PLEASE come and play a decent game of NS with 6 competent aliens. THEN try to rambo against them. AFTER you have died about 5 times to the teamwork of skulks/lerks/gorges, come on here and admit there is no rambo problem.
There is merely a skill problem.
Last night, I played on G4B2S. I had 260 ping. I 'ramboed' (as in, I didn't make an effort to stay together with my teammates). I killed lots of aliens, very easily (despite the hideous lag). This was because they straight-lined me one-by-one and failed to utilize lerks, gorges and parasite effectively. I successfully won this game (eventual hive-camp and GG) because the other team was terrible - not because of a systematic fault in NS.
Also, last night, I played on an Australian server (80 ping). I wandered off a little bit solo (same spot on ns_eclipse, outside cc - the seige location). The aliens spored me, parasited me and then three skulks bhopped into the room (from multiple directions). They killed me. This was because they actually played well!
Therefore, there is no 'rambo' problem in NS (ie, rambo's do not randomly own competent teams). There are merely games where players are too good for the other team!
Note: as for the issue of marines ignoring orders and running of like a retard, just don't give them meds. It's not worth wasting 2 res to heal a retard that wants to rush a hive with fades in it... THIS problem is with retarded players, and no game mechanic will stop this happening. It's just like the idiot on a server I play on that waves up for onos EVERY game - just to rush into the marine base and die (he then tries to save up for second onos, to do the same..)
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Again, there are two completely different topics that are being discussed, with the participants of both thinking that they are arguing about the same topic.
Topic 1: Given the current system of balance that exists in NS1, the failure of alien players to kill an enemy (ex. a solo marine) is due to poor decision-making and insufficient skill at life form (skulk) control. With the proper foresight and (sometimes) teamwork, the solo marine can be taken down successfully in NS1. This system should remain in NS2.
Topic 2: Solo skulks should have a significant advantage over solo marines in a situation of ambush. The current system of ambush gives solo marines too much opportunity to survive - barring prohibitive differences in tech, we argue that skulks should always have the upper hand given a reasonable ambush attempt.
<!--quoteo(post=1698606:date=Jan 27 2009, 05:22 AM:name=Digital Terror)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Digital Terror @ Jan 27 2009, 05:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bullseye. I confunded the terms because of the fact I didn't have a microphone, so I was more likely to follow oreders than giving them. At all, I never listened the word.
But I think <b>ALL</b> this topic is wraping around a issue that doesn't exist at all. I think the problem is another.
Let's see... Is NS balanced? After all these betas and patches, if there is an unbalance, it's imperceptible now. So we can skip the whole fact of 1 vs 1 marines gaining skulks beeing a cheap (the old looks overpower but isn't).
But marines winning skulks face off, it doesn't make sense! It's possible to change the game core gameplay and then rebalance later, but it's a question of taste (without commenting how hard to balance will). Some prefer the game as it is now and some prefer to change it to reflect the descriptions of manual/ideas of the trailer. Yes, I prefer that if a marine falls in an ambush, the marine be sure to die. But, anyway, it's equilibrated.
So where is the problem? themeatshield pointed well. The problem is that ramboing seems to effective when it shouldn't. The way it is used and abused, it will work only if the alien team sucks/lacks of communication. In pubs, this happens often. So we can say alien team usually sucks and/or lacks of communication (in pubs)? Yes. The problem are the players.
Big skill gaps, lack of explanations... All this results in few good players and many bad players.
"Ah, natural selection. Ok, I want to play the game but I dunno how. What will I do? Look the instructions. Hell, no instructions. Maybe they're on the tutorial. Where is it? Ah... Let's see the manual... Ok, Ok... Gotcha. I will play as marine. Nobody wants the comm chair? I will get it! Ok, we have to prepare the base to attacks. Building towers. Huh? What happened, I was kicked from the chair? Ok, I will get out. Hum, aliens. Ah, the skulk. This one can scale walls, yay! An human! I will get it! I will get it! What? No way, he's too strong! Ok, will scale the and trap. Ah, this one is looking to the other side! BITE BITE BITE... what? I got him by back! No way! Humpf... I think I will ask them what I'm doing wrong. Hi..."
The problem is that many players don't bother to say "I'm noob, please teach me" and prefer simply getting out. This will be a drama after they spend money on the game. The game must explain that communication is the important, so microphones are near a prerequisite (for competitive matches, they are). It won't hurt having a tutorial saying what is the job of each class, what skulks should and shouldn't do. Hints system, whatever.
About how the gameplay should work (marines should have no chance to survive an ambush, etc...), I don't care, just if it's balanced. It's opnion of each one, but I prefer playing a new game than NS1 with dynamic lighting.
And about the troublesome rambos, a better squad system in which you can glare someone and tell from what squad is he should help to prevent mistakes (colors?).
<!--quoteo(post=1698620:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:50 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 27 2009, 09:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am saying is that any instance where a marine who not huddled around teammates would be outlawed in the proposed system. The caps that already exist the weapon limits and health limits. Still did not receive a good reason why a "team" limit should be imposed especially when a good solo player
1) Has risks on his or her own merit, being away from the squad does not allow that player to benefit from the advantages of being in a squad.
2) Can still operate and help out the team by potentially doing the work of multiple marines.
3) Can be brought down by potentially a competent skulk or if neccessary, a small squad of aliens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right, balancing is not penalization. Making solo play a non viable option in NS2 is penalization, not balance. My inferences are drawn that NS2 will have similar gameplay elements that of NS1. When more information arrives, I would be happy to adapt my concepts to fit the new design.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"less" elite huh? How exactly are you quantifiying both the concepts of less and elite? Last time I checked there were very few communities that would get groups of players together to teach lesser skilled players how to play the game (i.e. NSguides and NSlearn). Have you ever been apart of the CS community or TFC community? Those people were absolutely brutal to players of lesser skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I have to keep reminding myself that I am not communicating with someone who fully understands the game. By restrictions I mean the dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other. For example marines locking down a hive restricts the alien's access to it until the lock is broken. That strategy usually results in the aliens scrambling to break the lock to retake the hive. Taking resource nodes is an example of restriction. Destroying tech, developing one's own tech successfully are examples of restriction. Using tactics to secure specific location is a restriction one team can put on another. These are all player created restrictions. Your proposed restriction is a hard restriction imposed on marines based on the "It should be that way" hypothesis. That is a game created restriction, and the game already appears to have plenty of those based on the logistics of the game. Your game created restriction is based more on a social premise than anything else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So when you make passive-aggressive insults its ok and when I throw a little salt on message (LOL PUN) thats not ok. Really can't seem to understand your logic in this mess. I'm not arguing "pro-rambo" I am arguing to allow the players to play the way they choose without hard restrictions. Your arguments have no clear factual basis, only theorycraft. I have provided sound examples that either 1) you are incapable of understanding 2)Are choosing not to 3)Simply do not "like" them therefore they are incorrect. The time you are wasting is yours, anytime you wish not to participate in this thread is up to you. This point has been beaten to death as again you only grasp how balance applies to your own playstyle, not the overrall picture. I look forward to your non-reply given the amount of "time" you have wasted.
<!--quoteo(post=1698673:date=Jan 27 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Killer Ricochet)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Killer Ricochet @ Jan 27 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698673"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bullseye. I confunded the terms because of the fact I didn't have a microphone, so I was more likely to follow oreders than giving them. At all, I never listened the word.
But I think <b>ALL</b> this topic is wraping around a issue that doesn't exist at all. I think the problem is another.
Let's see... Is NS balanced? After all these betas and patches, if there is an unbalance, it's imperceptible now. So we can skip the whole fact of 1 vs 1 marines gaining skulks beeing a cheap (the old looks overpower but isn't).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the best ways at least from a macro perspective is to look at win percentages of individual servers and then take all of those and perform a meta analysis. An ideal win percentage for me would be +-5 percentage points (though some may argue differently) That is if aliens won 55% of the time and marines won 45% of the time that would constitute balance from a winning percentage macro perspective. Anecdotally, I have seen both sides crush the opposing force sometimes very little effort (again based on skill levels) so I agree with you that NS1 is pretty fair with regards to balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But marines winning skulks face off, it doesn't make sense! It's possible to change the game core gameplay and then rebalance later, but it's a question of taste (without commenting how hard to balance will). Some prefer the game as it is now and some prefer to change it to reflect the descriptions of manual/ideas of the trailer. Yes, I prefer that if a marine falls in an ambush, the marine be sure to die. But, anyway, it's equilibrated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does it not make sense? Marines have the ability to use ranged weapons and move. Why is there notion of a "should/shouldn't" with regards to marine vs skulk play?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So where is the problem? themeatshield pointed well. The problem is that ramboing seems to effective when it shouldn't. The way it is used and abused, it will work only if the alien team sucks/lacks of communication.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why shouldn't a good player be able to beat several bad players? This is common place in every FPS and RTS known to man.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In pubs, this happens often. So we can say alien team usually sucks and/or lacks of communication (in pubs)? Yes. The problem are the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flayra has stated repeatedly that you can only balance the game, not the players. If during testing you take reasonably skilled players and put them against each other each team should win about 45-55% of the time. If no matter how the teams get mixed up one side is winning more than 55%, then I would say that the game is not balanced. The problem with pubs is the dyanmic team that they provide. Each round more often than not is a different team then the one before. Sometimes teams get severely skewed to one team rather than the other. The result is a landslide victory on the dominating half.
