There's one point I don't think has been made clearly enough:
It's just really easy to rambo in pub games, because the other players are so terrible!
If I jump in a game in a large American server or with custom players in Australia, I won't bother to stick with teammates. This is because I know I can probably just walk straight to the hive and spawn camp it (if the comm is smart enough to drop meds within 30 seconds...).
If I play in a pug with skilled Australian players, I don't rambo. This is because I would die very quickly.
It's not really about the game mechanics, it's just that you don't really have to play your best against people that aren't very good. If an alien team won't/can't parasite a marine AND won't wait until they can ambush with 2-3 skulks (as is done when decent players are on the alien team), then they shouldn't win! Why should an incompetent alien team beat a marine team with good players?
<!--quoteo(post=1698244:date=Jan 22 2009, 11:57 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 22 2009, 11:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firewater likes to be in charge of the "you suck therefore you lose" arguments. I generally stay away from them because they don't produce anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They are completely valid arguments because nobody should be suggesting anything unless they know <u>everything</u> about a game. I know everything about this game, what about you?
<!--quoteo(post=1698255:date=Jan 22 2009, 08:39 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jan 22 2009, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know everything about this game, what about you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will not dignify this insolence with a response.
<!--quoteo(post=1698227:date=Jan 22 2009, 04:39 PM:name=themeatshield)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(themeatshield @ Jan 22 2009, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698227"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's one point I don't think has been made clearly enough:
It's just really easy to rambo in pub games, because the other players are so terrible!
If I jump in a game in a large American server or with custom players in Australia, I won't bother to stick with teammates. This is because I know I can probably just walk straight to the hive and spawn camp it (if the comm is smart enough to drop meds within 30 seconds...).
If I play in a pug with skilled Australian players, I don't rambo. This is because I would die very quickly. It's not really about the game mechanics, it's just that you don't really have to play your best against people that aren't very good. If an alien team won't/can't parasite a marine AND won't wait until they can ambush with 2-3 skulks (as is done when decent players are on the alien team), then they shouldn't win! Why should an incompetent alien team beat a marine team with good players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course the team with more skill should win. The question is, should they be able to win by playing so sloppily? If they're good at the game then not only do they have twitch skills but they also know how to play smart. I think if you want to win you should have to use both. An FPS/RTS shouldn't favor players who shut their brain off and run in guns blazing, even if there is a skill imbalance. More often than not we're not talking about complete newbies on the other team, most people with a decent amount of experience in the game are relatively competent. But you're suggesting they should have to play at the competitive level before you even have a reason to stop ramboing.
<!--quoteo(post=1698371:date=Jan 25 2009, 06:34 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 25 2009, 06:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course the team with more skill should win. The question is, should they be able to win by playing so sloppily? If they're good at the game then not only do they have twitch skills but they also know how to play smart. I think if you want to win you should have to use both. An FPS/RTS shouldn't favor players who shut their brain off and run in guns blazing, even if there is a skill imbalance. More often than not we're not talking about complete newbies on the other team, most people with a decent amount of experience in the game are relatively competent. But you're suggesting they should have to play at the competitive level before you even have a reason to stop ramboing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes you think rambos are playing sloppily? A big part of the rambo's ability depends on outsmarting the oppositing team.
<!--quoteo(post=1698203:date=Jan 22 2009, 12:12 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 22 2009, 12:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698203"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, did I say otherwise? Could have sworn I was creating some sort of scenario there instead of babbling that a fully upgraded marine could take out a 1-hive skulk. My mistake! I apologize if your inability to read my post has somehow handicapped your ability to conceptualize my point. Seeing how my arguments are quickly shot down, you leave me no choice than to create rather trivial points, but at least points you can't refute. Green != Blue. 1 + 1 = 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apology accepted, but your points are not coherent to the topic at hand, nor does your theorycraft generalize of the results of the games of the past and currently. But practice makes permanent after all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll remind you again of our discussion, seeing how you've had a moment of temporary blindness (hope you're feeling better). We were discussing how a perfect ambush should kill its intended target and if it doesn't, it simply isn't perfect. I presented you with a similar scenario in which a perfect attack can still fail because moreso than blantant skill, there's also a factor of positioning and intelligent fighting involved with natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll remind you that the suggestions that you propose would have PROFOUND effects on the middle and late game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A rambo fighting is practically the antithesis of intelligent fighting. Rather than allow yourself to be backed by other players, you move without them. Rather than avoid ambushes, you plow through them. It would be as if you attempted to kill marines at the end of a long hallway as a skulk. However, the difference here being that skulk attacking from a long distance is instafail while a rambo falling into a perfect ambush is not instafail. Rather, success rate is fairly high amongst the skilled marine players, thus encouraging rambo style fighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See here is a core problem in your logic. You assume that the solo fighter is all about twitch reflexes. Solo play is more about movement then quick reflexes, and keeping a good distance away from skulks while still attempting to kill them. Your argument is imilar to when the nerds say that football players are dumb in high school. "You are good at something that prohibits me from playing well, therefore you must be stupid". I'll take a player capable of solo play that can do the work of 3 or 4 players on my team any day.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only way you could refute this claim in one of three ways: 1) You deny that ambushes are so easily foiled. 2) You could accept it and claim that teams are asymmetric, in that skulks are supposed to be crappy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) (Since we are counting correctly). If a solo player is beginning to gain the upperhand, the aliens have various tactics that they can use to neutralize said player. Skulks may have to use teamwork (A difficult concept for you I am sure) to take down said player. One of the popular tactics that can be used with skulks by themselves or skulks are gorges are bait and switch tactics. Gorges are more common for this, but other lifeforms as well can be used. Set up a gorge who is either building a resource node or just spitting the marine. Make sure that a skulks or two are COMPLETELY quiet, and ambush when the marine commits to an attack. Also bunnyhopping on the alien's part helps as well. Lerk spores are a great way to move solo players as well as groups of players into spots where they are more susceptible to ambush
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to take the asymmetric route, I ask you, if attacking down long hallways isn't a good attack style for skulks and ambushing isn't a good attack style for skulks, what is? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question as to why skulks must be dung fodder. Wanted natural selection to be more like starcraft maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you just need to have some tactics to out smart the "dumb" solo player. I am embarrassed for you that you cannot understand this core concept.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do I really have to answer why it shouldn't be that way? You could technically make marines as powerful as you'd want. For the sake of balance, I'd go for more of a game in which a player on the alien team doesn't die repeatedly, as I'm sure that's quite frustrating for new players. If you're trying to reverse the argument of making aliens stronger, I don't see how aiming for a 1 to 1 kill ratio means making skulks deal 500 damage per bite and 100 damage per parasite hit. 1 to 1 ratio is 1 to 1 by definition. I have a hard time seeing how that is unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes its an important question. My question simply is if a marine has all of this ammo in his LMG and Pistol, why shouldn't be able to use that ammo effectively enough if the players he are going against are not as skill as him or her? Seems to be the $64000 question.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hope you got my point this time and that the blindness is not the kind of "fade in and out" type thing. Get well soon!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh my blindness is more likely to be cured before your lack of understanding of the game. Good luck with your arguments, we definitely get a kick out of them on ventrilo.
<!--quoteo(post=1698371:date=Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An FPS/RTS shouldn't favor players who shut their brain off and run in guns blazing, even if there is a skill imbalance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Zek... I don't know what to say man, it's pretty obvious that your reasoning comes directly from "I'm bitter because I keep dying to better players."
No one EVER shuts their brain off and rambos effectively unless the opposing team is also shutting their brain off (with less skill attached). Ramboing is really a misnomer - it's closer to Splinter Cell, the reason you're capable of killing so many skulks is because you put yourself in a situation where you are able to do so, and you know how to control a room (which does include aiming). There's a reason dreaming fairy dies when you drop him a shotgun - when someone has done that many drugs he can't think effectively anymore, and the result is an inability to aggress successfully. Saying that "ramboing is brainless" is a misconception at best, and a spoiled cry for attention at worse. Skill is certainly paramount, but situational awareness is just as important so you don't run brainlessly into a fade, or endless clouds of eurospores.
<!--quoteo(post=1698371:date=Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More often than not we're not talking about complete newbies on the other team, most people with a decent amount of experience in the game are relatively competent. But you're suggesting they should have to play at the competitive level before you even have a reason to stop ramboing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Respectfully Zek, that's absolutely false too, sorry. Most people in NS are mentally retarded now - they don't communicate, they don't wake up when playing, they don't try to improve, and they don't care - they just want to use gaming as a social drug.
<!--quoteo(post=1698415:date=Jan 25 2009, 01:00 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 25 2009, 01:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Zek... I don't know what to say man, it's pretty obvious that your reasoning comes directly from "I'm bitter because I keep dying to better players."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, you're much better than Firewater. I was pretty good at NS when I still played, believe it or not. Did the occasional pug but had no interest in getting into the competitive scene for a number of reasons(the snobbish attitudes of competitive gamers being one). I said in the beginning that I'm arguing for this because I think NS2 marines should be more tightly team-based than NS1's were. Restricting solo play is necessary to accomplish that, especially in pub servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one EVER shuts their brain off and rambos effectively unless the opposing team is also shutting their brain off (with less skill attached). Ramboing is really a misnomer - it's closer to Splinter Cell, the reason you're capable of killing so many skulks is because you put yourself in a situation where you are able to do so, and you know how to control a room (which does include aiming). There's a reason dreaming fairy dies when you drop him a shotgun - when someone has done that many drugs he can't think effectively anymore, and the result is an inability to aggress successfully. Saying that "ramboing is brainless" is a misconception at best, and a spoiled cry for attention at worse. Skill is certainly paramount, but situational awareness is just as important so you don't run brainlessly into a fade, or endless clouds of eurospores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When I say they're shutting their brain off I mean they're playing recklessly by doing so much on their own, even if it's an informed decision based on the skill of their opponents. The amount of alien skill/coordination required before running solo becomes prohibitively dangerous for marines is unreasonable IMHO. I'm not saying aliens should be able to win without being as good as the marines, but they should be able to force the marines to work together without necessarily being on par with them. Since my whole argument is that tight teamplay is the driving premise behind the marine team, I think even pros on a pub team should be expected to participate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Respectfully Zek, that's absolutely false too, sorry. Most people in NS are mentally retarded now - they don't communicate, they don't wake up when playing, they don't try to improve, and they don't care - they just want to use gaming as a social drug.
