I think it's best to just be general because then you have a higher likelihood of being satisfied <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1567470:date=Sep 22 2006, 09:25 PM:name=Reeke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reeke @ Sep 22 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]1567470[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say the "pro's" should be the only ones with input. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> I agree there should be people from all aspects of the game, I was just saying I don't think majority opinion is a good idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1567470:date=Sep 22 2006, 08:25 PM:name=Reeke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reeke @ Sep 22 2006, 08:25 PM) [snapback]1567470[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, pubbers are the bulk of the player base. But keep in mind, competive players learn every aspect of the game, know it inside and out, and know how to play the game. We play it the way it was meant to be played, 6v6. We play completely vanilla NS. Having a game that is very popular among pubbers is great. But it would be a lot better for the game if the CPL picked it up and competitions were being played for prizes. Pubbing leads no where, competition does. Don't take this as an insult to non-competitive players, this is just my opinion.
Responding to Flayra: This is your game and you can add whatever you want, but I really don't want you to add any extremely game-altering features. NS:S will sell even if it just a port. Most of the NS community will buy it simply because it is going to be popular. NS is by far the BEST game I've ever played, and there's really nothing drastic I want added to it, aside from small bug fixes etc, obviously. Gearing the game towards pubbers might get you some popularity, but it's a dead-end. Gearing it towards competitive play allows the game to expand.
I repeat what I previously said. I would really like if NS:S was a simple port, with minor changes if you really feel you need to add them. NS:2 should be the game you do whatever you want with, as it is a completely new game.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I've played NS for almost 4 years because of the atmosphere and the players. So in short: single player/co-op. It's a tall order I know but it's what I would really like to see.
As for other things that have been said here, I could see improved wall jumping replacing bunny hopping. Bunny hopping is ingrained in the current NS but if NS: Source is supposed to attract new players a more newbie friendly but still hard to master movement scheme is preferable. Whether wall jumping could actually be the answer is certainly debatable, but worth a try IMO. NS tried a lot of new things; I hope to see that continue above all.
I would play a straight port but I doubt it would attract new players.
A change to combat: I agree but I would rather see it gone and NS:S quicker if it came to that. Ideally a co-op mode would replace it.
Glad the forums are back open! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I would like to see more scope for creative tactics (I was a very sad panda when I disovered onos traps had been removed (4 mines placed on top of each other)). Stuff like onos traps, fade blocking and other tactics that can't really be anticipated when you're writing a design doc.
Oh, and babblers. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1567491:date=Sep 22 2006, 09:26 PM:name=MrMakaveli)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrMakaveli @ Sep 22 2006, 09:26 PM) [snapback]1567491[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I repeat what I previously said. I would really like if NS:S was a simple port, with minor changes if you really feel you need to add them. NS:2 should be the game you do whatever you want with, as it is a completely new game. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that they can not insure you that there will be a NS2 game, just because they don't know how money they'll achieve from NS:S. That's why they're thinking about adding features and some "newb" stuff, like flamethrowers etc,etc.
I'm agree with you, totally. But it's just that, we can't know how much money they'll get to develop NS2.
For the moment i expect a direct port of ns, with ALL weapons/classes/features, i repeat, ALL must be port, dont make the same mistake that dod source did . We want the same game with better graphics and models . When all of this it's done, it will be time of improve ns by adding some new content. It's important to maintain the same feeling of classic ns, otherwise comunity might reject new game like did with dod source. Thx <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tiny.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::onos::" border="0" alt="tiny.gif" />
I'd like to point out to everyone here who seems to have totally missed this... features don't make a game fun individually, and removing features individually doesn't destroy the game. A game is the sum of it's features, and a good designer designs a game with no features, and then plugs in all the features that make the game work after the fact.
I understand where comments like "I hope NS:S has babblers again" and "I don't want any changes from NS at all" come from, but they are really ignorant of the overall picture. What we're looking at here is a new game, not a rehash of NS, this game will be designed from the bottom up to suit the same template NS was designed with, but it will not be NS, it will be something new and original. The fact of the matter is that a new game doesn't NEED any specific feature to be fun, to be similar to NS, to be as exciting, and provide as much depth of play.