Big skill gaps, lack of explanations... All this results in few good players and many bad players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Ah, natural selection. Ok, I want to play the game but I dunno how. What will I do? Look the instructions. Hell, no instructions. Maybe they're on the tutorial. Where is it? Ah... Let's see the manual... Ok, Ok... Gotcha. I will play as marine. Nobody wants the comm chair? I will get it! Ok, we have to prepare the base to attacks. Building towers. Huh? What happened, I was kicked from the chair? Ok, I will get out. Hum, aliens. Ah, the skulk. This one can scale walls, yay! An human! I will get it! I will get it! What? No way, he's too strong! Ok, will scale the and trap. Ah, this one is looking to the other side! BITE BITE BITE... what? I got him by back! No way! Humpf... I think I will ask them what I'm doing wrong. Hi..."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a problem that exists in any skill based game. I agree that in NS the learning curve is steeper than that of your typical FPS game, however a result of the complexity that we that are fans of the game enjoy, will turn off others. This attrition while can be minimized, can never fully be eliminated unfortunately. Some people regardless of the learning curve will pick up the game and simply not enjoy it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that many players don't bother to say "I'm noob, please teach me" and prefer simply getting out. This will be a drama after they spend money on the game. The game must explain that communication is the important, so microphones are near a prerequisite (for competitive matches, they are). It won't hurt having a tutorial saying what is the job of each class, what skulks should and shouldn't do. Hints system, whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually disagree. Those who paid money for a game in my opinion are more likely to attempt to make it work and learn some type of mastery of the game. Its much easier to download a mod, try it for 15 mins and delete it (I've done this on many occassions, I'm sure others have as well). But when a person plumps cash down (especially with a no-refund policy) they will most likely at the very least try to learn how to play the game better. There will be those who stick around, and those who regardless how much money was paid, will delete the game and never play it again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->About how the gameplay should work (marines should have no chance to survive an ambush, etc...), I don't care, just if it's balanced. It's opnion of each one, but I prefer playing a new game than NS1 with dynamic lighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree the game should be new, but I still believe that some of the familiar things we love about NS should still be in the game, and potentially enhanced. IF the devs can keep that, improve upon the less favorable things in NS and create some new content that will blow our minds, they will have a nice hit on their hands (provided that marketing is sufficient).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And about the troublesome rambos, a better squad system in which you can glare someone and tell from what squad is he should help to prevent mistakes (colors?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh if the commander stops feeding the rambo meds and ammo, the problem will work itsself out most of the time.
<!--quoteo(post=1698676:date=Jan 27 2009, 05:37 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I am saying is that any instance where a marine who not huddled around teammates would be outlawed in the proposed system. The caps that already exist the weapon limits and health limits. Still did not receive a good reason why a "team" limit should be imposed especially when a good solo player
1) Has risks on his or her own merit, being away from the squad does not allow that player to benefit from the advantages of being in a squad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>Again, if the risks were so high and the benefits from being in a squad are so useful, why do there exist rambo players at all?</i> You seem to push that ramboing is an awful strategy, yet here we are arguing on whether or not to enforce some sort of balance to discourage ramboing / encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Can still operate and help out the team by potentially doing the work of multiple marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If a single player is doing the work of multiple marines, that player must be godly in skill or the "multiple marines" by which you refer have trouble finding their way out of marine start. Again, ramboing should be an awful strategy in virtually every sense. It's not that way in natural selection because it's correct game mechanic. I'll bring up another example to which you'll probably shoot down because we're nto talking about real life here, but take any SWAT training. What do they teach you? Stay together, watch each other's backs, never separate, etc. There's a good reason for that, and it's not just because you can't respawn after you die.
We're obviously not talking about real life here, yet I fail to see why strategy in natural selection has to be modified to fit the genre like the spaceships, aliens, and technology. Is there any reason whatsoever to assume that just because you're in space and fighting aliens that the strategy to split up suddenly got to be a much better idea? Again, if we wanted deathmatch, we didn't even have to have teams. We could have just made some sort of frag system by which you could upgrade your fighting class. Clearly natural selection was meant to be more of a team-based game, and as such, a team strategy should present the best results. <i>You can shoot down my ideas all you want, but I'm still waiting for a reason for you to give as to why it shouldn't be this way.</i>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) Can be brought down by potentially a competent skulk or if neccessary, a small squad of aliens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Skulks shouldn't be so unbalanced that it would take a small squad to take out a marine no matter how skillful he was. How often do you hear your marine teammates requesting help taking out a skulk ? Never happens unless marine start were in danger. However a single camping marine in an empty hive room might very well require clever planning or even teamwork to kill. This is a balance issue. Even if this balance is offset by the late game by higher alien life forms, it's a balance issue in the early game nonetheless.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"less" elite huh? How exactly are you quantifiying both the concepts of less and elite? Last time I checked there were very few communities that would get groups of players together to teach lesser skilled players how to play the game (i.e. NSguides and NSlearn). Have you ever been apart of the CS community or TFC community? Those people were absolutely brutal to players of lesser skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't think you understood what I meant. I mean that a capable player can do plenty, just not slaughter the entire opposing team or until ammo depletes. Even an excellent player should require backup. In fact, I would argue, an excellent marine player should be defined by setting up attack patterns to easily dispatch incoming alien players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, I have to keep reminding myself that I am not communicating with someone who fully understands the game. By restrictions I mean the dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other. For example marines locking down a hive restricts the alien's access to it until the lock is broken. That strategy usually results in the aliens scrambling to break the lock to retake the hive. Taking resource nodes is an example of restriction. Destroying tech, developing one's own tech successfully are examples of restriction. Using tactics to secure specific location is a restriction one team can put on another. These are all player created restrictions. Your proposed restriction is a hard restriction imposed on marines based on the "It should be that way" hypothesis. That is a game created restriction, and the game already appears to have plenty of those based on the logistics of the game. Your game created restriction is based more on a social premise than anything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I have to keep reminding you that in an argument, you define your terms. When I think "restriction", I don't automatically think "dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other." That doesn't even vaguely match the definition of restriction in the traditional sense either.
<i>To your idea, if alien team were given weapons / skills in such a way as to easily isolate and kill a solo marine, wouldn't that be a "restriction" as you define it?</i>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So when you make passive-aggressive insults its ok and when I throw a little salt on message (LOL PUN) thats not ok. Really can't seem to understand your logic in this mess. I'm not arguing "pro-rambo" I am arguing to allow the players to play the way they choose without hard restrictions. Your arguments have no clear factual basis, only theorycraft. I have provided sound examples that either 1) you are incapable of understanding 2)Are choosing not to 3)Simply do not "like" them therefore they are incorrect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By theorycraft, I assume you mean logic and by "sound examples" I assume you mean baseless propositions on how natural selection 2 should be. Natural selection 2 has not been finished, so there's no reason to assume it should be exactly like natural selection or even partially like natural selection with regards to how you prefer to play. Your "sound examples" are absolutely meaningless in the context of how natural selection 2 should be. You're only proving that natural selection has rambos and that it is fine that way. A) I never denied that natural selection has rambos and B) whether or not it is fine is subjective.
<i>Rather than skip over the major counterpoints of my post and claiming I fail to understand your "sound examples," why don't you try directly confronting them?</i> Look. I even highlighted them in italics to make it easy for you to find.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The time you are wasting is yours, anytime you wish not to participate in this thread is up to you. This point has been beaten to death as again you only grasp how balance applies to your own playstyle, not the overrall picture. I look forward to your non-reply given the amount of "time" you have wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You must really enjoy this afterall. Okay, have it your way.
[q] Again, if the risks were so high and the benefits from being in a squad are so useful, why do there exist rambo players at all?[/q]
It's fun to rambo off and kill hordes of skulks and I don't need the benefits of a squad when I'm playing against walker skulks.
There's really no reason for an anti-squad system, because there is no rambo problem.
If you want to prove me wrong, I'll organise a quick game some evening for us (and 10 other players). You can rambo off and show me how one marine can dominate an alien team.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why does it not make sense? Marines have the ability to use ranged weapons and move. Why is there notion of a "should/shouldn't" with regards to marine vs skulk play?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't clear. First, I meant "can't faceoff close quaters". Then, I wasn't saying it by myself. I was saying what <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=105244&view=findpost&p=1697771" target="_blank">Zek said</a>. And I was saying like me asking to myself why?, why not?, simulating what was said in the replies, to build my logic of what is wrong about this topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why shouldn't a good player be able to beat several bad players? This is common place in every FPS and RTS known to man.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you. I never said good players shouldn't beat bad players, I was just building my logic. If ramboing (in the stupid way it's done in pubs) is a bad strategy and it works often, you must presume that it is used against bad players in the same frequency it works.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flayra has stated repeatedly that you can only balance the game, not the players...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you really can't balance player, but still a great help a basic training, expecially when is much easier to learn how to play as marine than alien. Like, imagine the wonders an inbuild tutorial about ambushing would do to NS1... With a simple tutorial saying it and showing how recompesating it can be, this topic would never develop, neither the "problem" would exist, because at least, even if bad ambushes were made, it would be much more effective than straightrunning and ramboing would happen less often.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All this results in few good players and many bad players. This is a problem that exists in any skill based game. I agree that in NS the learning curve is steeper than that of your typical FPS game, however a result of the complexity that we that are fans of the game enjoy, will turn off others. <b>This attrition while can be minimized, can never fully be eliminated unfortunately.</b> Some people regardless of the learning curve will pick up the game and simply not enjoy it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You still beeing able to shrink the problem. Big skill gaps are difficult to solve, but lack of explanation has no excuse.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually disagree. Those who paid money for a game in my opinion are more likely to attempt to make it work and learn some type of mastery of the game. Its much easier to download a mod, try it for 15 mins and delete it (I've done this on many occassions, I'm sure others have as well). But when a person plumps cash down (especially with a no-refund policy) they will most likely at the very least try to learn how to play the game better. There will be those who stick around, and those who regardless how much money was paid, will delete the game and never play it again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Still, the game can be more friendly. The fact it is paid is not excuse to break the face of who tries to play it (exagerating).