I say let the strong survive, what say you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Online gaming is a social drug. This attitude of aiming for the top at all costs is a vocal but small minority of the community, even in relatively "hardcore" games. You're arguing to defend your right to walk all over less dedicated players in pub games without having to depend on your teammates, but allowing that breaks down the structure of the game in pub games where individual skill tends to vary widely. It's exactly because most players don't care as much(note: probably not mentally retarded) that the necessity of teamwork needs to be blindingly obvious for it to register with everyone. The best example of this is Left 4 Dead - it's completely impossible to ever survive on your own, and there's still a big difference between good players and bad ones, but if you compare teamwork there to most pub servers in any other game it's like night and day. L4D is an extreme case but the basic premise is solid.
I say make NS2 a fun game first and a competitive one second.
<!--quoteo(post=1698445:date=Jan 25 2009, 07:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 25 2009, 07:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh yeah, you're much better than Firewater. I was pretty good at NS when I still played, believe it or not. Did the occasional pug but had no interest in getting into the competitive scene for a number of reasons(the snobbish attitudes of competitive gamers being one). I said in the beginning that I'm arguing for this because I think NS2 marines should be more tightly team-based than NS1's were. Restricting solo play is necessary to accomplish that, especially in pub servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I sincerely hope you weren't part of that EC Playtester clan, like the one with groupies. Its ok to be snobbish as long as you are the one dishing it out (LOTS of early PTs had that problem).
NS2 will ultimately be what the players decide it to. I feel that rather than restricting solo play, I would give squad benefits to those who choose to operate more closely. Perhaps a slight damage bonus or health bonus. But penalizing solo play should not be an option as it is quite often required for the marines to win.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When I say they're shutting their brain off I mean they're playing recklessly by doing so much on their own, even if it's an informed decision based on the skill of their opponents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So killing aliens by one's self is reckless. Killing the same group of aliens with a small squad is teamplay. Man, we might as just play on those TacticalLOL servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The amount of alien skill/coordination required before running solo becomes prohibitively dangerous for marines is unreasonable IMHO. I'm not saying aliens should be able to win without being as good as the marines, but they should be able to force the marines to work together without necessarily being on par with them. Since my whole argument is that tight teamplay is the driving premise behind the marine team, I think even pros on a pub team should be expected to participate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why isn't someone running a solo mission contributing to the team? Honestly, there is not a solo play problem against competent players, as they usually get mauled. The problem is the skill base that allows the FEW minority of players to dominate pubs once and a while. Where as solo play is necessary sometimes even without the pr0 players, that would be restricted as well for the sake a of a poor definition of teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Online gaming is a social drug. This attitude of aiming for the top at all costs is a vocal but small minority of the community, even in relatively "hardcore" games. You're arguing to defend your right to walk all over less dedicated players in pub games without having to depend on your teammates, but allowing that breaks down the structure of the game in pub games where individual skill tends to vary widely. It's exactly because most players don't care as much(note: probably not mentally retarded) that the necessity of teamwork needs to be blindingly obvious for it to register with everyone. The best example of this is Left 4 Dead - it's completely impossible to ever survive on your own, and there's still a big difference between good players and bad ones, but if you compare teamwork there to most pub servers in any other game it's like night and day. L4D is an extreme case but the basic premise is solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be curious to see how the L4D model would work on a large scale (when mods come out, I'm sure someone will program a large scale l4d server), I'm betting it only works with a small amount of players because the survivors would just leave too many people behind if it were the size of say an NS game. Part of the problem and frustration in L4D is that if you get a team with 1 or 2 downies, they ruin the game for the rest of the players due to the design of the game. In NS a few bad players in a large enough pub won't determine victory or defeat, and those "reckless" and "mindless" players often times carry the weight of those who are not contributing much to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say make NS2 a fun game first and a competitive one second.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of the problem with your whole argument is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that NS2 can be both FUN and COMPETITIVE (just as the first one was) without having to be mutually exclusive. Kind of lends weight to Radix's theory of "If your not playing my way you are doing it wrong"
All we are saying is allow players to play the way they choose.
<!--quoteo(post=1698468:date=Jan 25 2009, 09:32 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 25 2009, 09:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698468"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I sincerely hope you weren't part of that EC Playtester clan, like the one with groupies. Its ok to be snobbish as long as you are the one dishing it out (LOTS of early PTs had that problem).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, never been part of a clan.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 will ultimately be what the players decide it to. I feel that rather than restricting solo play, I would give squad benefits to those who choose to operate more closely. Perhaps a slight damage bonus or health bonus. But penalizing solo play should not be an option as it is quite often required for the marines to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it's too slight then nobody will particularly care. If it's a large buff then the aliens will need to be buffed to compete with groups of marines, which will cause them to outclass solo marines anyway. Given the choice between the two I would think you'd prefer logical gameplay mechanics dictating play instead of an arbitrary good behavior bonus. And if marines are underpowered without solo play then we buff them, or maybe they won't be, seeing as this is a brand new game and all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So killing aliens by one's self is reckless. Killing the same group of aliens with a small squad is teamplay. Man, we might as just play on those TacticalLOL servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, working together with teammates is teamplay. Surviving on your own because you're good isn't.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why isn't someone running a solo mission contributing to the team? Honestly, there is not a solo play problem against competent players, as they usually get mauled. The problem is the skill base that allows the FEW minority of players to dominate pubs once and a while. Where as solo play is necessary sometimes even without the pr0 players, that would be restricted as well for the sake a of a poor definition of teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I say he wasn't contributing? I said he's using very little teamwork. As I've said before, I think a lone marine walking into a good ambush and winning is a solo play problem. Expecting the aliens to coordinate carefully just to take you down when you're wandering around on your own is ridiculous given the original team concepts. In any case, I think the marine gameplay would be improved by an increased emphasis on teamwork, and you can't get that as long as everybody has it in their heads that they can do just fine on their own.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would be curious to see how the L4D model would work on a large scale (when mods come out, I'm sure someone will program a large scale l4d server), I'm betting it only works with a small amount of players because the survivors would just leave too many people behind if it were the size of say an NS game. Part of the problem and frustration in L4D is that if you get a team with 1 or 2 downies, they ruin the game for the rest of the players due to the design of the game. In NS a few bad players in a large enough pub won't determine victory or defeat, and those "reckless" and "mindless" players often times carry the weight of those who are not contributing much to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> L4D is hurt by only a couple bad players because it has such tiny teams, it's the same in NS if 50% of your team is terrible. And I still don't know where you're getting the idea that marines would have to wander the map in one gigantic blob, it would usually be smarter to move in smaller squads comparable to L4D. A single guy in a squad being bad isn't a huge deal, you won't be stuck with him forever. The thing is, a lot of what makes bad pub players so useless is the superman complex that makes them constantly try to do things on their own and fail, effectively wasting a slot. If doing that is completely futile even for good players and everybody knows it then even newbies would rarely keep it up for long - see L4D. A highly skilled player will still be a big asset for the team, he can just put his skills to use keeping teammates alive.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Part of the problem with your whole argument is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that NS2 can be both FUN and COMPETITIVE (just as the first one was) without having to be mutually exclusive. Kind of lends weight to Radix's theory of "If your not playing my way you are doing it wrong"
All we are saying is allow players to play the way they choose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I say mutually exclusive? I'm saying to establish priorities. The game should be designed with the sole goal of being fun, and after that's accomplished balance changes can be made to make it competitively viable. But if you automatically shoot down everything that might hinder competitive play even the slightest little bit then you're ruling out a lot of major improvements to the game. It's not the end of the world, nobody's suggesting anything even approaching party game territory.
I agree everyone can play the way they choose, but not every way is a good idea. I'm just suggesting a change in the rules so people will choose something different.
<!--quoteo(post=1698480:date=Jan 26 2009, 01:49 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 26 2009, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698480"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope, never been part of a clan.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that is good to know, however you must admit that the PTs have at least a little bit of snobbery towards the rest of the community due to their playtesting privileges and they are not very nice to the general competitive population.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's too slight then nobody will particularly care. If it's a large buff then the aliens will need to be buffed to compete with groups of marines, which will cause them to outclass solo marines anyway. Given the choice between the two I would think you'd prefer logical gameplay mechanics dictating play instead of an arbitrary good behavior bonus. And if marines are underpowered without solo play then we buff them, or maybe they won't be, seeing as this is a brand new game and all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem with squad work as it is useful in a majority of situations. However, even if you buff the aliens vs. solo players you will still have those players who will continue to take apart the alien players unless they use good teamwork, or have a skulk that can take down said Marine. However, whatever buff you give the aliens just remember that large squads of "teamwork using" marines actually become less efficient because they wind up shooting each other in the back of the head which allows skulks to close the gap (Part of the reason why Friendly Fire Damage is at 30%). Now you have a bunch of marines with half empty magazines, and skulks within attack range with either a damage, or HP buff. This is more common in pub play then the one player who completely dominates the other side. Please don't allow your hard feelings for solo players to stop you from thinking of the big picture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did I say he wasn't contributing? I said he's using very little teamwork. As I've said before, I think a lone marine walking into a good ambush and winning is a solo play problem. Expecting the aliens to coordinate carefully just to take you down when you're wandering around on your own is ridiculous given the original team concepts. In any case, I think the marine gameplay would be improved by an increased emphasis on teamwork, and you can't get that as long as everybody has it in their heads that they can do just fine on their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about the solo player who runs into an ambush and gets rocked? That never seems to be a problem, but I have seen it happen before. Also why is it the aliens are prohibited from using tactics against these solo players. In Terror sometimes it would take 2 or 3 of us using teamwork to drop a competent fade/lerk. I am wondering why that concept cannot be applied the solo marine from the alien perspective. Why does the game have to change if players are not using effective tactics to achieve victory?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D is hurt by only a couple bad players because it has such tiny teams, it's the same in NS if 50% of your team is terrible. And I still don't know where you're getting the idea that marines would have to wander the map in one gigantic blob, it would usually be smarter to move in smaller squads comparable to L4D. A single guy in a squad being bad isn't a huge deal, you won't be stuck with him forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but we have no clue how L4D would work on the large scale, what I do know is that the survivor team in large numbers would have more attrition and those people who got left behind would not be enjoying the game. The L4D system only works because of the small numbers, if you double that number the game would turn to chaos (My hypothesis).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, a lot of what makes bad pub players so useless is the superman complex that makes them constantly try to do things on their own and fail, effectively wasting a slot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So by that argument would be infering that even those players who go 2/20 as long as they are in a squad they are not useless. Take that same player with the same score by himself and then he is useless. Poor argumentation Zek, as both players are useless and are just handing resources to the other team (as per NS1 standards). Just because one is part of a squad DOES NOT mean that he or she is viable contributor to that squad, it just simply means they have membership to it. And just because a person is doing a socially favorable (in your eyes) activity does not mean that he or she is contributing to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If doing that is completely futile even for good players and everybody knows it then even newbies would rarely keep it up for long - see L4D. A highly skilled player will still be a big asset for the team, he can just put his skills to use keeping teammates alive. Did I say mutually exclusive? I'm saying to establish priorities. The game should be designed with the sole goal of being fun, and after that's accomplished balance changes can be made to make it competitively viable. But if you automatically shoot down everything that might hinder competitive play even the slightest little bit then you're ruling out a lot of major improvements to the game. It's not the end of the world, nobody's suggesting anything even approaching party game territory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In L4D there is a simple objective in versus mode: Make it to the safe house with as many survivors and as much health as possible. Survivors only get 1 spawn. Infected get as many spawns as the survivors allow them to (30 second spawn rate). In NS one team has to destroy the other to get victory. That principle generally makes the two games unrelatable in terms of balance and game dynamics. You also assume solo play is not contributing to the survival of other players. If the solo player can draw 3 or 4 skulks away from the rest of the team, that person is indirectly contributing to the survival of the other players allowing them to do important activities such as capping and destroying res.