Karba: Currently there are significantly more players playing DoD:S then there are playing DoD, nearly double last time I checked. Frankly the "Community" which usually are more the dead in the water conditioned players more then anything else, doesn't know what is best for a game 99% of the time. Without picking out any specific example, I'm going to tell you that a common trend I've noticed in the near past amounts gaming groups when presented with a sequel or update to an existing game is that base level gamers are by in large ridiculously stupid. Players don't protect the sanctity of the game and want the best for it most of the time, players protect their own interests, and a players interests are buffing whatever they are best at while at the same time nerfing everything that they don't like getting countered with. If you make ANY change to ANY game someone will complain about it because it makes their favorite aspect weaker or some counter to that aspect stronger, and usually the group that complains will be incredibly vocal and attempt at all costs to introduce retardation into the development and design circle for the game. The fact is that the hardcore fans are wrong in the end, not the designers and developers. The fans may understand how the game works, but they do not generally understand the game at all.
There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Summary: Direct port = bad idea Partial port = terrible idea specific features = bad suggestion new game = where it's at
Most Dods players don't come from dod classic,many of them even never played dod, this is a fact. I just say that nss should maintain all the basic features of ns, and from this point add new ones. If they fail doing this, the community will split.
Comments
Although I haven't played for more than an hour or two since it was put in it's really annoying when I do play.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then don't post in threads about it. You don't know how it works. It's massively beneficial and it's removal would be a frustration, irrelevant of weather you could learn to do it in one hour or not.
And what is there to know about how it works? You go on a wall, and press jump, it's not rocket science.
2. Better playersize balancing. NS is designed for 6 vs 6, and lots of pubs run at 15 vs 15 or whatever and that really screws up the gameplay. CS and other games scale fairly well, but NS doesn't. Fix this and I bet a lot more people will stick around. I think designing for 8 vs 8 would also open up a lot more options in terms of gameplay.
To be honest, I would be satisifed with NS staying on the HL1 engine. Even if the graphics and physics etc aren't all up to date, I easily get 100 fps on it, and the hitreg is better than Source. If NS:S is as satisfying as NS, I will happily shell out the $20 for it.
That said, NS is a gorgeous HL game and I hope it doesn't lose any style in the transition to a more detailed art base. Something about the technicolor Geiger feel of it keeps it an engaging world where all of the other realistically rendered sci fi whatsahuhs end up feeling plasticky and drab.
Massively beneficial? I find that hard to believe. The script that let you moveup on walls with your jump key (which is now broken because of walljumping) was far more beneficial than a crappy half jump off the wall.
And what is there to know about how it works? You go on a wall, and press jump, it's not rocket science.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bind +moveup...
oh yeah and fix combat if it's still in. The fact that <b><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->Onos's and Hive3 weapons (as a start)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> are still in combat is amazing to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you would need to remove everything above Shotgun as well. Plus HA and JP.
Bind +moveup...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swiftspear, I was confused by Nadagast's post at first too. But after I thought about it a little bit, I realized he has a point. Binding +moveup to a key means having to use a separate key to move up as a skulk on a wall. You can move in the other directions without using any special keys. Apparently +moveup was part of the bind for the jump key, so the same key that would normally move up (jumping) could also be used for moving up when clinging to the wall. However, if jumping causes you to leave the wall, then you can't bind +moveup and jump to the same key and expect anything useful to come from it.
I've never used +moveup, and I haven't noticed the difference in being able to jump off walls, so I don't know which is better.
alias +stuff "+jump;+moveup"
alias -stuff "-moveup;-jump"
With an optional 3jump added in, and it was extremely useful (and felt very natural) for climbing up walls. At least NS:S (or NS on HL1) should give you the option to turn off walljumping clientside?
Heh, this is exactly what moveup does. You can look horizontal while on a wall, press moveup and you glide upwards. It's like pressing your jump key while underwater.
Pressing moveup makes you move vertically on the wall, but if you want to move forward at the same time, you still can't look too far away from the wall.
I for one feel that strafing around on walls seems to be slower than walking straight alongside it, especially during the transition between +forward and strafe (probably my fingers' fault), and what I had in mind was to make wallrunning just as natural as walking on the ground by making every move the same, just as if you were on the ground but with your view sideways. I guess it can be a pain to explain, but in my imagination, it really seems perfect both intuitively and practically.
I would love an AvP style view rotation, but then again I think it was decided it can get much too confusing.
I don't think we'd be happy doing a straight port and will try some big new gameplay ideas. We've just started prototyping a big one that will change many aspects of the game (visual, immersive, gameplay) that we can't wait to share with you when it's ready. You can bet we're going to push harder for CPL and wide competitive play as well. But no matter what features go in the game, it will definitely "feel" like NS.