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree the game should be new, but I still believe that some of the familiar things we love about NS should still be in the game, and potentially enhanced. IF the devs can keep that, improve upon the less favorable things in NS and create some new content that will blow our minds, they will have a nice hit on their hands (provided that marketing is sufficient).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As how I said, I could be undestanded as I'd like to play a completely different game, like suddenly starting playing Worms or whatever, so I was ambiguous. What I wanted to say is, like you think, "While some things we love should keep, others can go." Which ones should stay and go is a personal option. And personally I prefer skulks gaining after a marine falling in an ambush and you prefer ramboing stays.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eh if the commander stops feeding the rambo meds and ammo, the problem will work itsself out most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was too bad to give the guns to the right guys when I made the topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> It's a moving mob of marines around the armoury when you play with bots.
<!--quoteo(post=1698684:date=Jan 27 2009, 06:37 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 27 2009, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>Again, if the risks were so high and the benefits from being in a squad are so useful, why do there exist rambo players at all?</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the vast majority of pub players are so terrible now that not only do they fail to grasp the simple and easy solutions to rambo players but they do not realize that their overall methods of play are totally ineffective, and thus do not adapt and form new more advantageous ways of achieving victory.
You are in all likelihood one of these people, and it's probable that the only one you're hurting by continuing to argue the contrary is yourself. You would be better off to spend the effort looking at NSLearn documents (linked in Sig) or simply analyzing the flow of a generic pub game.
But I will say this, it's not all your fault - the nature of NS is to force reliance on your teammates (which in itself is a form of skill communism, but unavoidable in a game striving for RTS mechanics) - because so many people are so incomprehensibly bad now, you're being forced to work with a team in many cases that is far below par human competence for even new players - this is unfortunate, but is the nature of a declining game, and NS's teamplay elements exacerbate the problem significantly.
Supposing you are right, and the reason for rambo players is that the skill level of the average player on a public server is awful. Doesn't this tell you something? Tells me that the way natural selection is now, it needs a change. I'm saying that on a public server in which almost all players are awful, performance should be equally bad for a lone marine as it would be for a skulk. Seems to me that the worst a marine player isn't so bad in comparison to the worst a skulk player could do.
<!--quoteo(post=1698764:date=Jan 28 2009, 06:17 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 28 2009, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Supposing you are right, and the reason for rambo players is that the skill level of the average player on a public server is awful. Doesn't this tell you something? Tells me that the way natural selection is now, it needs a change. I'm saying that on a public server in which almost all players are awful, performance should be equally bad for a lone marine as it would be for a skulk. Seems to me that the worst a marine player isn't so bad in comparison to the worst a skulk player could do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Absolutely not. A good marine with a lot of practice should be able to stomp any public game he joins until aliens have enough teamwork/pub champions to take the marine down. It's not exactly like NSBAD/GUNS regulars can't kill the average pug player. The only time aliens will have serious trouble killing a marine is on ns_veil, when the marine actively retreats to a highly advantageous area after an attack or brings backup from hell. Not really a problem with rambos if you ask me.
<!--quoteo(post=1698503:date=Jan 26 2009, 08:55 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 26 2009, 08:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698503"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You reap what you sow, most people aren't very nice to the competitive population.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that's a skill requirement that's added by squad play. Oh wait, forcing teamwork is skill communism, I forgot. The reason pub players do this so much though is because they always leave FF off, which encourages sloppy aiming - for pubs I'd like to see the default setting be mirror FF, i.e. hits to your teammate damage you and not them. And again, I said nothing about buffing either damage or HP, skulks need a buff that only applies to ambushes and isn't so easy to out-skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh? Solo players dying to ambushes isn't a problem at all, of course it happens sometimes but I want it to happen most of the time. And the aliens can do whatever they want, it just shouldn't be necessary to gang up on a vanilla rambo. It shouldn't be the same for both teams because they are asymmetrical, the aliens are the team of independent combat lifeforms and the marines are the coordinate squad team. I don't know what you mean by the game "changing," I'm simply saying tactics should be of increased importance to marines. In the lategame it's fine that an HA/HMG can beat a skulk or two, but they already don't want to go alone because they're expensive and can be worn down.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fortunately this is NS2 not L4D, I simply meant it as an example that restrictions on solo play lead to increased teamwork even among the most clueless pubbers. It's true that it's hard to coordinate in excessive numbers, which is why marines would be split up into squads(a system which is already being improved for NS2).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm saying many players with respectable twitch skills are useless anyway because they always run off alone, taking after their pubstar heroes. If the game drills the futility of that into their skulls then they'll be more likely to play in a way that's useful to their team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They are comparable on the single point that in L4D, going off on your own is suicide no matter how good you are - a Hunter or Smoker will lock you down in one hit and it's over unless somebody saves you. And as a result of this mechanic, people play very closely as a team. That extreme would be inappropriate for NS2 but the premise is the same - there's a direct inverse correlation between the effectiveness of solo players and the prevalence of teamwork.
And we've been over this, <i>I know solo play is useful to the team in NS</i>. That's why good players do it, because it works. But it still only just barely qualifies as teamwork, and only if you actually do coordinate it with your team. But actually fighting in the same area and covering eachother's backs takes far more teamwork. For the sake of increasing the emphasis on organized teamwork in NS2's marines, rambos needs to be nerfed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not as difficult as it is to take your argument seriously when you're basically saying that because NS1 was fun there's no point in pursuing changes for the sequel.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You're the one assuming forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, why else are you opposed? You're also assuming that my suggestions would be a detriment despite no evidence to support that claim. Your whole definition of hindering play is that a strat that used to work won't anymore, which first of all goes without saying with all the new changes being made in NS2, but more importantly you still haven't noticed that you have tunnel vision. What about the strats that don't work as a result of rambo marines being effective? Like, for example, strats that involve skulks setting up solo ambushes for marines? I've told you time and time again that restricting certain undesirable play styles is the very nature of game design, it happened every step of the way in NS and it's already happening in NS2. What do you think the removal of one alien player on the field to play comm will do to old alien strategies?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure, they'll be capable of it if there opponents are bad enough. It happens. You're certainly understating the vast decrease in effectiveness of crazy rambo marines in 2.0 though with the nerfs to bunnyhopping and JPs. It made a huge difference, they just didn't go so far as to actually force squad gameplay, which wasn't really an objective to begin with as far as I know. And if you're implying that skulks winning ambushes 1v1 will lead to aliens being overpowered, that's a pointless argument, there are dozens of ways to nerf one team or buff the other to make it work.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well L4D is doing just fine. And nobody's suggesting turning NS2 into a clone, it's just that L4D pioneered some very solid design decisions towards the goal of encouraging squad teamwork. NS2 will always be its own game, but it's silly to ignore the new ideas that have become popularized since NS' release.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I see where you're coming from now.
Yes, you're right Zek - it is horribly HORRIBLY frustrating when a bad pubber runs off with rosy images of their favorite pubstar in mind trying to be the best rambo they can be, but the way to solve that problem is not by preventing it, but by showing them a better way to play - if you try to build the ENTIRE GAME around a bunch of idiots your game will be designed in stupid terms.
Better ways to address the real issue that after over a dozen pages is finally clear, would be through the methods I've put forward on general to give more emphasis to those who are truly skilled trying to teach new (or simply clueless) players the best ways to play.
You can't just control people you don't like Zek, especially in a game that's supposed to be both fun and open-ended, but you can exist in a realm where others have the same values you do. This is why I like to pug, and why I advocate teaching whenever it can be applied.
Let me put it this way: why do you like to play in groups with tactics?
<!--quoteo(post=1698820:date=Jan 29 2009, 04:08 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 04:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698820"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You're the one assuming forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, why else are you opposed? You're also assuming that my suggestions would be a detriment despite no evidence to support that claim. Your whole definition of hindering play is that a strat that used to work won't anymore, which first of all goes without saying with all the new changes being made in NS2, but more importantly you still haven't noticed that you have tunnel vision. What about the strats that don't work as a result of rambo marines being effective? Like, for example, strats that involve skulks setting up solo ambushes for marines? I've told you time and time again that restricting certain undesirable play styles is the very nature of game design, it happened every step of the way in NS and it's already happening in NS2. What do you think the removal of one alien player on the field to play comm will do to old alien strategies?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh, I can see your where you're going on these posts and I partitially even agree that pubs are in a terrible shape now. But then you kick in arguments like solo ambushing in competetive play and the credibility is gone.
Solo ambushing is absolutely viable, just as a solo marine. You'll just need to understand the metagame and do it right for it to be effective against a marine of similar skill level. That's partitially the beaty of things like skulking. You're the underdog in fights, but in control how you take the them. I could write huge posts of the skulk decisionmaking and how I love the skulk gameplay because it's so situational and rewarding.
I can't see the squad enforcer being in competetive play anyway, unless the maps are really cramped or the gameplay is set to 7 vs 7 or 8 vs 8. The maps are smaller and that most likely affects the skulk-marine balance anyway as skulks don't have that much space to roam free and set up ambushes. I'm not going to address that as we haven't got a clue how the gameplay works in NS2.
However, limiting a 6v6 into a comm and 2 squads sounds terrible. On the other hand 7v7 and 8v8 making it more and more difficult to organise games, so you'll need a big community to support them at least.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, you're right Zek - it is horribly HORRIBLY frustrating when a bad pubber runs off with rosy images of their favorite pubstar in mind trying to be the best rambo they can be, but the way to solve that problem is not by preventing it, but by showing them a better way to play -<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're going to introduce a tutorial on how to play with your fellow teammates? You think when new players to natural selection 2 begin to be less 'newby' that they'd choose to play together despite the fact that ramboing is more effective?
The only way you're going to be able to show players a 'better' way to play is if it really is a better way to play. They can choose to rambo all they want, though like any other bad strategy, you wouldn't want to do it because you'd do that which allows you to perform best in the game.