I agree the game should be fun, but you also have to agree that NS1 is fun despite those balance changes you are not completely happy with. So even with "super rambos" the game is still enjoyable otherwise you would not be posting here, and you would not have earned PT status. So it is very difficult to take your argument seriously because of those facts. And you are also assuming that forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, and you are also assuming that your suggestions would be improvements DESPITE no evidence to support those claims. I would ask that you would use rhetoric to reflect the points as more theory rather than law. What I am saying is that forcing squad play will most likely create dynamics of the marine team that will probably hinder play rather than improve.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree everyone can play the way they choose, but not every way is a good idea. I'm just suggesting a change in the rules so people will choose something different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But even if you change the rules, there will still be those players who can go off on their own and still be capable of solo play. This has ALWAYS been the case with every major balance change in NS. All of the casual players would rejoice when they removed marine bunnyhopping. Result: Great Marines still dominated poor aliens. in 2.01 when the aliens got a buff and was arguably more dominate in the early game. Result: Great marines still dominated poor aliens. If you make the game more like L4D hunter style, the game will most likely fall apart with respect to skewness.
I mean I get that L4D was just released, but I have no idea why so many people are referencing it seriously, despite the completely obvious difference in playstyle. If the devs take a L4D approach towards NS (Which I am pretty sure they won't) I am predicting that the game will fail and they would have wasted many resources trying to make it work.
<!--quoteo(post=1698413:date=Jan 25 2009, 12:49 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 25 2009, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Apology accepted, but your points are not coherent to the topic at hand, nor does your theorycraft generalize of the results of the games of the past and currently. But practice makes permanent after all. I'll remind you that the suggestions that you propose would have PROFOUND effects on the middle and late game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you were paying attention, I was trying to prove only one thing which had nothing to do with the generic games ghost of christmas past and present, to which it would seem completely flew by you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See here is a core problem in your logic. You assume that the solo fighter is all about twitch reflexes. Solo play is more about movement then quick reflexes, and keeping a good distance away from skulks while still attempting to kill them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Irregardless, even an expert solo fighter should not pwn anything which tries to close the distance between himself and the skulk and a '<i>probably</i>' pwnage of those skulks which actually do manage to close the distance. Why shouldn't a player be able to kill all those skulks with the ammo and skill necessary? I ask the inverse. Why should a single player choosing a bad strategy be able to kill several alien players without requiring several alien players to actually <b>organize</b> an attack vs a single player? Even a marine player of great skill shouldn't be able to <i>count</i> on killing a good majority of the 1 on 1 encounters with aliens. It promotes elitism and a inherent sense that a single player can do well on his or her own with little or no troublesome interaction with the rest of the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument is imilar to when the nerds say that football players are dumb in high school. "You are good at something that prohibits me from playing well, therefore you must be stupid". I'll take a player capable of solo play that can do the work of 3 or 4 players on my team any day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa. I'm going to have to call the metaphor police on you for that one, wow. You used a metaphor like sweaty socks in a rainstorm. Both stink, but only the left sock can bunnyhop and rambo.
I'll assume that was some sort of insult that you're trying to imply that because I can't rambo, I'm arguing that players shouldn't be able to rambo? Did I get that correctly? Some argument. Got me there. Now I'll have to concede. Clearly your l337 skillz make me wish I could rambo just like you.
But in all seriousness, I've never even seen you play, much less know if you play well, though I can imagine at least one thing: you'd probably be the one player who disregards orders from the comm out of what you think is "best" for teamwork. Fine by me. Just don't do it in one of my servers or I'll have you kicked. If you want that style of play, there are plenty of combat servers available.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) (Since we are counting correctly). If a solo player is beginning to gain the upperhand, the aliens have various tactics that they can use to neutralize said player. Skulks may have to use teamwork (A difficult concept for you I am sure) to take down said player. One of the popular tactics that can be used with skulks by themselves or skulks are gorges are bait and switch tactics. Gorges are more common for this, but other lifeforms as well can be used. Set up a gorge who is either building a resource node or just spitting the marine. Make sure that a skulks or two are COMPLETELY quiet, and ambush when the marine commits to an attack. Also bunnyhopping on the alien's part helps as well. Lerk spores are a great way to move solo players as well as groups of players into spots where they are more susceptible to ambush No you just need to have some tactics to out smart the "dumb" solo player. I am embarrassed for you that you cannot understand this core concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not that I couldn't understand it. Just having a hard time actually believing that you're actually arguing to require several skulks or even skulks and lerk sporing working together in order to kill a single unarmored marine player who doesn't even have support from other teammates. You're suggesting that as an alien, I'd have to move around the corner, recognize that it is you, a single unarmored marine and then proceed to retreat and request help from my teammates in order to kill you. This is the way you think natural selection 2 should be? Perhaps I ought to stop assuming that you meant something which made you seem less ignorant, my deepest apologies.
<!--quoteo(post=1698504:date=Jan 26 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 26 2009, 02:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698504"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why should a single player choosing a bad strategy be able to kill several alien players without requiring several alien players to actually <b>organize</b> an attack vs a single player?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you tell the strategy he's using? The amount of marines is maybe 1/5 of the actual strategy at that point. Positioning, timing, map control, upgrades, lifeforms, weapons and risk taking are all there too.
Well I was overgeneralizing. There are of course many other factors to consider. For the sake of the argument though, we're assuming none of those factors affect the situation. You could say that a single marine should be able to kick ass and chew bubble gum wiping the floor with many skulks, to which I'd respond that that's silly to expect a vanilla marine to be able to do that. To that, you'd reply that the marine is fully upgraded, which complicates the initial scenario.
I'm assuming that we're talking about vanilla marines and vanilla skulks, which is to say, no upgrades to influence the outcome. If we're talking about a 1 on 1 encounter, the outcome must inevitably be the result of a combination of positioning and skill (by skill I'm including 'twitch' reflexes). How much is dependent upon skill and how much is dependent upon positioning is unfortunately subjective, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
Skill is important, I won't deny that, but at the same time it shouldn't determine the fight 100%. That's silly. It's already not like that when you consider how easily skulks die from a distance. However the opposite scenario would seem perfectly legitimate and correct that a marine's skill should determine the fight 100%, which in my opinion is an obvious issue of balance. Did that answer the question?
<!--quoteo(post=1698506:date=Jan 26 2009, 02:57 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 26 2009, 02:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well I was overgeneralizing. There are of course many other factors to consider. For the sake of the argument though, we're assuming none of those factors affect the situation. You could say that a single marine should be able to kick ass and chew bubble gum wiping the floor with many skulks, to which I'd respond that that's silly to expect a vanilla marine to be able to do that. To that, you'd reply that the marine is fully upgraded, which complicates the initial scenario.
I'm assuming that we're talking about vanilla marines and vanilla skulks, which is to say, no upgrades to influence the outcome. If we're talking about a 1 on 1 encounter, the outcome must inevitably be the result of a combination of positioning and skill (by skill I'm including 'twitch' reflexes). How much is dependent upon skill and how much is dependent upon positioning is unfortunately subjective, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
Skill is important, I won't deny that, but at the same time it shouldn't determine the fight 100%. That's silly. It's already not like that when you consider how easily skulks die from a distance. However the opposite scenario would seem perfectly legitimate and correct that a marine's skill should determine the fight 100%, which in my opinion is an obvious issue of balance. Did that answer the question?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Going to the upgrades and such is mostly just useless babbling. Those make the difference while people are playing on the same level. The core gameplay, however, is always the same, variating a bit more on the amount of hives and the lifeform count.
How do you determine skill? Does it involve positioning, situational awarness, general grasp of gameplay and so on? I mean, most of the good players absolutely outplay the average pubber in every aspect, both strategical and pure twitch skill. The only missing aspect is that he isn't trailed by another marine.
The way I see it, the good marines are dominant. However, I still can't see how they're supposed to be stopped while they're outskilling, outpositioning, outthinking the opponents and the oppositing team isn't doing much to communicate/smoke him out. This is why I keep repeating the learning curve and communications mantra.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How do you determine skill? Does it involve positioning, situational awarness, general grasp of gameplay and so on? I mean, most of the good players absolutely outplay the average pubber in every aspect, both strategical and pure twitch skill. The only missing aspect is that he isn't trailed by another marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I define skill as your chance of survival in an encounter with the enemy. In this respect, strategic evaluation is at a minimum as you've already met the enemy. Closest thing you could come to strategy at that point is whether or not you run or fight. Strategy is what led you there. I wouldn't call a comm's ability to lead a team well skill. I'd call it strategy. Likewise, I wouldn't call a player's ability to use the last 20 bullets in his lmg to kill an approaching skulk as strategy. I think you're defining skill as too broad a concept.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way I see it, the good marines are dominant. However, I still can't see how they're supposed to be stopped while they're outskilling, outpositioning, outthinking the opponents and the oppositing team isn't doing much to communicate/smoke him out. This is why I keep repeating the learning curve and communications mantra.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why can't it work both ways?
<!--quoteo(post=1698513:date=Jan 26 2009, 04:31 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I define skill as your chance of survival in an encounter with the enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> About 90% of the rambo fights are won before they actually see the enemy. Even I, a semi active commander from lower competetive leves, can land 20 bullets on a skulk that isn't surprising, timing its attack or using much of cover. Almost anyone can do it once he predicts/prepares for its attack through other means of gameplay. Performing a dodgy double railing jump while whipping the skulk out with pistol can get you out from those clutch situations, but you'll need those maybe on one out of 100 encouters even against skilled opponents. The rest is actually more about thinking quickly and capitalizing the situation, space usage and prioritizing targets and such.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why can't it work both ways?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this. What should work two ways?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1698513:date=Jan 26 2009, 11:31 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 26 2009, 11:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I define skill as your chance of survival in an encounter with the enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is really a bad definition of skill to begin with. Skill only modulates your chance of survival in such an encounter. Meanwhile, a host of other factors (including enemy skill, latency, hitbox orientation, fight dynamics, duration of the fight) also contribute to your chance of survival and, at a critical point, your fate is sealed (100% success/survival or failure/death). Either that, or you make it out alive by fleeing.