To summarize:<ul><li>Balance Alien Chambers so there is no, one "best" chamber. If MC first is the only real option Aliens lose the ability to force the Marines to adapt their strategy. Because the first game-deciding decision made by the Aliens is immediately known to the Marines, Aliens are always on the back foot in terms of strategy. The Marines can decide to drop a few shotties at the start or go plough it into upgrades but Aliens realistically only have one choice in terms of how they begin the match... they drop an MC. Fighting an uphill battle is unfair, and even if in competitive games the two teams swap sides, losing the first round is demoralising and puts you at a further disadvantage, all through losing a coin toss. This should be the main focus of the dev team once a port of the backbone of NS is complete.</li><li>The Onos needs completely revamping. However, this should only be attempted once the chambers are sorted since the chambers will affect how he behaves.</li><li>Balance the maps properly (with a particular focus on Hive rooms). There seems to be a trend in NS to shy away from making alterations to the original contributors work instead of improving on the work already done. Either fix the maps or lose them in favour of new maps.
It's more likely that new maps will need to be made for NS:S if it is to be sold commercially (ownership, etc.). This is both boon and bane to NS:S' development since it means it will take longer but it should ensure the maps are more thoroughly playtested and fine-tuned to create a level playing ground for both teams. Maps in multiplayer games play two roles: they act as a venue for the game and they sustain or, preferably, enhance the existing gameplay. At the moment there are too many maps in NS that only fulfil the first of these requirements.</li></ul>
[Edit] Oh and I could say more, but I don't want to spoil all of the surprises ND has to offer! [/shameless plug]
Then you would need to remove everything above Shotgun as well. Plus HA and JP.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly. Marine top-tier tech (HA HMG A3/W3) is balanced against hive2 aliens. That means 2 upgrades each. Not 3 which you can then expand beyond your normal tech tree. When was the last time you saw a HA/JP HMG/SG toting marine in combat? That's the same as a cara/regen adren/celer fade. It's unbalanced and I'm amazed that the underlying design flaw in CO wasn't addressed by the development team.
Hive3 upgrades and abilites > top tier marine upgrades and abilities
The fact that you can get a hive3 ability by the time a marine has resupply and a shotgun is absurd.
Great thread guys. I think what we need to do is send out a massive survey to make sure we're picking and choosing the right features here.
I don't think we'd be happy doing a straight port and will try some big new gameplay ideas. We've just started prototyping a big one that will change many aspects of the game (visual, immersive, gameplay) that we can't wait to share with you when it's ready. You can bet we're going to push harder for CPL and wide competitive play as well. But no matter what features go in the game, it will definitely "feel" like NS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm I'm not sure letting the average joe decide gameplay features is a good idea. I can definitely see dumb stuff like LerkLift and other things (50 lvl combat, /menu, buildings in combat?) getting put in. I know my help probably isn't wanted but I'd love to give input if you need some.
Another thing I'd like to see: Quake-style jumping (ala Warsow/CPMA/Q1) so you don't need a script/mwheel to bhop.
Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
2) A quality AAA game feel about the presentation & execution. Even if not perfect, this should be something for NS:S to aspire to. NS is far from AAA quality at the moment, IMO...but thats understandable considering the engine its on and what its trying to achieve.
3) Realism. As much realism as possible before it starts affecting gameplay - as a marine I want to be immersed as possible, achieved by the simplest things such as being able to see each other's faces and there being a good mix of different faces to choose from so it feels less like you're the part of the GI Joe parade and more like you're actually a real person on a mission with real squad mates.
4) Sloooowwwwer...NS is so fast that at times I wonder how anyone can play it without a preceeding dose of amphetamines. Slower combat would help with tracking enemies from a network standpoint as well as making it more accessible to players - the faster something moves, the more inaccurate the data determning whether a bullter/bite/pleghm ball hit. Don't get me wrong, the game should still be frantic and fun...just not super-frantic.
5) Maps with rich nurtured character (I <3 NS maps and the possibilities for future maps). Or rather, not maps with character...maps that <i>are</i> characters. Maps are the biggest characters in NS, aside from the actual game units.
6) An end to marine-hopping. Anyone who thinks that marine hopping should stay in should just not bother trying to defend their opinion...you're wrong, and you'll never be right. An alternative must be introduced for the sake of the game's credibility.
7) ...
8) Oh yea, ATMOSPHERE OUT THE EARS!