[quote]the nature of NS is to force reliance on your teammates ... because so many people are so incomprehensibly bad now, you're being forced to work with a team in many cases that is far below par human competence for even new players - this is unfortunate, but is the nature of a declining game, and NS's teamplay elements exacerbate the problem significantly.[quote] So why try to make natural selection 2 some sort of duplicate? Alien players aren't so incomprehensibly bad because it just so happens that bad players choose the alien team. It's because it's far more difficult to play well as an alien (at least skulk).
So rather than buff skulks, you tell me we should let marines continue to decide to rambo if that's what works best and continue this trend into Natural Selection 2.
<!--quoteo(post=1698855:date=Jan 29 2009, 08:29 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 29 2009, 08:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So rather than buff skulks, you tell me we should let marines continue to decide to rambo if that's what works best and continue this trend into Natural Selection 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would never presume to tell you what you should do with your game Hawkeye.
Regardless, even if you show people a better way to play they won't necessarily do it, in fact they probably won't if they're the same unconscious mass that plays NS today. The only hope for NS2 in terms of achieving a balance of teamwork and positive gameplay is an influx of actual newbies (people who aren't set in their ways) who can then be taught, which is why I suggested using ingame methods to teach players intuitively.
At the heart of the issue, I'm saying that you're fighting human nature, and you can win, but it will be at the cost of making a good game.
<!--quoteo(post=1698823:date=Jan 28 2009, 11:28 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 28 2009, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698823"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I see where you're coming from now.
Yes, you're right Zek - it is horribly HORRIBLY frustrating when a bad pubber runs off with rosy images of their favorite pubstar in mind trying to be the best rambo they can be, but the way to solve that problem is not by preventing it, but by showing them a better way to play - if you try to build the ENTIRE GAME around a bunch of idiots your game will be designed in stupid terms.
Better ways to address the real issue that after over a dozen pages is finally clear, would be through the methods I've put forward on general to give more emphasis to those who are truly skilled trying to teach new (or simply clueless) players the best ways to play.
You can't just control people you don't like Zek, especially in a game that's supposed to be both fun and open-ended, but you can exist in a realm where others have the same values you do. This is why I like to pug, and why I advocate teaching whenever it can be applied.
Let me put it this way: why do you like to play in groups with tactics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said that was the entire basis of my argument, it's just one of the ways in which ramboing being an effective strategy impedes teamwork. It's the same for pro players who are actually good at ramboing. They run off and rambo because they know they can do it, but do you deny that making that an ineffective strategy would cause those players to work more closely with their teammates? I understand not wanting to bother with them if you're way out of their league but that's just part of playing a team game. I don't think we should build the ENTIRE GAME around preventing frustration for the pro players out looking for a pubstomp.
What you fail to understand is that the average player doesn't care that much about training themselves, they play the game to have fun. Explaining to them the subtleties of why their ramboing isn't the #1 most effective strategy is pointless, they don't want to analyze the game that deeply. It's not because they're stupid or whatever, it's just a difference in motivation. Especially when unlike a scrim they're playing with people they don't know and there's a communication barrier there which discourages people from working together unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course I'm not suggesting eliminating all depth from the game for the benefit of these players, but when it comes to an important concept like encouraging teamwork, that's not something you can leave to training and expect to happen naturally just because competitive players do it. The average pub player isn't unwilling to work with teammates, they might even become damn good team players when they put their mind to it, but they won't be motivated to try working with strangers unless the game puts its foot down and shows them that if they don't work together they <i>will</i> die.
<!--quoteo(post=1698828:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:23 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jan 29 2009, 01:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Meh, I can see your where you're going on these posts and I partitially even agree that pubs are in a terrible shape now. But then you kick in arguments like solo ambushing in competetive play and the credibility is gone.
Solo ambushing is absolutely viable, just as a solo marine. You'll just need to understand the metagame and do it right for it to be effective against a marine of similar skill level. That's partitially the beaty of things like skulking. You're the underdog in fights, but in control how you take the them. I could write huge posts of the skulk decisionmaking and how I love the skulk gameplay because it's so situational and rewarding.
I can't see the squad enforcer being in competetive play anyway, unless the maps are really cramped or the gameplay is set to 7 vs 7 or 8 vs 8. The maps are smaller and that most likely affects the skulk-marine balance anyway as skulks don't have that much space to roam free and set up ambushes. I'm not going to address that as we haven't got a clue how the gameplay works in NS2.
However, limiting a 6v6 into a comm and 2 squads sounds terrible. On the other hand 7v7 and 8v8 making it more and more difficult to organise games, so you'll need a big community to support them at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly how competitive players play doesn't concern me at all, it makes little difference to me if you guys can play solo in scrims. But unless you want tournament mode to also make a bunch of gameplay changes, we're stuck playing the same game and the health of pubs takes priority IMHO. It will determine not only the financial success of the game, but also the size of the player pool who decide to move on to competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly how competitive players play doesn't concern me at all, it makes little difference to me if you guys can play solo in scrims.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It probably makes no difference to you because it counters one of your arguments. This seems like a recurring pattern by now, and actually much earlier. Whenever someone argues the contrary to what you say, you either redirect the discussion, or you build up hollow evidence to argue with their research. It's to the point of absurdity now - if you go back and actually read the counters to your points with an open mind, you will see the silliness of what you are proposing in a total loss of personal skill in favor of blind faith in complete strangers over the internet! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But unless you want tournament mode to also make a bunch of gameplay changes, we're stuck playing the same game and the health of pubs takes priority IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is clearly ridiculous to anyone who has any concept of balance. The health of pub games is directly proportionate to their playerbase, and pub players do not push the envelope to break the game the way competitive players do, as a result, if you balance around them you will have an unbalanced game when you're done.
<b>Bad games are bad business.</b>
======================================
The only reason pubbers get stomped in the first place is because of the skill gap.
That skill gap is a natural part of a skill-based declining game.
If you remove the individual skill of the game you will remove that problem at the cost of making the game skillful.
Your argument presupposes that a significant degree of skill is not a necessity of a good game.
Every game in history with any staying power has been competitive in nature even if it was not played in leagues.
Good games need that competition that doesn't let you hide behind other players. <u>The only result of the communism you are suggesting is more reason for players to scapegoat (and fail to learn) than they already have.</u>
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the same for pro players who are actually good at ramboing. They run off and rambo because they know they can do it, but do you deny that making that an ineffective strategy would cause those players to work more closely with their teammates?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would not make them work more closely with their teammates, it would remove them from the community leaving you with <BAD> clan and Guns members as your playerbase.
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you fail to understand is that the average player doesn't care that much about training themselves, they play the game to have fun. Explaining to them the subtleties of why their ramboing isn't the #1 most effective strategy is pointless, they don't want to analyze the game that deeply.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry Zek, you're right, I know nothing about how unwilling players are to be taught the deeper aspects of NS.
What you fail to understand is any concept of combative multiplayer game design in all of its many forms. We live in a competitive world, Zek - if you try to remove the fact that bad players will get raped by good players you undermine the quality of the competition in favor of letting TG fanboys cluster###### each other to defeat. It isn't good game design and it isn't good business.
You need to adapt your perspective in exactly the same way those unconscious pub players need to adapt their playstyles, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->but instead you will continue to prove my argument that maladaptive behavior gets punished<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> by the way you fail to articulate a convincing argument here because your perspective on personal skill and teamwork, despite how much you want it to be true, is baseless.
Your arguments have been countered on the order of dozens of times and your perspective has not changed. I have nothing else I can do to explain to you why you're wrong except invite you to play in a game that is not defined by unconscious players, but you will not do that because you are unwilling to consider the facts presented by the alternative perspective.
You never answered my question Zek. What motive do you have for this proposal to undermine all personal skill in favor of the false hope that strangers on the internet will make good team players?
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 06:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly how competitive players play doesn't concern me at all, it makes little difference to me if you guys can play solo in scrims. But unless you want tournament mode to also make a bunch of gameplay changes, we're stuck playing the same game and the health of pubs takes priority IMHO. It will determine not only the financial success of the game, but also the size of the player pool who decide to move on to competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't care how competetive games play out, so you might want to stop argumenting on their strategy, that's what I was saying <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . I'm not sure how the game could be balanced out anyway, I just pointed out the few problems anti-rambo system has with smaller playercounts.
The reason SC has been around for so long is because the whole game is a competitive community. Arguments against that make about as much sense as making teammates completely dependent on each other. This leads to rage quits about every minute of game play in pubs (check l4d)
<!--quoteo(post=1698915:date=Jan 29 2009, 08:19 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 29 2009, 08:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It probably makes no difference to you because it counters one of your arguments. This seems like a recurring pattern by now, and actually much earlier. Whenever someone argues the contrary to what you say, you either redirect the discussion, or you build up hollow evidence to argue with their research. It's to the point of absurdity now - if you go back and actually read the counters to your points with an open mind, you will see the silliness of what you are proposing in a total loss of personal skill in favor of blind faith in complete strangers over the internet! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? I'm saying I personally don't care how competitive players play because I'm not one. My suggestions are guided at changing the gameplay of pubs, and I've only mentioned competitive play in response to the backlash from you guys. If you want to send marines ramboing that's your business, but that strategy being viable is harmful to pubs. I'm not suggesting that competitive players should be thrown to the wolves, but their mentality is not compatible with the vast majority of players and it would be irresponsible to design a game to their every whim. The basic gameplay should be designed in a way that maximizes fun for most players, and then afterwards the competitive balance can be perfected.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is clearly ridiculous to anyone who has any concept of balance. The health of pub games is directly proportionate to their playerbase, and pub players do not push the envelope to break the game the way competitive players do, as a result, if you balance around them you will have an unbalanced game when you're done.