It's not like this is the first post that points out that things aren't so simple in 1v1 encounters. In fact, it feels like the last 50 posts are just people shouting their points, using pseudo definitions to suit their arguments, but not really reading the points of others.
Zek, if your desire to force good players to unable to beat bad players -except by relying on unreliably poor team support- is not based on frustration, what is it based on?
This isn't about game balance! This is ENTIRELY about the skill level players on the opposing teams.
Play a decent game with a decent alien team that is communicating, and rambo marines get killed. What is a solo (parasited) LMG supposed to do against a lerk with a 2 mc celerity upgrade? He's going to die VERY soon without backup..
There are already great advantages to staying as a squad in NS1. The biggest is that you can ward off attacks from several aliens at once (from different directions) - as well as welding, covering (while building) etc... There is no reason to add in OP squad effects that force a marines to always stay in a squad. Squading together ALL the time would be silly.
However, if the aliens are incompetent, I should hope that they lose REGARDLESS of whether the marines squad together most of the time. Why shouldn't I be able to kill endless skulks that walk in one-by-one right into my lmg? If their ambushes are predictable (and noisy) and they don't bunnyhop or work with their teammates, then it's a problem with their individual skill levels - not with the balance of a game.
It seems that the basic argument is this:
I think that more skilled players should win games most of the time against weaker players, regardless of whether they stay in a strict squad formation.
Other people are arguing that marines should only win when they stay in squads, but lose to incompetent aliens if they fail to stay in a squad.
There are reasons to encourage informal squads (like welders, cover, reloading etc). These are GOOD reasons. These are already implemented in NS1. There is no good reason to FORCE squads (with OP benefits for squads or silly disabling attacks for skulks).
<!--quoteo(post=1698504:date=Jan 26 2009, 09:10 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 26 2009, 09:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698504"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were paying attention, I was trying to prove only one thing which had nothing to do with the generic games ghost of christmas past and present, to which it would seem completely flew by you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I dunno what that means. What I do know is that your arguments are pretty poor and don't generalize to the current state of NS and probably be a balance nightmare for NS2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Irregardless, even an expert solo fighter should not pwn anything which tries to close the distance between himself and the skulk and a '<i>probably</i>' pwnage of those skulks which actually do manage to close the distance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you had it your way there would be a skill ceiling and no expert play (at least that what it seems like).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why shouldn't a player be able to kill all those skulks with the ammo and skill necessary? I ask the inverse. Why should a single player choosing a bad strategy be able to kill several alien players without requiring several alien players to actually <b>organize</b> an attack vs a single player?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going off solo is not necessarily a bad strategy. Your assumptions are based on a small minority of the population that are really capable of this behavior, yet you want to penalize the entire NS2 population with your idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even a marine player of great skill shouldn't be able to <i>count</i> on killing a good majority of the 1 on 1 encounters with aliens. It promotes elitism and a inherent sense that a single player can do well on his or her own with little or no troublesome interaction with the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name me a game that features opposing force that does not have a small group of players that feel they are elite. You HAVE to know that your argument does not hold water with regards to that point. If not man I have to indeed wonder just what in the hell you are thinking.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whoa. I'm going to have to call the metaphor police on you for that one, wow. You used a metaphor like sweaty socks in a rainstorm. Both stink, but only the left sock can bunnyhop and rambo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I called the logic police on you, they said they are tired of giving you warning and will begin fining you for poor attempt of logic, in the 2nd degree (WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll assume that was some sort of insult that you're trying to imply that because I can't rambo, I'm arguing that players shouldn't be able to rambo? Did I get that correctly? Some argument. Got me there. Now I'll have to concede. Clearly your l337 skillz make me wish I could rambo just like you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What can I say? Skill is a resource that is relative to present competition, not everyone has it at any given time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But in all seriousness, I've never even seen you play, much less know if you play well, though I can imagine at least one thing: you'd probably be the one player who disregards orders from the comm out of what you think is "best" for teamwork. Fine by me. Just don't do it in one of my servers or I'll have you kicked. If you want that style of play, there are plenty of combat servers available.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah its probably best we don't play against each other, I don't want to be responsible for any broken peripherals of yours.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not that I couldn't understand it. Just having a hard time actually believing that you're actually arguing to require several skulks or even skulks and lerk sporing working together in order to kill a single unarmored marine player who doesn't even have support from other teammates. You're suggesting that as an alien, I'd have to move around the corner, recognize that it is you, a single unarmored marine and then proceed to retreat and request help from my teammates in order to kill you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am suggesting is that for a small portion of the early game, skulks are at distinct disadvantage and that if the marine is good enough, it MAY take multiple skulks to neutralize that particular marine threat. As the aliens get upgrades and other tech, solo play is not as much of a problem for the aliens if they are good enough to make it not a viable option.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is the way you think natural selection 2 should be? Perhaps I ought to stop assuming that you meant something which made you seem less ignorant, my deepest apologies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Natural Selection 2 should offer more options to players and the only restrictions that should exist are the ones the each team imposes on each other. Not some hardcoding non-sense that will probably skew everything out of proportion.
I accept your apology because I know that your logic is severely skewed and that you appear to be incapable of grasping the larger picture. Its almost like a teenager that wants the respect of an adult yet creates arguments like a child. Your basic thesis includes "I play a certain way and everyone else should too". Is this not correct?
<!--quoteo(post=1698545:date=Jan 26 2009, 03:44 PM:name=themeatshield)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(themeatshield @ Jan 26 2009, 03:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sigh. This isn't about game balance! This is ENTIRELY about the skill level players on the opposing teams.
Play a decent game with a decent alien team that is communicating, and rambo marines get killed. What is a solo (parasited) LMG supposed to do against a lerk with a 2 mc celerity upgrade? He's going to die VERY soon without backup..
There are already great advantages to staying as a squad in NS1. The biggest is that you can ward off attacks from several aliens at once (from different directions) - as well as welding, covering (while building) etc... There is no reason to add in OP squad effects that force a marines to always stay in a squad. Squading together ALL the time would be silly. However, if the aliens are incompetent, I should hope that they lose REGARDLESS of whether the marines squad together most of the time. Why shouldn't I be able to kill endless skulks that walk in one-by-one right into my lmg? If their ambushes are predictable (and noisy) and they don't bunnyhop or work with their teammates, then it's a problem with their individual skill levels - not with the balance of a game. It seems that the basic argument is this:
I think that more skilled players should win games most of the time against weaker players, regardless of whether they stay in a strict squad formation.
Other people are arguing that marines should only win when they stay in squads, but lose to incompetent aliens if they fail to stay in a squad. There are reasons to encourage informal squads (like welders, cover, reloading etc). These are GOOD reasons. These are already implemented in NS1. There is no good reason to FORCE squads (with OP benefits for squads or silly disabling attacks for skulks).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider yourself lucky there isn't an alien commander -- or one playing as the hive -- using commands to set up ambushes along the map, making it obvious where you want them to ambush the enemy marines.
I agree with Meat. At the moment sticking together can either be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the players skill.
If a bad player follows me around, his survivability will probably go up because he's got me, but mine will actually go down as he will block my bullets, give away my position by making tonnes of noise and take my ammo/medpacks.
However if I'm with a good player, both our survivability goes up as we will weld each other, cover with good aim and be 2x more effective at dealing with whatever comes our way.
On a seperate note, I think what's causing this argument is the different views on how this game is meant to work.
We have one group that thinks this game should be like the movie aliens, where the marines are on an alien infested ship and are not safe anywhere they go (L4D style.)
The other group sees this game like a Terran vs Zerg starcraft match, where both teams are on equal ground and whoever uses the entire map to their advantage will win
I think the latter is closer to the way NS1 was designed and the way NS2 should be also. IMO the gaming scene doesn't need any more non-competitive, low-skill based games. There are enough of those already and recently a huge lack of highly competitive ones.
To those of you trying to turn NS2 into the former, you've got the wrong game. Play something else if that's what you're after.
I think everyone is missing the OP's point, and has taken this thread all over the place since.
From what I can understand of his post, he's using the term "Rambo" different than most of us think of it.
His version of "Rambo" is a player who ignores all their orders from the comm, and just runs around looking for aliens to kill. The key part being IGNORES ORDERS.
He's arguing that a commander be given some way to punish a marine who is ignoring orders just so they can go off and do their own thing. Yes, solo players being able to wander around the map furthering the goals of the team as a whole is a good thing....but player who just wanders the map trying to find stuff to kill, ignoring all the build/move/what have you orders a comm gives him is a detriment to the team, just like the OP was saying. There are many times a commander needs several players in the same area building a bunch of turrets or whatever FAST, and if only 1 or 2 players obey the orders to go wherever to build then the aliens are just as likely to wipe out the site as to have the site get completed.
A really good player who is off on their own isn't just going to be running around trying to kill stuff. They're going to be seeking out things that can improve their team's situation. Trying to get into a strategic PG spot near a hive, or killing/building RT's, etc...they aren't just running around shooting aliens. A good player will know what sort of strategic goals will help their team, and will pursue those goals without needing micromanagement. That same good player though will realize that if a comm is ordering them to go somewhere/do something, there is probably a good reason...they're closest, need backup in the area, etc. and they'll follow the orders.
That video that Radix posted last month has a really good point....IF you are working with a consistent bunch of players. In a pub, positive reinforcement is a joke...negative is the only thing a commander could use reliably to enforce their will.
Do I want to see NS2 end up with severe penalties for going solo? No way. Do I want to see a commander be given some sort of tool, such as the marks the OP suggested, in order to better enforce their will and help the team as a whole to victory? YES.