I think that's about it for me at this time...I could suggest all manner of abilities, weapons, cool little touches...but I think it's best to just be general because then you have a higher likelihood of being satisfied <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say the "pro's" should be the only ones with input. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> I agree there should be people from all aspects of the game, I was just saying I don't think majority opinion is a good idea.
Don’t wanna start an argument, but nor is letting the “pro’s” get all the say in, no matter how superior they think their opinions are.
After all, us average joes ARE the bulk of a player base, and shouldnt be ignored completely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, pubbers are the bulk of the player base. But keep in mind, competive players learn every aspect of the game, know it inside and out, and know how to play the game. We play it the way it was meant to be played, 6v6. We play completely vanilla NS. Having a game that is very popular among pubbers is great. But it would be a lot better for the game if the CPL picked it up and competitions were being played for prizes. Pubbing leads no where, competition does. Don't take this as an insult to non-competitive players, this is just my opinion.
Responding to Flayra: This is your game and you can add whatever you want, but I really don't want you to add any extremely game-altering features. NS:S will sell even if it just a port. Most of the NS community will buy it simply because it is going to be popular. NS is by far the BEST game I've ever played, and there's really nothing drastic I want added to it, aside from small bug fixes etc, obviously. Gearing the game towards pubbers might get you some popularity, but it's a dead-end. Gearing it towards competitive play allows the game to expand.
I repeat what I previously said. I would really like if NS:S was a simple port, with minor changes if you really feel you need to add them. NS:2 should be the game you do whatever you want with, as it is a completely new game.
As for other things that have been said here, I could see improved wall jumping replacing bunny hopping. Bunny hopping is ingrained in the current NS but if NS: Source is supposed to attract new players a more newbie friendly but still hard to master movement scheme is preferable. Whether wall jumping could actually be the answer is certainly debatable, but worth a try IMO. NS tried a lot of new things; I hope to see that continue above all.
I would play a straight port but I doubt it would attract new players.
A change to combat: I agree but I would rather see it gone and NS:S quicker if it came to that. Ideally a co-op mode would replace it.
Glad the forums are back open! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Oh, and babblers. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
I repeat what I previously said. I would really like if NS:S was a simple port, with minor changes if you really feel you need to add them. NS:2 should be the game you do whatever you want with, as it is a completely new game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that they can not insure you that there will be a NS2 game, just because they don't know how money they'll achieve from NS:S. That's why they're thinking about adding features and some "newb" stuff, like flamethrowers etc,etc.
I'm agree with you, totally. But it's just that, we can't know how much money they'll get to develop NS2.
Thx <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tiny.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::onos::" border="0" alt="tiny.gif" />
I understand where comments like "I hope NS:S has babblers again" and "I don't want any changes from NS at all" come from, but they are really ignorant of the overall picture. What we're looking at here is a new game, not a rehash of NS, this game will be designed from the bottom up to suit the same template NS was designed with, but it will not be NS, it will be something new and original. The fact of the matter is that a new game doesn't NEED any specific feature to be fun, to be similar to NS, to be as exciting, and provide as much depth of play.
Karba: Currently there are significantly more players playing DoD:S then there are playing DoD, nearly double last time I checked. Frankly the "Community" which usually are more the dead in the water conditioned players more then anything else, doesn't know what is best for a game 99% of the time. Without picking out any specific example, I'm going to tell you that a common trend I've noticed in the near past amounts gaming groups when presented with a sequel or update to an existing game is that base level gamers are by in large ridiculously stupid. Players don't protect the sanctity of the game and want the best for it most of the time, players protect their own interests, and a players interests are buffing whatever they are best at while at the same time nerfing everything that they don't like getting countered with. If you make ANY change to ANY game someone will complain about it because it makes their favorite aspect weaker or some counter to that aspect stronger, and usually the group that complains will be incredibly vocal and attempt at all costs to introduce retardation into the development and design circle for the game. The fact is that the hardcore fans are wrong in the end, not the designers and developers. The fans may understand how the game works, but they do not generally understand the game at all.
There is frankly no way that anything that looks like a port for NS will succeed, you cannot migrate a community unless you destroy the original when you port. The only way that NS:S can succeed at transferring the community is by being a sufficiently new game and experience that old players can appreciate because it feels the same, but understand VERY clearly that it is something totally different.
Summary: Direct port = bad idea
Partial port = terrible idea
specific features = bad suggestion
new game = where it's at