<b>Bad games are bad business.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't about balance. I never said NS wasn't balanced. I'm saying the game design should be changed for the sake of pub players. If doing that breaks the balance then there's plenty of time to fix it, during development and throughout the life of the game. Balance is a non-issue at this stage in development.
Only you guys would equate a very slightly reduced skill curve with a bad game. Competitive players are in their own world when it comes to game design.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason pubbers get stomped in the first place is because of the skill gap.
That skill gap is a natural part of a skill-based declining game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When pubber aliens get stomped they should get stomped by a team, not a single player(unless they're really really bad). That's what I'm saying. In NS, a skill imbalance destroys the strategy of the game and turns it into a twitch contest for the marines. I think a far better marine team should be able to win easily, but only if they actually apply their skills cooperatively instead of running around like action heroes. Marines being successful solo is frustrating to aliens and destructive to marine teamplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you remove the individual skill of the game you will remove that problem at the cost of making the game skillful.
Your argument presupposes that a significant degree of skill is not a necessity of a good game.
Every game in history with any staying power has been competitive in nature even if it was not played in leagues.
Good games need that competition that doesn't let you hide behind other players. <u>The only result of the communism you are suggesting is more reason for players to scapegoat (and fail to learn) than they already have.</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nobody ever said anything about removing individual skill. Enough with the dumb exaggerations. I'm saying that in the case of marines, individual skills should contribute to the marine team as a whole(your squad, to be more specific), and be not so much applicable to solo play. When it comes to a game in which the entire team is roughly even in skill, i.e. a scrim, this is hardly an issue. It's only really offensive to you that you can't stand in a league of your own above all your teammates when you're pubstomping, to which I say deal with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It would not make them work more closely with their teammates, it would remove them from the community leaving you with <BAD> clan and Guns members as your playerbase.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If their sole source of enjoyment in the game is reinforcing their feeling of superiority over 90% of players without stooping to the level of helping their teammates, then maybe they will. But I assume most competitive players get their real fun from actual competitive games, i.e. scrims and pugs, in which case at most we're talking about a tweak in effective strategies.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry Zek, you're right, I know nothing about how unwilling players are to be taught the deeper aspects of NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you do then you wouldn't have suggested that better tutoring from selfless competitive players would solve anything.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you fail to understand is any concept of combative multiplayer game design in all of its many forms. We live in a competitive world, Zek - if you try to remove the fact that bad players will get raped by good players you undermine the quality of the competition in favor of letting TG fanboys cluster###### each other to defeat. It isn't good game design and it isn't good business.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In a <i>team</i> game, bad <i>teams</i> should get raped by good <i>teams</i>. That's what I'm saying. 1v1 is a trivial scenario in a game like this. Certainly in a fair 1v1 fight, the better player should win. But walking into a skulk ambush is not a fair fight, just like a skulk charging across a room at a waiting marine is not a fair fight.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You need to adapt your perspective in exactly the same way those unconscious pub players need to adapt their playstyles, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->but instead you will continue to prove my argument that maladaptive behavior gets punished<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> by the way you fail to articulate a convincing argument here because your perspective on personal skill and teamwork, despite how much you want it to be true, is baseless.
Your arguments have been countered on the order of dozens of times and your perspective has not changed. I have nothing else I can do to explain to you why you're wrong except invite you to play in a game that is not defined by unconscious players, but you will not do that because you are unwilling to consider the facts presented by the alternative perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not even sure what you're saying here, what is an "unconscious player?" You mean like the sheep that are still blind to the glory of competitive play? I think your own competitive blinders are preventing you from empathizing with the vast majority of the playerbase and understanding what really makes the game good to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You never answered my question Zek. What motive do you have for this proposal to undermine all personal skill in favor of the false hope that strangers on the internet will make good team players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My motivation is that I think it will make NS2 a better game. The whole FPS/RTS structure is very poorly suited to individual deathmatch, especially with asymmetric teams, and so I see ramboing as a very minimal sacrifice for the sake of improving the overall teamwork, which works better with the team objectives and is more likely to be fun for people who are drawn to the game's premise. There are games that do deathmatch better, and NS2 should stick to its strengths.
My turn for a question: would you say that NS has more or less emphasis on individual skill than Quake 3? And is it a worse game for it?
Look guys, I just want to end this discussion here because 14 pages is getting ridiculous on this subject.
In competetive games, marines do not "rambo". Ever. I think I have the experience to be an authority on this matter (Played at top European level, shoutcasted 4-5 seasons of European finals, shoutcasted EU vs NA exhibition matches etc), although you should probably be listening to FireWater as he's far better at wasting his time on retarded forum debates than I am (despite the fact that he makes brilliant eloquent points).
The only reason it happens in pubs now (it never used to) is because of 2 reasons.
1) The playerbase is significantly diminished that the skill gap between "pro" competetive players who have years of experience, and the average pub skulk, is insurmountable. Public players today are just so bad it blows my mind. This is not a fault on the part of the game design, just an evolution of the gameplay which is emergent from the declining community. If I join a server nowadays and join marine, I will literally walk over every single skulk on that server, usually 2 or 3 at a time. And the ones that kill me, I'll know on a first-name basis because they're experienced competetive players who have been around for years.
2) The player is a moron thinking he's god's gift to NS, runs off and dies to a lone skulk.
At the end of the day, you're arguing to fix an aspect of gameplay which is emergent from the declining pool of players, which forces <b>really </b>good players and <b>really</b> bad players into the same games. NS2 will not have this problem, because NS2 will not have the same declining playerbase that NS does.
This is a solution looking for a problem. Honestly Zek, as much as I'd love to be able to take you seriously, your arguments are absolute tripe. Listen to FireWater and Radix, they both really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to game design and balance. Now just drop it guys, this debate isn't worth your time.
<!--quoteo(post=1698980:date=Jan 30 2009, 09:28 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marks @ Jan 30 2009, 09:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh... As if it was possible to convince anyone over the internet. I kinda like the drama value since I don't think we are getting any real discussion around the gameplay going until the devs start talking about it.
To discuss this you have to define what a Rambo is. A guy that runs off on is own is not always a rambo. Often at the start I run in the opposite direction to the rest of the pack to pick up RT's when they head straight for the hive. My aim is not to kill a lots of aliens but to cap lots of res, giving my team the res to arm and upgrade the main combatants. So.. anything you come up with can't kill this sort of positve behavour.
Look if you want to prevent Ramboing then you have to reward non Ramboing behavior.
~ Give points for x amount of welding/building/damage/following way points/capping res. ~ Reduce the number of points for kill (still give them but not above the team stuff) ~ Give credit for assisted kills
This will result in more people playing for the team and not themselves.
Punishing people or making it hard for a marine to sneak around (ninjaing to a hive when the marines are getting kicked) etc will just eliminate may strats for the marines.
<!--quoteo(post=1698980:date=Jan 30 2009, 04:28 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marks @ Jan 30 2009, 04:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look guys, I just want to end this discussion here because 14 pages is getting ridiculous on this subject.
In competetive games, marines do not "rambo". Ever. I think I have the experience to be an authority on this matter (Played at top European level, shoutcasted 4-5 seasons of European finals, shoutcasted EU vs NA exhibition matches etc), although you should probably be listening to FireWater as he's far better at wasting his time on retarded forum debates than I am (despite the fact that he makes brilliant eloquent points).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Firewater is the one who conceded that marines often hold down an area by themselves in competitive play when appropriate. Whether or not you want to call it "ramboing" is up to you. And I assume the reason so many competitive players are up in arms about this is because they feel that nerfing solo marines will impact their competitive games. That said, competitive play really isn't my concern.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason it happens in pubs now (it never used to) is because of 2 reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It never used to happen? Are you kidding me? People have ramboed all the time since NS was released. The extent to which it's successful depends on the marine's skill, but it's always been a reasonable enough strategy against pub aliens for competent players to attempt it, and a good marine has always had a very solid chance at walking into a good skulk's ambush and beating him anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) The playerbase is significantly diminished that the skill gap between "pro" competetive players who have years of experience, and the average pub skulk, is insurmountable. Public players today are just so bad it blows my mind. This is not a fault on the part of the game design, just an evolution of the gameplay which is emergent from the declining community. If I join a server nowadays and join marine, I will literally walk over every single skulk on that server, usually 2 or 3 at a time. And the ones that kill me, I'll know on a first-name basis because they're experienced competetive players who have been around for years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know what it's like now, but probably a pretty significant portion of current pubbers are actually either new to the game or returning players just messing around. With the community how it is there aren't many pubbers that play regularly anymore. In any case, since I don't play NS anymore my argument is based on my memory of when it was actually active and there were people like me who have played pubs for years and didn't suck, but very few of them still play after all this time. There's also room for other improvements in this area to make the skulk's proper playstyle more intuitive for players, which is a separate issue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The player is a moron thinking he's god's gift to NS, runs off and dies to a lone skulk.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No problem then. If the player is repeatedly unsuccessful even against lone skulks and continues to do it then it's a behavioral issue. It's unlikely he's actually a moron btw but he probably just doesn't care and is screwing around. In this case it would be appropriate for the comm and/or the team to have disciplinary options like the OP suggests, though that sort of thing has to be approached with caution since people are unlikely to respond well to excessive punishment from the comm even if he is supposed to be in charge.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the end of the day, you're arguing to fix an aspect of gameplay which is emergent from the declining pool of players, which forces <b>really </b>good players and <b>really</b> bad players into the same games. NS2 will not have this problem, because NS2 will not have the same declining playerbase that NS does.
This is a solution looking for a problem. Honestly Zek, as much as I'd love to be able to take you seriously, your arguments are absolute tripe. Listen to FireWater and Radix, they both really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to game design and balance. Now just drop it guys, this debate isn't worth your time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm definitely talking about NS in its prime, not today's NS, and I don't know what to say to you claiming that ramboing didn't happen in the old days. Think about it again without the rose-tinted glasses.