<!--quoteo(post=1698579:date=Jan 26 2009, 08:26 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 26 2009, 08:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you had it your way there would be a skill ceiling and no expert play (at least that what it seems like).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're saying that if a single marine isn't capable of killing every alien he encounters with an lmg and pistol, there's no expert play? Be realistic. Determining a cap on what an elite player should be able to do is not going to remove "expert play." That's like saying that a balance change like reducing the maximum lmg clip size would remove elitism and everyone would play equally.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going off solo is not necessarily a bad strategy. Your assumptions are based on a small minority of the population that are really capable of this behavior, yet you want to penalize the entire NS2 population with your idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Balancing the game isn't penalization. How can I penalize the non-existant players of natural selection 2 with an idea which effects the non-existant rules of a game which hasn't been written yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Name me a game that features opposing force that does not have a small group of players that feel they are elite. You HAVE to know that your argument does not hold water with regards to that point. If not man I have to indeed wonder just what in the hell you are thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There exists elites in every game, however I'd like to make ramboing "less" elite. I thought I made my point clear on this one. You clearly aren't even reading my posts at this point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I am suggesting is that for a small portion of the early game, skulks are at distinct disadvantage and that if the marine is good enough, it MAY take multiple skulks to neutralize that particular marine threat. As the aliens get upgrades and other tech, solo play is not as much of a problem for the aliens if they are good enough to make it not a viable option. I think Natural Selection 2 should offer more options to players and the only restrictions that should exist are the ones the each team imposes on each other. Not some hardcoding non-sense that will probably skew everything out of proportion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only restrictions that should exist are the ones each team imposes on each other? How were you proposing to do that, exactly? Harsh words? There are restrictions on weapon damage, restrictions on resources, restrictions on upgrades. They're in essence the rules of the game. Adding restrictions which encourage teamplay is no different than the restrictions which encourage resource mining to win the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I accept your apology because I know that your logic is severely skewed and that you appear to be incapable of grasping the larger picture. Its almost like a teenager that wants the respect of an adult yet creates arguments like a child. Your basic thesis includes "I play a certain way and everyone else should too". Is this not correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah its probably best we don't play against each other, I don't want to be responsible for any broken peripherals of yours.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah I called the logic police on you, they said they are tired of giving you warning and will begin fining you for poor attempt of logic, in the 2nd degree (WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE) What can I say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah I dunno what that means. What I do know is that your arguments are pretty poor and don't generalize to the current state of NS and probably be a balance nightmare for NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who are you? Bill Lumbergh from Office Space? Don't think you honestly have any basis for calling my arguments childlike, seeing how the bulk of your arguments consist of baseless insults. Rather than help your point, you only make yourself look more like a frustrated child than anything else. I'm starting to think you're only arguing pro-rambo for kicks rather than supplying a viable argument. Still, my hope remains that there's some sense of intelligent argument left in what I would otherwise consider a waste of my time and yours (unless you live for this kind of thing).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do I want to see NS2 end up with severe penalties for going solo? No way. Do I want to see a commander be given some sort of tool, such as the marks the OP suggested, in order to better enforce their will and help the team as a whole to victory? YES.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe it should be the opposite. Playing together and/or working with your team should be encouraged rather than penalizing rambo players by direct comm intervention. Players should play that way because it's what works and what allows teams to win games, not because you think "what a jerk our comm.. making us fight together when I could do perfectly fine on my own."
If you wanted to play on your own, that's your decision, but it shouldn't reap results. The best players should be those who work together, not those who give the comm the finger and do their own thing. My apologies to Firewater again, as it seems this directly conflicts with his playing style.
Comments
It's just really easy to rambo in pub games, because the other players are so terrible!
If I jump in a game in a large American server or with custom players in Australia, I won't bother to stick with teammates. This is because I know I can probably just walk straight to the hive and spawn camp it (if the comm is smart enough to drop meds within 30 seconds...).
If I play in a pug with skilled Australian players, I don't rambo. This is because I would die very quickly.
It's not really about the game mechanics, it's just that you don't really have to play your best against people that aren't very good. If an alien team won't/can't parasite a marine AND won't wait until they can ambush with 2-3 skulks (as is done when decent players are on the alien team), then they shouldn't win! Why should an incompetent alien team beat a marine team with good players?
On the off-chance designers actually read these forums of course.
They are completely valid arguments because nobody should be suggesting anything unless they know <u>everything</u> about a game. I know everything about this game, what about you?
I will not dignify this insolence with a response.
It's just really easy to rambo in pub games, because the other players are so terrible!
If I jump in a game in a large American server or with custom players in Australia, I won't bother to stick with teammates. This is because I know I can probably just walk straight to the hive and spawn camp it (if the comm is smart enough to drop meds within 30 seconds...).
If I play in a pug with skilled Australian players, I don't rambo. This is because I would die very quickly.
It's not really about the game mechanics, it's just that you don't really have to play your best against people that aren't very good. If an alien team won't/can't parasite a marine AND won't wait until they can ambush with 2-3 skulks (as is done when decent players are on the alien team), then they shouldn't win! Why should an incompetent alien team beat a marine team with good players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the team with more skill should win. The question is, should they be able to win by playing so sloppily? If they're good at the game then not only do they have twitch skills but they also know how to play smart. I think if you want to win you should have to use both. An FPS/RTS shouldn't favor players who shut their brain off and run in guns blazing, even if there is a skill imbalance. More often than not we're not talking about complete newbies on the other team, most people with a decent amount of experience in the game are relatively competent. But you're suggesting they should have to play at the competitive level before you even have a reason to stop ramboing.
What makes you think rambos are playing sloppily? A big part of the rambo's ability depends on outsmarting the oppositing team.
I apologize if your inability to read my post has somehow handicapped your ability to conceptualize my point. Seeing how my arguments are quickly shot down, you leave me no choice than to create rather trivial points, but at least points you can't refute. Green != Blue. 1 + 1 = 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apology accepted, but your points are not coherent to the topic at hand, nor does your theorycraft generalize of the results of the games of the past and currently. But practice makes permanent after all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll remind you again of our discussion, seeing how you've had a moment of temporary blindness (hope you're feeling better). We were discussing how a perfect ambush should kill its intended target and if it doesn't, it simply isn't perfect. I presented you with a similar scenario in which a perfect attack can still fail because moreso than blantant skill, there's also a factor of positioning and intelligent fighting involved with natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll remind you that the suggestions that you propose would have PROFOUND effects on the middle and late game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A rambo fighting is practically the antithesis of intelligent fighting. Rather than allow yourself to be backed by other players, you move without them. Rather than avoid ambushes, you plow through them. It would be as if you attempted to kill marines at the end of a long hallway as a skulk. However, the difference here being that skulk attacking from a long distance is instafail while a rambo falling into a perfect ambush is not instafail. Rather, success rate is fairly high amongst the skilled marine players, thus encouraging rambo style fighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See here is a core problem in your logic. You assume that the solo fighter is all about twitch reflexes. Solo play is more about movement then quick reflexes, and keeping a good distance away from skulks while still attempting to kill them. Your argument is imilar to when the nerds say that football players are dumb in high school. "You are good at something that prohibits me from playing well, therefore you must be stupid". I'll take a player capable of solo play that can do the work of 3 or 4 players on my team any day.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only way you could refute this claim in one of three ways:
1) You deny that ambushes are so easily foiled.
2) You could accept it and claim that teams are asymmetric, in that skulks are supposed to be crappy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) (Since we are counting correctly). If a solo player is beginning to gain the upperhand, the aliens have various tactics that they can use to neutralize said player. Skulks may have to use teamwork (A difficult concept for you I am sure) to take down said player. One of the popular tactics that can be used with skulks by themselves or skulks are gorges are bait and switch tactics. Gorges are more common for this, but other lifeforms as well can be used. Set up a gorge who is either building a resource node or just spitting the marine. Make sure that a skulks or two are COMPLETELY quiet, and ambush when the marine commits to an attack. Also bunnyhopping on the alien's part helps as well. Lerk spores are a great way to move solo players as well as groups of players into spots where they are more susceptible to ambush
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to take the asymmetric route, I ask you, if attacking down long hallways isn't a good attack style for skulks and ambushing isn't a good attack style for skulks, what is? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question as to why skulks must be dung fodder. Wanted natural selection to be more like starcraft maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you just need to have some tactics to out smart the "dumb" solo player. I am embarrassed for you that you cannot understand this core concept.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do I really have to answer why it shouldn't be that way? You could technically make marines as powerful as you'd want. For the sake of balance, I'd go for more of a game in which a player on the alien team doesn't die repeatedly, as I'm sure that's quite frustrating for new players. If you're trying to reverse the argument of making aliens stronger, I don't see how aiming for a 1 to 1 kill ratio means making skulks deal 500 damage per bite and 100 damage per parasite hit. 1 to 1 ratio is 1 to 1 by definition. I have a hard time seeing how that is unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes its an important question. My question simply is if a marine has all of this ammo in his LMG and Pistol, why shouldn't be able to use that ammo effectively enough if the players he are going against are not as skill as him or her? Seems to be the $64000 question.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hope you got my point this time and that the blindness is not the kind of "fade in and out" type thing. Get well soon!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh my blindness is more likely to be cured before your lack of understanding of the game. Good luck with your arguments, we definitely get a kick out of them on ventrilo.
Zek... I don't know what to say man, it's pretty obvious that your reasoning comes directly from "I'm bitter because I keep dying to better players."
No one EVER shuts their brain off and rambos effectively unless the opposing team is also shutting their brain off (with less skill attached). Ramboing is really a misnomer - it's closer to Splinter Cell, the reason you're capable of killing so many skulks is because you put yourself in a situation where you are able to do so, and you know how to control a room (which does include aiming). There's a reason dreaming fairy dies when you drop him a shotgun - when someone has done that many drugs he can't think effectively anymore, and the result is an inability to aggress successfully. Saying that "ramboing is brainless" is a misconception at best, and a spoiled cry for attention at worse. Skill is certainly paramount, but situational awareness is just as important so you don't run brainlessly into a fade, or endless clouds of eurospores.
<!--quoteo(post=1698371:date=Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 25 2009, 01:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More often than not we're not talking about complete newbies on the other team, most people with a decent amount of experience in the game are relatively competent. But you're suggesting they should have to play at the competitive level before you even have a reason to stop ramboing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Respectfully Zek, that's absolutely false too, sorry. Most people in NS are mentally retarded now - they don't communicate, they don't wake up when playing, they don't try to improve, and they don't care - they just want to use gaming as a social drug.
I say let the strong survive, what say you?
Oh yeah, you're much better than Firewater. I was pretty good at NS when I still played, believe it or not. Did the occasional pug but had no interest in getting into the competitive scene for a number of reasons(the snobbish attitudes of competitive gamers being one). I said in the beginning that I'm arguing for this because I think NS2 marines should be more tightly team-based than NS1's were. Restricting solo play is necessary to accomplish that, especially in pub servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one EVER shuts their brain off and rambos effectively unless the opposing team is also shutting their brain off (with less skill attached). Ramboing is really a misnomer - it's closer to Splinter Cell, the reason you're capable of killing so many skulks is because you put yourself in a situation where you are able to do so, and you know how to control a room (which does include aiming). There's a reason dreaming fairy dies when you drop him a shotgun - when someone has done that many drugs he can't think effectively anymore, and the result is an inability to aggress successfully. Saying that "ramboing is brainless" is a misconception at best, and a spoiled cry for attention at worse. Skill is certainly paramount, but situational awareness is just as important so you don't run brainlessly into a fade, or endless clouds of eurospores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I say they're shutting their brain off I mean they're playing recklessly by doing so much on their own, even if it's an informed decision based on the skill of their opponents. The amount of alien skill/coordination required before running solo becomes prohibitively dangerous for marines is unreasonable IMHO. I'm not saying aliens should be able to win without being as good as the marines, but they should be able to force the marines to work together without necessarily being on par with them. Since my whole argument is that tight teamplay is the driving premise behind the marine team, I think even pros on a pub team should be expected to participate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Respectfully Zek, that's absolutely false too, sorry. Most people in NS are mentally retarded now - they don't communicate, they don't wake up when playing, they don't try to improve, and they don't care - they just want to use gaming as a social drug.