I'm sure Firewater and Radix know what they're talking about when it comes to the design of tournament-friendly competitive games, but it's very obvious the target demographic that they're aiming for. You can't make a successful game with that sort of approach alone. The most hardcore fans of a franchise can't be trusted to design a sequel because they're dead set in their ways and addicted to the gameplay mechanics they've played with for so long. For a good example, take a look at what happened with Team Fortress 2 vs. Fortress Forever. Obviously the name brand was part of it, but TF2 sacrificed some competitive depth for accessible fun and FF is just a circlejerk for competitive TFC players.
<!--quoteo(post=1699007:date=Jan 31 2009, 03:40 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 31 2009, 03:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For a good example, take a look at what happened with Team Fortress 2 vs. Fortress Forever. Obviously the name brand was part of it, but TF2 sacrificed some competitive depth for accessible fun and FF is just a circlejerk for competitive TFC players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know if that's a good example after all. TF2 was published in orange box, with _hl2_ and _portal_. The publicity doesn't get much bigger than that. Meanwhile I just realised they've released the fortress forever. I guess the learning curve has it's effect too, but those games never got started even close to equal.
Game Play Design should influence player behavior, not an authoritarian determination of in game players over others.
Yes, there is a commander and yes it does have some control over the field, but you are looking at dividing a team even further than the non-coop in already dividing it; that is game design suicide.
The design of the game should promote players to work together, rather than force them to.
<!--quoteo(post=1698820:date=Jan 28 2009, 11:08 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 28 2009, 11:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698820"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You reap what you sow, most people aren't very nice to the competitive population.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PTs drew first blood, but I agree the competitive community should rose above the snobbery of the initial PTs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, that's a skill requirement that's added by squad play. Oh wait, forcing teamwork is skill communism, I forgot. The reason pub players do this so much though is because they always leave FF off, which encourages sloppy aiming - for pubs I'd like to see the default setting be mirror FF, i.e. hits to your teammate damage you and not them. And again, I said nothing about buffing either damage or HP, skulks need a buff that only applies to ambushes and isn't so easy to out-skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you put mirror damage on in pubs (at least the state that they are in now) aliens will win a majority of their games within the first 5 mintues. What buff should be applied to skulks exactly to ambush? Also how do we know that said buff will not be over powered when a "teamwork" using group of marines gets ambushed by a pack of skulks?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Huh? Solo players dying to ambushes isn't a problem at all, of course it happens sometimes but I want it to happen most of the time. And the aliens can do whatever they want, it just shouldn't be necessary to gang up on a vanilla rambo. It shouldn't be the same for both teams because they are asymmetrical, the aliens are the team of independent combat lifeforms and the marines are the coordinate squad team. I don't know what you mean by the game "changing," I'm simply saying tactics should be of increased importance to marines. In the lategame it's fine that an HA/HMG can beat a skulk or two, but they already don't want to go alone because they're expensive and can be worn down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the problem is when solo players do die its to getting out played by the aliens. As you stated in another post, that most pub players are not going to learn how to play the game at its deepest levels. Why should the game favor those players who do not care about winning to the point where they will not adapt and learn from said mistakes over those who practice and attempt to get better at the game? You are basically stating that an unskilled player who ambushes should beat a skilled player who may have went off on his or her own. Thats not creating depth, thats watering down the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fortunately this is NS2 not L4D, I simply meant it as an example that restrictions on solo play lead to increased teamwork even among the most clueless pubbers. It's true that it's hard to coordinate in excessive numbers, which is why marines would be split up into squads(a system which is already being improved for NS2).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well in L4D I was able to take out 3 hunters that were trying to pounce man when I ran off ahead because my team was slowing down. Should I have not been able to do that? If so, why was I able to? If not, doesn't that prove the point that no matter how much you dumb down the game, there will be exceptions to it that will ALWAYS be beyond the dev's control?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm saying many players with respectable twitch skills are useless anyway because they always run off alone, taking after their pubstar heroes. If the game drills the futility of that into their skulls then they'll be more likely to play in a way that's useful to their team. They are comparable on the single point that in L4D, going off on your own is suicide no matter how good you are - a Hunter or Smoker will lock you down in one hit and it's over unless somebody saves you. And as a result of this mechanic, people play very closely as a team. That extreme would be inappropriate for NS2 but the premise is the same - there's a direct inverse correlation between the effectiveness of solo players and the prevalence of teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't you state earlier that players who can solo play successully are contributing to the team? I think the truth comes out in this statement. <i>Bottom line is that you do not like twitch skilled players which is a vital part but not the end all be all of solo play. You want everyone to play the way YOU do, without any regard to what it would do to the game balance. For some reason solo play is wrong (despite you admit it is useful and only exists with significant skill disparities.) and everyone should play YOUR way instead of the way they choose.</i>
But solo player are contributing to the team by freeing up the others to cap/destroy nodes. Solo players can only survive with Comm's help. So I would define that as teamwork as well, and thus the "solo" player is not truly alone and is using teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And we've been over this, <i>I know solo play is useful to the team in NS</i>. That's why good players do it, because it works. But it still only just barely qualifies as teamwork, and only if you actually do coordinate it with your team.
But actually fighting in the same area and covering eachother's backs takes far more teamwork. For the sake of increasing the emphasis on organized teamwork in NS2's marines, rambos needs to be nerfed. Not as difficult as it is to take your argument seriously when you're basically saying that because NS1 was fun there's no point in pursuing changes for the sequel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't you say above that players who run off on their own are "useless anyway"? How can you have a non-consistent opinion of solo players and be taken seriously?
Changes are fine as long as they are based on sound game theory and not based on a set of principles that no matter how hard it was tried to change something, it never did. The devs would be wise to implement changes that do not restrict skill (except for the RTS aspects, i.e. aliens out teching marines, so they die more as a result) and would add elements to the existing gameplay (i.e. secondary fire, new weapons/alien tech).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You're the one assuming forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, why else are you opposed? You're also assuming that my suggestions would be a detriment despite no evidence to support that claim
Your whole definition of hindering play is that a strat that used to work won't anymore, which first of all goes without saying with all the new changes being made in NS2, but more importantly you still haven't noticed that you have tunnel vision.
What about the strats that don't work as a result of rambo marines being effective? Like, for example, strats that involve skulks setting up solo ambushes for marines?
I've told you time and time again that restricting certain undesirable play styles is the very nature of game design, it happened every step of the way in NS and it's already happening in NS2. What do you think the removal of one alien player on the field to play comm will do to old alien strategies?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, teamwork is a neccessity in competitive play, thats why we formed <b><i><u>TEAMS</b></i></u> that would play consistently to improve on said teamwork. I am opposed because the conversation is solely concerned based on a 1v1 vanilla situation where the skulk should just simply win. Based on this proposal, I fear that it will have HORRIBLE balance issues not only when the marines lose a little momentum, but when the aliens decide to ambush in packs. Your desire to take out solo play in my opinion will actually wind up making the game too alien favored, regardless of squads/solo play. It is the revenge effects of such a radical balance change based on social desirability vs actual game play mechancis is what I am against.
Lots of irony in that quote about Tunnel Vision. You are only able to the see the game from your perspective as you have stated repeatedly that you do not care about competitive play. I am focusing on both public and competitive play. See the above post.
What about strats that involve a squad of marines getting destroyed by 2 skulks?
Ummmm, you said that solo play is undesirable, does not make it law. I know that you are one of the playtesters and all, but really you do not know how hard restrictions will impact NS. Its actually kind of embarassing for me to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.
I do not know what the alien commander will be able to do. I have spoken to Charlie about it when he asked me what I thought. I felt bad because I did not have a good answer for him other than "its worth testing".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, they'll be capable of it if there opponents are bad enough. It happens. You're certainly understating the vast decrease in effectiveness of crazy rambo marines in 2.0 though with the nerfs to bunnyhopping and JPs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked solo players were actually still dominate in 2.01 if the aliens were bad enough. part of the reason why solo play took more skill in 2.01 is the prevelance of early lerking that was not available in 1.04 (in most cases) also the unbinding of fades to the hive. That is an example of a GOOD balance change. Giving the aliens access to the tools needed to turn the game around in their favor. In my opinion these were the most significant balance changes that were required for the aliens to get their win ratio up.
If affected solo play in a positive way by allowing more options to the aliens. It was up to the aliens to use these options effectively, or to continue to get killed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It made a huge difference, they just didn't go so far as to actually force squad gameplay, which wasn't really an objective to begin with as far as I know. And if you're implying that skulks winning ambushes 1v1 will lead to aliens being overpowered, that's a pointless argument, there are dozens of ways to nerf one team or buff the other to make it work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name me 1 dozen ways to make it work. Until then balancing a game based on your perception of social favorability instead of sound game design is terrible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well L4D is doing just fine. And nobody's suggesting turning NS2 into a clone, it's just that L4D pioneered some very solid design decisions towards the goal of encouraging squad teamwork. NS2 will always be its own game, but it's silly to ignore the new ideas that have become popularized since NS' release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah L4D is selling quite well, I haven't played in while because my desktop just died and I have school/internship. But the problem with L4D is that I am never able to finish a whole game in a pub because of the rage quits when the survivors get stuffed one round. I mean most of the time I am just joining a random lobby. Forget about when I play with my friends/team and we all know what we are doing. It is also VERY frustrating to play on a team in competitive play where my skill cannot overcome that player's deficits because of the mechanics. I am forced down to a lower standard of play because two players on my team are not able to keep up. That is NOT fun, and NOT a factor in NS (Which is awesome).
Even in competitive play rage quitting is a huge problem. Granted there are some downie teams out there but even when the big sponsored teams get rolled they continually cry about it.