I say let the strong survive, what say you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Online gaming is a social drug. This attitude of aiming for the top at all costs is a vocal but small minority of the community, even in relatively "hardcore" games. You're arguing to defend your right to walk all over less dedicated players in pub games without having to depend on your teammates, but allowing that breaks down the structure of the game in pub games where individual skill tends to vary widely. It's exactly because most players don't care as much(note: probably not mentally retarded) that the necessity of teamwork needs to be blindingly obvious for it to register with everyone. The best example of this is Left 4 Dead - it's completely impossible to ever survive on your own, and there's still a big difference between good players and bad ones, but if you compare teamwork there to most pub servers in any other game it's like night and day. L4D is an extreme case but the basic premise is solid.
I say make NS2 a fun game first and a competitive one second.
Solo anything should not make sense or be objective.
Team work should be a requirement for a functional match to happen.
Peace.
I sincerely hope you weren't part of that EC Playtester clan, like the one with groupies. Its ok to be snobbish as long as you are the one dishing it out (LOTS of early PTs had that problem).
NS2 will ultimately be what the players decide it to. I feel that rather than restricting solo play, I would give squad benefits to those who choose to operate more closely. Perhaps a slight damage bonus or health bonus. But penalizing solo play should not be an option as it is quite often required for the marines to win.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When I say they're shutting their brain off I mean they're playing recklessly by doing so much on their own, even if it's an informed decision based on the skill of their opponents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So killing aliens by one's self is reckless. Killing the same group of aliens with a small squad is teamplay. Man, we might as just play on those TacticalLOL servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The amount of alien skill/coordination required before running solo becomes prohibitively dangerous for marines is unreasonable IMHO. I'm not saying aliens should be able to win without being as good as the marines, but they should be able to force the marines to work together without necessarily being on par with them. Since my whole argument is that tight teamplay is the driving premise behind the marine team, I think even pros on a pub team should be expected to participate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why isn't someone running a solo mission contributing to the team? Honestly, there is not a solo play problem against competent players, as they usually get mauled. The problem is the skill base that allows the FEW minority of players to dominate pubs once and a while. Where as solo play is necessary sometimes even without the pr0 players, that would be restricted as well for the sake a of a poor definition of teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Online gaming is a social drug. This attitude of aiming for the top at all costs is a vocal but small minority of the community, even in relatively "hardcore" games. You're arguing to defend your right to walk all over less dedicated players in pub games without having to depend on your teammates, but allowing that breaks down the structure of the game in pub games where individual skill tends to vary widely. It's exactly because most players don't care as much(note: probably not mentally retarded) that the necessity of teamwork needs to be blindingly obvious for it to register with everyone. The best example of this is Left 4 Dead - it's completely impossible to ever survive on your own, and there's still a big difference between good players and bad ones, but if you compare teamwork there to most pub servers in any other game it's like night and day. L4D is an extreme case but the basic premise is solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be curious to see how the L4D model would work on a large scale (when mods come out, I'm sure someone will program a large scale l4d server), I'm betting it only works with a small amount of players because the survivors would just leave too many people behind if it were the size of say an NS game. Part of the problem and frustration in L4D is that if you get a team with 1 or 2 downies, they ruin the game for the rest of the players due to the design of the game. In NS a few bad players in a large enough pub won't determine victory or defeat, and those "reckless" and "mindless" players often times carry the weight of those who are not contributing much to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say make NS2 a fun game first and a competitive one second.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of the problem with your whole argument is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that NS2 can be both FUN and COMPETITIVE (just as the first one was) without having to be mutually exclusive. Kind of lends weight to Radix's theory of "If your not playing my way you are doing it wrong"
All we are saying is allow players to play the way they choose.
Nope, never been part of a clan.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 will ultimately be what the players decide it to. I feel that rather than restricting solo play, I would give squad benefits to those who choose to operate more closely. Perhaps a slight damage bonus or health bonus. But penalizing solo play should not be an option as it is quite often required for the marines to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's too slight then nobody will particularly care. If it's a large buff then the aliens will need to be buffed to compete with groups of marines, which will cause them to outclass solo marines anyway. Given the choice between the two I would think you'd prefer logical gameplay mechanics dictating play instead of an arbitrary good behavior bonus. And if marines are underpowered without solo play then we buff them, or maybe they won't be, seeing as this is a brand new game and all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So killing aliens by one's self is reckless. Killing the same group of aliens with a small squad is teamplay. Man, we might as just play on those TacticalLOL servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, working together with teammates is teamplay. Surviving on your own because you're good isn't.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why isn't someone running a solo mission contributing to the team? Honestly, there is not a solo play problem against competent players, as they usually get mauled. The problem is the skill base that allows the FEW minority of players to dominate pubs once and a while. Where as solo play is necessary sometimes even without the pr0 players, that would be restricted as well for the sake a of a poor definition of teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say he wasn't contributing? I said he's using very little teamwork. As I've said before, I think a lone marine walking into a good ambush and winning is a solo play problem. Expecting the aliens to coordinate carefully just to take you down when you're wandering around on your own is ridiculous given the original team concepts. In any case, I think the marine gameplay would be improved by an increased emphasis on teamwork, and you can't get that as long as everybody has it in their heads that they can do just fine on their own.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would be curious to see how the L4D model would work on a large scale (when mods come out, I'm sure someone will program a large scale l4d server), I'm betting it only works with a small amount of players because the survivors would just leave too many people behind if it were the size of say an NS game. Part of the problem and frustration in L4D is that if you get a team with 1 or 2 downies, they ruin the game for the rest of the players due to the design of the game. In NS a few bad players in a large enough pub won't determine victory or defeat, and those "reckless" and "mindless" players often times carry the weight of those who are not contributing much to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
L4D is hurt by only a couple bad players because it has such tiny teams, it's the same in NS if 50% of your team is terrible. And I still don't know where you're getting the idea that marines would have to wander the map in one gigantic blob, it would usually be smarter to move in smaller squads comparable to L4D. A single guy in a squad being bad isn't a huge deal, you won't be stuck with him forever. The thing is, a lot of what makes bad pub players so useless is the superman complex that makes them constantly try to do things on their own and fail, effectively wasting a slot. If doing that is completely futile even for good players and everybody knows it then even newbies would rarely keep it up for long - see L4D. A highly skilled player will still be a big asset for the team, he can just put his skills to use keeping teammates alive.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Part of the problem with your whole argument is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that NS2 can be both FUN and COMPETITIVE (just as the first one was) without having to be mutually exclusive. Kind of lends weight to Radix's theory of "If your not playing my way you are doing it wrong"
All we are saying is allow players to play the way they choose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say mutually exclusive? I'm saying to establish priorities. The game should be designed with the sole goal of being fun, and after that's accomplished balance changes can be made to make it competitively viable. But if you automatically shoot down everything that might hinder competitive play even the slightest little bit then you're ruling out a lot of major improvements to the game. It's not the end of the world, nobody's suggesting anything even approaching party game territory.
I agree everyone can play the way they choose, but not every way is a good idea. I'm just suggesting a change in the rules so people will choose something different.
Well that is good to know, however you must admit that the PTs have at least a little bit of snobbery towards the rest of the community due to their playtesting privileges and they are not very nice to the general competitive population.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's too slight then nobody will particularly care. If it's a large buff then the aliens will need to be buffed to compete with groups of marines, which will cause them to outclass solo marines anyway. Given the choice between the two I would think you'd prefer logical gameplay mechanics dictating play instead of an arbitrary good behavior bonus. And if marines are underpowered without solo play then we buff them, or maybe they won't be, seeing as this is a brand new game and all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem with squad work as it is useful in a majority of situations. However, even if you buff the aliens vs. solo players you will still have those players who will continue to take apart the alien players unless they use good teamwork, or have a skulk that can take down said Marine. However, whatever buff you give the aliens just remember that large squads of "teamwork using" marines actually become less efficient because they wind up shooting each other in the back of the head which allows skulks to close the gap (Part of the reason why Friendly Fire Damage is at 30%). Now you have a bunch of marines with half empty magazines, and skulks within attack range with either a damage, or HP buff. This is more common in pub play then the one player who completely dominates the other side. Please don't allow your hard feelings for solo players to stop you from thinking of the big picture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did I say he wasn't contributing? I said he's using very little teamwork. As I've said before, I think a lone marine walking into a good ambush and winning is a solo play problem. Expecting the aliens to coordinate carefully just to take you down when you're wandering around on your own is ridiculous given the original team concepts. In any case, I think the marine gameplay would be improved by an increased emphasis on teamwork, and you can't get that as long as everybody has it in their heads that they can do just fine on their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about the solo player who runs into an ambush and gets rocked? That never seems to be a problem, but I have seen it happen before. Also why is it the aliens are prohibited from using tactics against these solo players. In Terror sometimes it would take 2 or 3 of us using teamwork to drop a competent fade/lerk. I am wondering why that concept cannot be applied the solo marine from the alien perspective. Why does the game have to change if players are not using effective tactics to achieve victory?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D is hurt by only a couple bad players because it has such tiny teams, it's the same in NS if 50% of your team is terrible. And I still don't know where you're getting the idea that marines would have to wander the map in one gigantic blob, it would usually be smarter to move in smaller squads comparable to L4D. A single guy in a squad being bad isn't a huge deal, you won't be stuck with him forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but we have no clue how L4D would work on the large scale, what I do know is that the survivor team in large numbers would have more attrition and those people who got left behind would not be enjoying the game. The L4D system only works because of the small numbers, if you double that number the game would turn to chaos (My hypothesis).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, a lot of what makes bad pub players so useless is the superman complex that makes them constantly try to do things on their own and fail, effectively wasting a slot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So by that argument would be infering that even those players who go 2/20 as long as they are in a squad they are not useless. Take that same player with the same score by himself and then he is useless. Poor argumentation Zek, as both players are useless and are just handing resources to the other team (as per NS1 standards). Just because one is part of a squad DOES NOT mean that he or she is viable contributor to that squad, it just simply means they have membership to it. And just because a person is doing a socially favorable (in your eyes) activity does not mean that he or she is contributing to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If doing that is completely futile even for good players and everybody knows it then even newbies would rarely keep it up for long - see L4D. A highly skilled player will still be a big asset for the team, he can just put his skills to use keeping teammates alive.
Did I say mutually exclusive? I'm saying to establish priorities. The game should be designed with the sole goal of being fun, and after that's accomplished balance changes can be made to make it competitively viable. But if you automatically shoot down everything that might hinder competitive play even the slightest little bit then you're ruling out a lot of major improvements to the game. It's not the end of the world, nobody's suggesting anything even approaching party game territory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In L4D there is a simple objective in versus mode: Make it to the safe house with as many survivors and as much health as possible. Survivors only get 1 spawn. Infected get as many spawns as the survivors allow them to (30 second spawn rate). In NS one team has to destroy the other to get victory. That principle generally makes the two games unrelatable in terms of balance and game dynamics. You also assume solo play is not contributing to the survival of other players. If the solo player can draw 3 or 4 skulks away from the rest of the team, that person is indirectly contributing to the survival of the other players allowing them to do important activities such as capping and destroying res.
I agree the game should be fun, but you also have to agree that NS1 is fun despite those balance changes you are not completely happy with. So even with "super rambos" the game is still enjoyable otherwise you would not be posting here, and you would not have earned PT status. So it is very difficult to take your argument seriously because of those facts. And you are also assuming that forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, and you are also assuming that your suggestions would be improvements DESPITE no evidence to support those claims. I would ask that you would use rhetoric to reflect the points as more theory rather than law. What I am saying is that forcing squad play will most likely create dynamics of the marine team that will probably hinder play rather than improve.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree everyone can play the way they choose, but not every way is a good idea. I'm just suggesting a change in the rules so people will choose something different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But even if you change the rules, there will still be those players who can go off on their own and still be capable of solo play. This has ALWAYS been the case with every major balance change in NS. All of the casual players would rejoice when they removed marine bunnyhopping. Result: Great Marines still dominated poor aliens. in 2.01 when the aliens got a buff and was arguably more dominate in the early game. Result: Great marines still dominated poor aliens. If you make the game more like L4D hunter style, the game will most likely fall apart with respect to skewness.
I mean I get that L4D was just released, but I have no idea why so many people are referencing it seriously, despite the completely obvious difference in playstyle. If the devs take a L4D approach towards NS (Which I am pretty sure they won't) I am predicting that the game will fail and they would have wasted many resources trying to make it work.
I'll remind you that the suggestions that you propose would have PROFOUND effects on the middle and late game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were paying attention, I was trying to prove only one thing which had nothing to do with the generic games ghost of christmas past and present, to which it would seem completely flew by you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See here is a core problem in your logic. You assume that the solo fighter is all about twitch reflexes. Solo play is more about movement then quick reflexes, and keeping a good distance away from skulks while still attempting to kill them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irregardless, even an expert solo fighter should not pwn anything which tries to close the distance between himself and the skulk and a '<i>probably</i>' pwnage of those skulks which actually do manage to close the distance. Why shouldn't a player be able to kill all those skulks with the ammo and skill necessary? I ask the inverse. Why should a single player choosing a bad strategy be able to kill several alien players without requiring several alien players to actually <b>organize</b> an attack vs a single player? Even a marine player of great skill shouldn't be able to <i>count</i> on killing a good majority of the 1 on 1 encounters with aliens. It promotes elitism and a inherent sense that a single player can do well on his or her own with little or no troublesome interaction with the rest of the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument is imilar to when the nerds say that football players are dumb in high school. "You are good at something that prohibits me from playing well, therefore you must be stupid". I'll take a player capable of solo play that can do the work of 3 or 4 players on my team any day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa. I'm going to have to call the metaphor police on you for that one, wow. You used a metaphor like sweaty socks in a rainstorm. Both stink, but only the left sock can bunnyhop and rambo.
I'll assume that was some sort of insult that you're trying to imply that because I can't rambo, I'm arguing that players shouldn't be able to rambo? Did I get that correctly? Some argument. Got me there. Now I'll have to concede. Clearly your l337 skillz make me wish I could rambo just like you.
But in all seriousness, I've never even seen you play, much less know if you play well, though I can imagine at least one thing: you'd probably be the one player who disregards orders from the comm out of what you think is "best" for teamwork. Fine by me. Just don't do it in one of my servers or I'll have you kicked. If you want that style of play, there are plenty of combat servers available.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) (Since we are counting correctly). If a solo player is beginning to gain the upperhand, the aliens have various tactics that they can use to neutralize said player. Skulks may have to use teamwork (A difficult concept for you I am sure) to take down said player. One of the popular tactics that can be used with skulks by themselves or skulks are gorges are bait and switch tactics. Gorges are more common for this, but other lifeforms as well can be used. Set up a gorge who is either building a resource node or just spitting the marine. Make sure that a skulks or two are COMPLETELY quiet, and ambush when the marine commits to an attack. Also bunnyhopping on the alien's part helps as well. Lerk spores are a great way to move solo players as well as groups of players into spots where they are more susceptible to ambush
No you just need to have some tactics to out smart the "dumb" solo player. I am embarrassed for you that you cannot understand this core concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that I couldn't understand it. Just having a hard time actually believing that you're actually arguing to require several skulks or even skulks and lerk sporing working together in order to kill a single unarmored marine player who doesn't even have support from other teammates. You're suggesting that as an alien, I'd have to move around the corner, recognize that it is you, a single unarmored marine and then proceed to retreat and request help from my teammates in order to kill you. This is the way you think natural selection 2 should be? Perhaps I ought to stop assuming that you meant something which made you seem less ignorant, my deepest apologies.
How can you tell the strategy he's using? The amount of marines is maybe 1/5 of the actual strategy at that point. Positioning, timing, map control, upgrades, lifeforms, weapons and risk taking are all there too.
I'm assuming that we're talking about vanilla marines and vanilla skulks, which is to say, no upgrades to influence the outcome. If we're talking about a 1 on 1 encounter, the outcome must inevitably be the result of a combination of positioning and skill (by skill I'm including 'twitch' reflexes). How much is dependent upon skill and how much is dependent upon positioning is unfortunately subjective, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
Skill is important, I won't deny that, but at the same time it shouldn't determine the fight 100%. That's silly. It's already not like that when you consider how easily skulks die from a distance. However the opposite scenario would seem perfectly legitimate and correct that a marine's skill should determine the fight 100%, which in my opinion is an obvious issue of balance.
Did that answer the question?
I'm assuming that we're talking about vanilla marines and vanilla skulks, which is to say, no upgrades to influence the outcome. If we're talking about a 1 on 1 encounter, the outcome must inevitably be the result of a combination of positioning and skill (by skill I'm including 'twitch' reflexes). How much is dependent upon skill and how much is dependent upon positioning is unfortunately subjective, but it lies at the heart of the argument.
Skill is important, I won't deny that, but at the same time it shouldn't determine the fight 100%. That's silly. It's already not like that when you consider how easily skulks die from a distance. However the opposite scenario would seem perfectly legitimate and correct that a marine's skill should determine the fight 100%, which in my opinion is an obvious issue of balance.
Did that answer the question?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going to the upgrades and such is mostly just useless babbling. Those make the difference while people are playing on the same level. The core gameplay, however, is always the same, variating a bit more on the amount of hives and the lifeform count.
How do you determine skill? Does it involve positioning, situational awarness, general grasp of gameplay and so on? I mean, most of the good players absolutely outplay the average pubber in every aspect, both strategical and pure twitch skill. The only missing aspect is that he isn't trailed by another marine.
The way I see it, the good marines are dominant. However, I still can't see how they're supposed to be stopped while they're outskilling, outpositioning, outthinking the opponents and the oppositing team isn't doing much to communicate/smoke him out. This is why I keep repeating the learning curve and communications mantra.
I define skill as your chance of survival in an encounter with the enemy. In this respect, strategic evaluation is at a minimum as you've already met the enemy. Closest thing you could come to strategy at that point is whether or not you run or fight. Strategy is what led you there. I wouldn't call a comm's ability to lead a team well skill. I'd call it strategy. Likewise, I wouldn't call a player's ability to use the last 20 bullets in his lmg to kill an approaching skulk as strategy. I think you're defining skill as too broad a concept.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way I see it, the good marines are dominant. However, I still can't see how they're supposed to be stopped while they're outskilling, outpositioning, outthinking the opponents and the oppositing team isn't doing much to communicate/smoke him out. This is why I keep repeating the learning curve and communications mantra.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why can't it work both ways?
About 90% of the rambo fights are won before they actually see the enemy. Even I, a semi active commander from lower competetive leves, can land 20 bullets on a skulk that isn't surprising, timing its attack or using much of cover. Almost anyone can do it once he predicts/prepares for its attack through other means of gameplay. Performing a dodgy double railing jump while whipping the skulk out with pistol can get you out from those clutch situations, but you'll need those maybe on one out of 100 encouters even against skilled opponents. The rest is actually more about thinking quickly and capitalizing the situation, space usage and prioritizing targets and such.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why can't it work both ways?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this. What should work two ways?
That is really a bad definition of skill to begin with. Skill only modulates your chance of survival in such an encounter. Meanwhile, a host of other factors (including enemy skill, latency, hitbox orientation, fight dynamics, duration of the fight) also contribute to your chance of survival and, at a critical point, your fate is sealed (100% success/survival or failure/death). Either that, or you make it out alive by fleeing.
It's not like this is the first post that points out that things aren't so simple in 1v1 encounters. In fact, it feels like the last 50 posts are just people shouting their points, using pseudo definitions to suit their arguments, but not really reading the points of others.
This isn't about game balance! This is ENTIRELY about the skill level players on the opposing teams.
Play a decent game with a decent alien team that is communicating, and rambo marines get killed. What is a solo (parasited) LMG supposed to do against a lerk with a 2 mc celerity upgrade? He's going to die VERY soon without backup..
There are already great advantages to staying as a squad in NS1. The biggest is that you can ward off attacks from several aliens at once (from different directions) - as well as welding, covering (while building) etc... There is no reason to add in OP squad effects that force a marines to always stay in a squad. Squading together ALL the time would be silly.
However, if the aliens are incompetent, I should hope that they lose REGARDLESS of whether the marines squad together most of the time. Why shouldn't I be able to kill endless skulks that walk in one-by-one right into my lmg? If their ambushes are predictable (and noisy) and they don't bunnyhop or work with their teammates, then it's a problem with their individual skill levels - not with the balance of a game.
It seems that the basic argument is this:
I think that more skilled players should win games most of the time against weaker players, regardless of whether they stay in a strict squad formation.
Other people are arguing that marines should only win when they stay in squads, but lose to incompetent aliens if they fail to stay in a squad.