I hope L4D is not a fad game and has significat staying power, I really do enjoy the game and I think given its system has great potential for competitive play. But L4D mechanics are simply not a good decision to implement into NS2.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Really, do any of you think that somebody is going to keep track of what 270 posts in a topic are saying? I motion to let this topic die and start a new coherent one instead of wasting energy on cheap shots and tangled logic.
Comments
PLEASE come and play a decent game of NS with 6 competent aliens.
THEN try to rambo against them.
AFTER you have died about 5 times to the teamwork of skulks/lerks/gorges, come on here and admit there is no rambo problem.
There is merely a skill problem.
Last night, I played on G4B2S. I had 260 ping.
I 'ramboed' (as in, I didn't make an effort to stay together with my teammates).
I killed lots of aliens, very easily (despite the hideous lag).
This was because they straight-lined me one-by-one and failed to utilize lerks, gorges and parasite effectively.
I successfully won this game (eventual hive-camp and GG) because the other team was terrible - not because of a systematic fault in NS.
Also, last night, I played on an Australian server (80 ping).
I wandered off a little bit solo (same spot on ns_eclipse, outside cc - the seige location). The aliens spored me, parasited me and then three skulks bhopped into the room (from multiple directions).
They killed me.
This was because they actually played well!
Therefore, there is no 'rambo' problem in NS (ie, rambo's do not randomly own competent teams). There are merely games where players are too good for the other team!
Note: as for the issue of marines ignoring orders and running of like a retard, just don't give them meds. It's not worth wasting 2 res to heal a retard that wants to rush a hive with fades in it... THIS problem is with retarded players, and no game mechanic will stop this happening. It's just like the idiot on a server I play on that waves up for onos EVERY game - just to rush into the marine base and die (he then tries to save up for second onos, to do the same..)
Topic 1: Given the current system of balance that exists in NS1, the failure of alien players to kill an enemy (ex. a solo marine) is due to poor decision-making and insufficient skill at life form (skulk) control. With the proper foresight and (sometimes) teamwork, the solo marine can be taken down successfully in NS1. This system should remain in NS2.
Topic 2: Solo skulks should have a significant advantage over solo marines in a situation of ambush. The current system of ambush gives solo marines too much opportunity to survive - barring prohibitive differences in tech, we argue that skulks should always have the upper hand given a reasonable ambush attempt.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bullseye. I confunded the terms because of the fact I didn't have a microphone, so I was more likely to follow oreders than giving them. At all, I never listened the word.
But I think <b>ALL</b> this topic is wraping around a issue that doesn't exist at all. I think the problem is another.
Let's see... Is NS balanced? After all these betas and patches, if there is an unbalance, it's imperceptible now. So we can skip the whole fact of 1 vs 1 marines gaining skulks beeing a cheap (the old looks overpower but isn't).
But marines winning skulks face off, it doesn't make sense!
It's possible to change the game core gameplay and then rebalance later, but it's a question of taste (without commenting how hard to balance will). Some prefer the game as it is now and some prefer to change it to reflect the descriptions of manual/ideas of the trailer. Yes, I prefer that if a marine falls in an ambush, the marine be sure to die. But, anyway, it's equilibrated.
So where is the problem? themeatshield pointed well. The problem is that ramboing seems to effective when it shouldn't. The way it is used and abused, it will work only if the alien team sucks/lacks of communication.
In pubs, this happens often. So we can say alien team usually sucks and/or lacks of communication (in pubs)?
Yes. The problem are the players.
Big skill gaps, lack of explanations... All this results in few good players and many bad players.
"Ah, natural selection. Ok, I want to play the game but I dunno how. What will I do? Look the instructions. Hell, no instructions. Maybe they're on the tutorial. Where is it? Ah... Let's see the manual... Ok, Ok... Gotcha. I will play as marine. Nobody wants the comm chair? I will get it! Ok, we have to prepare the base to attacks. Building towers. Huh? What happened, I was kicked from the chair? Ok, I will get out. Hum, aliens. Ah, the skulk. This one can scale walls, yay! An human! I will get it! I will get it! What? No way, he's too strong! Ok, will scale the and trap. Ah, this one is looking to the other side! BITE BITE BITE... what? I got him by back! No way! Humpf... I think I will ask them what I'm doing wrong. Hi..."
The problem is that many players don't bother to say "I'm noob, please teach me" and prefer simply getting out. This will be a drama after they spend money on the game. The game must explain that communication is the important, so microphones are near a prerequisite (for competitive matches, they are). It won't hurt having a tutorial saying what is the job of each class, what skulks should and shouldn't do. Hints system, whatever.
About how the gameplay should work (marines should have no chance to survive an ambush, etc...), I don't care, just if it's balanced. It's opnion of each one, but I prefer playing a new game than NS1 with dynamic lighting.
And about the troublesome rambos, a better squad system in which you can glare someone and tell from what squad is he should help to prevent mistakes (colors?).
What I am saying is that any instance where a marine who not huddled around teammates would be outlawed in the proposed system. The caps that already exist the weapon limits and health limits. Still did not receive a good reason why a "team" limit should be imposed especially when a good solo player
1) Has risks on his or her own merit, being away from the squad does not allow that player to benefit from the advantages of being in a squad.
2) Can still operate and help out the team by potentially doing the work of multiple marines.
3) Can be brought down by potentially a competent skulk or if neccessary, a small squad of aliens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right, balancing is not penalization. Making solo play a non viable option in NS2 is penalization, not balance. My inferences are drawn that NS2 will have similar gameplay elements that of NS1. When more information arrives, I would be happy to adapt my concepts to fit the new design.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"less" elite huh? How exactly are you quantifiying both the concepts of less and elite? Last time I checked there were very few communities that would get groups of players together to teach lesser skilled players how to play the game (i.e. NSguides and NSlearn). Have you ever been apart of the CS community or TFC community? Those people were absolutely brutal to players of lesser skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I have to keep reminding myself that I am not communicating with someone who fully understands the game. By restrictions I mean the dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other. For example marines locking down a hive restricts the alien's access to it until the lock is broken. That strategy usually results in the aliens scrambling to break the lock to retake the hive. Taking resource nodes is an example of restriction. Destroying tech, developing one's own tech successfully are examples of restriction. Using tactics to secure specific location is a restriction one team can put on another. These are all player created restrictions. Your proposed restriction is a hard restriction imposed on marines based on the "It should be that way" hypothesis. That is a game created restriction, and the game already appears to have plenty of those based on the logistics of the game. Your game created restriction is based more on a social premise than anything else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So when you make passive-aggressive insults its ok and when I throw a little salt on message (LOL PUN) thats not ok. Really can't seem to understand your logic in this mess. I'm not arguing "pro-rambo" I am arguing to allow the players to play the way they choose without hard restrictions. Your arguments have no clear factual basis, only theorycraft. I have provided sound examples that either 1) you are incapable of understanding 2)Are choosing not to 3)Simply do not "like" them therefore they are incorrect. The time you are wasting is yours, anytime you wish not to participate in this thread is up to you. This point has been beaten to death as again you only grasp how balance applies to your own playstyle, not the overrall picture. I look forward to your non-reply given the amount of "time" you have wasted.
But I think <b>ALL</b> this topic is wraping around a issue that doesn't exist at all. I think the problem is another.
Let's see... Is NS balanced? After all these betas and patches, if there is an unbalance, it's imperceptible now. So we can skip the whole fact of 1 vs 1 marines gaining skulks beeing a cheap (the old looks overpower but isn't).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the best ways at least from a macro perspective is to look at win percentages of individual servers and then take all of those and perform a meta analysis. An ideal win percentage for me would be +-5 percentage points (though some may argue differently) That is if aliens won 55% of the time and marines won 45% of the time that would constitute balance from a winning percentage macro perspective. Anecdotally, I have seen both sides crush the opposing force sometimes very little effort (again based on skill levels) so I agree with you that NS1 is pretty fair with regards to balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But marines winning skulks face off, it doesn't make sense!
It's possible to change the game core gameplay and then rebalance later, but it's a question of taste (without commenting how hard to balance will). Some prefer the game as it is now and some prefer to change it to reflect the descriptions of manual/ideas of the trailer. Yes, I prefer that if a marine falls in an ambush, the marine be sure to die. But, anyway, it's equilibrated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does it not make sense? Marines have the ability to use ranged weapons and move. Why is there notion of a "should/shouldn't" with regards to marine vs skulk play?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So where is the problem? themeatshield pointed well. The problem is that ramboing seems to effective when it shouldn't. The way it is used and abused, it will work only if the alien team sucks/lacks of communication.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why shouldn't a good player be able to beat several bad players? This is common place in every FPS and RTS known to man.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In pubs, this happens often. So we can say alien team usually sucks and/or lacks of communication (in pubs)?
Yes. The problem are the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flayra has stated repeatedly that you can only balance the game, not the players. If during testing you take reasonably skilled players and put them against each other each team should win about 45-55% of the time. If no matter how the teams get mixed up one side is winning more than 55%, then I would say that the game is not balanced. The problem with pubs is the dyanmic team that they provide. Each round more often than not is a different team then the one before. Sometimes teams get severely skewed to one team rather than the other. The result is a landslide victory on the dominating half.