There are reasons to encourage informal squads (like welders, cover, reloading etc). These are GOOD reasons. These are already implemented in NS1. There is no good reason to FORCE squads (with OP benefits for squads or silly disabling attacks for skulks).
Yeah I dunno what that means. What I do know is that your arguments are pretty poor and don't generalize to the current state of NS and probably be a balance nightmare for NS2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Irregardless, even an expert solo fighter should not pwn anything which tries to close the distance between himself and the skulk and a '<i>probably</i>' pwnage of those skulks which actually do manage to close the distance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you had it your way there would be a skill ceiling and no expert play (at least that what it seems like).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why shouldn't a player be able to kill all those skulks with the ammo and skill necessary? I ask the inverse. Why should a single player choosing a bad strategy be able to kill several alien players without requiring several alien players to actually <b>organize</b> an attack vs a single player?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going off solo is not necessarily a bad strategy. Your assumptions are based on a small minority of the population that are really capable of this behavior, yet you want to penalize the entire NS2 population with your idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even a marine player of great skill shouldn't be able to <i>count</i> on killing a good majority of the 1 on 1 encounters with aliens. It promotes elitism and a inherent sense that a single player can do well on his or her own with little or no troublesome interaction with the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name me a game that features opposing force that does not have a small group of players that feel they are elite. You HAVE to know that your argument does not hold water with regards to that point. If not man I have to indeed wonder just what in the hell you are thinking.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whoa. I'm going to have to call the metaphor police on you for that one, wow. You used a metaphor like sweaty socks in a rainstorm. Both stink, but only the left sock can bunnyhop and rambo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I called the logic police on you, they said they are tired of giving you warning and will begin fining you for poor attempt of logic, in the 2nd degree (WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll assume that was some sort of insult that you're trying to imply that because I can't rambo, I'm arguing that players shouldn't be able to rambo? Did I get that correctly? Some argument. Got me there. Now I'll have to concede. Clearly your l337 skillz make me wish I could rambo just like you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What can I say? Skill is a resource that is relative to present competition, not everyone has it at any given time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But in all seriousness, I've never even seen you play, much less know if you play well, though I can imagine at least one thing: you'd probably be the one player who disregards orders from the comm out of what you think is "best" for teamwork. Fine by me. Just don't do it in one of my servers or I'll have you kicked. If you want that style of play, there are plenty of combat servers available.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah its probably best we don't play against each other, I don't want to be responsible for any broken peripherals of yours.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not that I couldn't understand it. Just having a hard time actually believing that you're actually arguing to require several skulks or even skulks and lerk sporing working together in order to kill a single unarmored marine player who doesn't even have support from other teammates. You're suggesting that as an alien, I'd have to move around the corner, recognize that it is you, a single unarmored marine and then proceed to retreat and request help from my teammates in order to kill you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am suggesting is that for a small portion of the early game, skulks are at distinct disadvantage and that if the marine is good enough, it MAY take multiple skulks to neutralize that particular marine threat. As the aliens get upgrades and other tech, solo play is not as much of a problem for the aliens if they are good enough to make it not a viable option.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is the way you think natural selection 2 should be? Perhaps I ought to stop assuming that you meant something which made you seem less ignorant, my deepest apologies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Natural Selection 2 should offer more options to players and the only restrictions that should exist are the ones the each team imposes on each other. Not some hardcoding non-sense that will probably skew everything out of proportion.
I accept your apology because I know that your logic is severely skewed and that you appear to be incapable of grasping the larger picture. Its almost like a teenager that wants the respect of an adult yet creates arguments like a child. Your basic thesis includes "I play a certain way and everyone else should too". Is this not correct?
This isn't about game balance! This is ENTIRELY about the skill level players on the opposing teams.
Play a decent game with a decent alien team that is communicating, and rambo marines get killed. What is a solo (parasited) LMG supposed to do against a lerk with a 2 mc celerity upgrade? He's going to die VERY soon without backup..
There are already great advantages to staying as a squad in NS1. The biggest is that you can ward off attacks from several aliens at once (from different directions) - as well as welding, covering (while building) etc... There is no reason to add in OP squad effects that force a marines to always stay in a squad. Squading together ALL the time would be silly.
However, if the aliens are incompetent, I should hope that they lose REGARDLESS of whether the marines squad together most of the time. Why shouldn't I be able to kill endless skulks that walk in one-by-one right into my lmg? If their ambushes are predictable (and noisy) and they don't bunnyhop or work with their teammates, then it's a problem with their individual skill levels - not with the balance of a game.
It seems that the basic argument is this:
I think that more skilled players should win games most of the time against weaker players, regardless of whether they stay in a strict squad formation.
Other people are arguing that marines should only win when they stay in squads, but lose to incompetent aliens if they fail to stay in a squad.
There are reasons to encourage informal squads (like welders, cover, reloading etc). These are GOOD reasons. These are already implemented in NS1. There is no good reason to FORCE squads (with OP benefits for squads or silly disabling attacks for skulks).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*DING DING DING DING DING* Give this man a cigar!
Very good post sir, very good.
If a bad player follows me around, his survivability will probably go up because he's got me, but mine will actually go down as he will block my bullets, give away my position by making tonnes of noise and take my ammo/medpacks.
However if I'm with a good player, both our survivability goes up as we will weld each other, cover with good aim and be 2x more effective at dealing with whatever comes our way.
On a seperate note, I think what's causing this argument is the different views on how this game is meant to work.
We have one group that thinks this game should be like the movie aliens, where the marines are on an alien infested ship and are not safe anywhere they go (L4D style.)
The other group sees this game like a Terran vs Zerg starcraft match, where both teams are on equal ground and whoever uses the entire map to their advantage will win
I think the latter is closer to the way NS1 was designed and the way NS2 should be also. IMO the gaming scene doesn't need any more non-competitive, low-skill based games. There are enough of those already and recently a huge lack of highly competitive ones.
To those of you trying to turn NS2 into the former, you've got the wrong game. Play something else if that's what you're after.
From what I can understand of his post, he's using the term "Rambo" different than most of us think of it.
His version of "Rambo" is a player who ignores all their orders from the comm, and just runs around looking for aliens to kill. The key part being IGNORES ORDERS.
He's arguing that a commander be given some way to punish a marine who is ignoring orders just so they can go off and do their own thing. Yes, solo players being able to wander around the map furthering the goals of the team as a whole is a good thing....but player who just wanders the map trying to find stuff to kill, ignoring all the build/move/what have you orders a comm gives him is a detriment to the team, just like the OP was saying. There are many times a commander needs several players in the same area building a bunch of turrets or whatever FAST, and if only 1 or 2 players obey the orders to go wherever to build then the aliens are just as likely to wipe out the site as to have the site get completed.
A really good player who is off on their own isn't just going to be running around trying to kill stuff. They're going to be seeking out things that can improve their team's situation. Trying to get into a strategic PG spot near a hive, or killing/building RT's, etc...they aren't just running around shooting aliens. A good player will know what sort of strategic goals will help their team, and will pursue those goals without needing micromanagement. That same good player though will realize that if a comm is ordering them to go somewhere/do something, there is probably a good reason...they're closest, need backup in the area, etc. and they'll follow the orders.
That video that Radix posted last month has a really good point....IF you are working with a consistent bunch of players. In a pub, positive reinforcement is a joke...negative is the only thing a commander could use reliably to enforce their will.
Do I want to see NS2 end up with severe penalties for going solo? No way.
Do I want to see a commander be given some sort of tool, such as the marks the OP suggested, in order to better enforce their will and help the team as a whole to victory? YES.
You're saying that if a single marine isn't capable of killing every alien he encounters with an lmg and pistol, there's no expert play? Be realistic. Determining a cap on what an elite player should be able to do is not going to remove "expert play." That's like saying that a balance change like reducing the maximum lmg clip size would remove elitism and everyone would play equally.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going off solo is not necessarily a bad strategy. Your assumptions are based on a small minority of the population that are really capable of this behavior, yet you want to penalize the entire NS2 population with your idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balancing the game isn't penalization. How can I penalize the non-existant players of natural selection 2 with an idea which effects the non-existant rules of a game which hasn't been written yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Name me a game that features opposing force that does not have a small group of players that feel they are elite. You HAVE to know that your argument does not hold water with regards to that point. If not man I have to indeed wonder just what in the hell you are thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There exists elites in every game, however I'd like to make ramboing "less" elite. I thought I made my point clear on this one. You clearly aren't even reading my posts at this point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I am suggesting is that for a small portion of the early game, skulks are at distinct disadvantage and that if the marine is good enough, it MAY take multiple skulks to neutralize that particular marine threat. As the aliens get upgrades and other tech, solo play is not as much of a problem for the aliens if they are good enough to make it not a viable option.
I think Natural Selection 2 should offer more options to players and the only restrictions that should exist are the ones the each team imposes on each other. Not some hardcoding non-sense that will probably skew everything out of proportion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only restrictions that should exist are the ones each team imposes on each other? How were you proposing to do that, exactly? Harsh words? There are restrictions on weapon damage, restrictions on resources, restrictions on upgrades. They're in essence the rules of the game. Adding restrictions which encourage teamplay is no different than the restrictions which encourage resource mining to win the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I accept your apology because I know that your logic is severely skewed and that you appear to be incapable of grasping the larger picture. Its almost like a teenager that wants the respect of an adult yet creates arguments like a child. Your basic thesis includes "I play a certain way and everyone else should too". Is this not correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah its probably best we don't play against each other, I don't want to be responsible for any broken peripherals of yours.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah I called the logic police on you, they said they are tired of giving you warning and will begin fining you for poor attempt of logic, in the 2nd degree (WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
What can I say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah I dunno what that means. What I do know is that your arguments are pretty poor and don't generalize to the current state of NS and probably be a balance nightmare for NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who are you? Bill Lumbergh from Office Space? Don't think you honestly have any basis for calling my arguments childlike, seeing how the bulk of your arguments consist of baseless insults. Rather than help your point, you only make yourself look more like a frustrated child than anything else. I'm starting to think you're only arguing pro-rambo for kicks rather than supplying a viable argument. Still, my hope remains that there's some sense of intelligent argument left in what I would otherwise consider a waste of my time and yours (unless you live for this kind of thing).
Do I want to see a commander be given some sort of tool, such as the marks the OP suggested, in order to better enforce their will and help the team as a whole to victory? YES.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it should be the opposite. Playing together and/or working with your team should be encouraged rather than penalizing rambo players by direct comm intervention. Players should play that way because it's what works and what allows teams to win games, not because you think "what a jerk our comm.. making us fight together when I could do perfectly fine on my own."
If you wanted to play on your own, that's your decision, but it shouldn't reap results. The best players should be those who work together, not those who give the comm the finger and do their own thing. My apologies to Firewater again, as it seems this directly conflicts with his playing style.