Big skill gaps, lack of explanations... All this results in few good players and many bad players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Ah, natural selection. Ok, I want to play the game but I dunno how. What will I do? Look the instructions. Hell, no instructions. Maybe they're on the tutorial. Where is it? Ah... Let's see the manual... Ok, Ok... Gotcha. I will play as marine. Nobody wants the comm chair? I will get it! Ok, we have to prepare the base to attacks. Building towers. Huh? What happened, I was kicked from the chair? Ok, I will get out. Hum, aliens. Ah, the skulk. This one can scale walls, yay! An human! I will get it! I will get it! What? No way, he's too strong! Ok, will scale the and trap. Ah, this one is looking to the other side! BITE BITE BITE... what? I got him by back! No way! Humpf... I think I will ask them what I'm doing wrong. Hi..."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a problem that exists in any skill based game. I agree that in NS the learning curve is steeper than that of your typical FPS game, however a result of the complexity that we that are fans of the game enjoy, will turn off others. This attrition while can be minimized, can never fully be eliminated unfortunately. Some people regardless of the learning curve will pick up the game and simply not enjoy it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that many players don't bother to say "I'm noob, please teach me" and prefer simply getting out. This will be a drama after they spend money on the game. The game must explain that communication is the important, so microphones are near a prerequisite (for competitive matches, they are). It won't hurt having a tutorial saying what is the job of each class, what skulks should and shouldn't do. Hints system, whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually disagree. Those who paid money for a game in my opinion are more likely to attempt to make it work and learn some type of mastery of the game. Its much easier to download a mod, try it for 15 mins and delete it (I've done this on many occassions, I'm sure others have as well). But when a person plumps cash down (especially with a no-refund policy) they will most likely at the very least try to learn how to play the game better. There will be those who stick around, and those who regardless how much money was paid, will delete the game and never play it again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->About how the gameplay should work (marines should have no chance to survive an ambush, etc...), I don't care, just if it's balanced. It's opnion of each one, but I prefer playing a new game than NS1 with dynamic lighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree the game should be new, but I still believe that some of the familiar things we love about NS should still be in the game, and potentially enhanced. IF the devs can keep that, improve upon the less favorable things in NS and create some new content that will blow our minds, they will have a nice hit on their hands (provided that marketing is sufficient).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And about the troublesome rambos, a better squad system in which you can glare someone and tell from what squad is he should help to prevent mistakes (colors?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh if the commander stops feeding the rambo meds and ammo, the problem will work itsself out most of the time.
1) Has risks on his or her own merit, being away from the squad does not allow that player to benefit from the advantages of being in a squad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Again, if the risks were so high and the benefits from being in a squad are so useful, why do there exist rambo players at all?</i> You seem to push that ramboing is an awful strategy, yet here we are arguing on whether or not to enforce some sort of balance to discourage ramboing / encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Can still operate and help out the team by potentially doing the work of multiple marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a single player is doing the work of multiple marines, that player must be godly in skill or the "multiple marines" by which you refer have trouble finding their way out of marine start. Again, ramboing should be an awful strategy in virtually every sense. It's not that way in natural selection because it's correct game mechanic. I'll bring up another example to which you'll probably shoot down because we're nto talking about real life here, but take any SWAT training. What do they teach you? Stay together, watch each other's backs, never separate, etc. There's a good reason for that, and it's not just because you can't respawn after you die.
We're obviously not talking about real life here, yet I fail to see why strategy in natural selection has to be modified to fit the genre like the spaceships, aliens, and technology. Is there any reason whatsoever to assume that just because you're in space and fighting aliens that the strategy to split up suddenly got to be a much better idea? Again, if we wanted deathmatch, we didn't even have to have teams. We could have just made some sort of frag system by which you could upgrade your fighting class. Clearly natural selection was meant to be more of a team-based game, and as such, a team strategy should present the best results. <i>You can shoot down my ideas all you want, but I'm still waiting for a reason for you to give as to why it shouldn't be this way.</i>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) Can be brought down by potentially a competent skulk or if neccessary, a small squad of aliens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulks shouldn't be so unbalanced that it would take a small squad to take out a marine no matter how skillful he was. How often do you hear your marine teammates requesting help taking out a skulk ? Never happens unless marine start were in danger. However a single camping marine in an empty hive room might very well require clever planning or even teamwork to kill. This is a balance issue. Even if this balance is offset by the late game by higher alien life forms, it's a balance issue in the early game nonetheless.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"less" elite huh? How exactly are you quantifiying both the concepts of less and elite? Last time I checked there were very few communities that would get groups of players together to teach lesser skilled players how to play the game (i.e. NSguides and NSlearn). Have you ever been apart of the CS community or TFC community? Those people were absolutely brutal to players of lesser skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't think you understood what I meant. I mean that a capable player can do plenty, just not slaughter the entire opposing team or until ammo depletes. Even an excellent player should require backup. In fact, I would argue, an excellent marine player should be defined by setting up attack patterns to easily dispatch incoming alien players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, I have to keep reminding myself that I am not communicating with someone who fully understands the game. By restrictions I mean the dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other. For example marines locking down a hive restricts the alien's access to it until the lock is broken. That strategy usually results in the aliens scrambling to break the lock to retake the hive. Taking resource nodes is an example of restriction. Destroying tech, developing one's own tech successfully are examples of restriction. Using tactics to secure specific location is a restriction one team can put on another. These are all player created restrictions. Your proposed restriction is a hard restriction imposed on marines based on the "It should be that way" hypothesis. That is a game created restriction, and the game already appears to have plenty of those based on the logistics of the game. Your game created restriction is based more on a social premise than anything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I have to keep reminding you that in an argument, you define your terms. When I think "restriction", I don't automatically think "dynamic of which the 2 opposing teams interact with each other." That doesn't even vaguely match the definition of restriction in the traditional sense either.
<i>To your idea, if alien team were given weapons / skills in such a way as to easily isolate and kill a solo marine, wouldn't that be a "restriction" as you define it?</i>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So when you make passive-aggressive insults its ok and when I throw a little salt on message (LOL PUN) thats not ok. Really can't seem to understand your logic in this mess. I'm not arguing "pro-rambo" I am arguing to allow the players to play the way they choose without hard restrictions. Your arguments have no clear factual basis, only theorycraft. I have provided sound examples that either 1) you are incapable of understanding 2)Are choosing not to 3)Simply do not "like" them therefore they are incorrect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By theorycraft, I assume you mean logic and by "sound examples" I assume you mean baseless propositions on how natural selection 2 should be. Natural selection 2 has not been finished, so there's no reason to assume it should be exactly like natural selection or even partially like natural selection with regards to how you prefer to play. Your "sound examples" are absolutely meaningless in the context of how natural selection 2 should be. You're only proving that natural selection has rambos and that it is fine that way. A) I never denied that natural selection has rambos and B) whether or not it is fine is subjective.
<i>Rather than skip over the major counterpoints of my post and claiming I fail to understand your "sound examples," why don't you try directly confronting them?</i> Look. I even highlighted them in italics to make it easy for you to find.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The time you are wasting is yours, anytime you wish not to participate in this thread is up to you. This point has been beaten to death as again you only grasp how balance applies to your own playstyle, not the overrall picture. I look forward to your non-reply given the amount of "time" you have wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must really enjoy this afterall. Okay, have it your way.
It's fun to rambo off and kill hordes of skulks and I don't need the benefits of a squad when I'm playing against walker skulks.
There's really no reason for an anti-squad system, because there is no rambo problem.
If you want to prove me wrong, I'll organise a quick game some evening for us (and 10 other players). You can rambo off and show me how one marine can dominate an alien team.
I wasn't clear. First, I meant "can't faceoff close quaters". Then, I wasn't saying it by myself. I was saying what <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=105244&view=findpost&p=1697771" target="_blank">Zek said</a>. And I was saying like me asking to myself why?, why not?, simulating what was said in the replies, to build my logic of what is wrong about this topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why shouldn't a good player be able to beat several bad players? This is common place in every FPS and RTS known to man.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you. I never said good players shouldn't beat bad players, I was just building my logic. If ramboing (in the stupid way it's done in pubs) is a bad strategy and it works often, you must presume that it is used against bad players in the same frequency it works.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flayra has stated repeatedly that you can only balance the game, not the players...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you really can't balance player, but still a great help a basic training, expecially when is much easier to learn how to play as marine than alien. Like, imagine the wonders an inbuild tutorial about ambushing would do to NS1... With a simple tutorial saying it and showing how recompesating it can be, this topic would never develop, neither the "problem" would exist, because at least, even if bad ambushes were made, it would be much more effective than straightrunning and ramboing would happen less often.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All this results in few good players and many bad players.
This is a problem that exists in any skill based game. I agree that in NS the learning curve is steeper than that of your typical FPS game, however a result of the complexity that we that are fans of the game enjoy, will turn off others. <b>This attrition while can be minimized, can never fully be eliminated unfortunately.</b> Some people regardless of the learning curve will pick up the game and simply not enjoy it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still beeing able to shrink the problem. Big skill gaps are difficult to solve, but lack of explanation has no excuse.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually disagree. Those who paid money for a game in my opinion are more likely to attempt to make it work and learn some type of mastery of the game. Its much easier to download a mod, try it for 15 mins and delete it (I've done this on many occassions, I'm sure others have as well). But when a person plumps cash down (especially with a no-refund policy) they will most likely at the very least try to learn how to play the game better. There will be those who stick around, and those who regardless how much money was paid, will delete the game and never play it again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still, the game can be more friendly. The fact it is paid is not excuse to break the face of who tries to play it (exagerating).
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree the game should be new, but I still believe that some of the familiar things we love about NS should still be in the game, and potentially enhanced. IF the devs can keep that, improve upon the less favorable things in NS and create some new content that will blow our minds, they will have a nice hit on their hands (provided that marketing is sufficient).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As how I said, I could be undestanded as I'd like to play a completely different game, like suddenly starting playing Worms or whatever, so I was ambiguous. What I wanted to say is, like you think, "While some things we love should keep, others can go." Which ones should stay and go is a personal option. And personally I prefer skulks gaining after a marine falling in an ambush and you prefer ramboing stays.
<!--quoteo(post=1698678:date=Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 27 2009, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eh if the commander stops feeding the rambo meds and ammo, the problem will work itsself out most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was too bad to give the guns to the right guys when I made the topic <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> It's a moving mob of marines around the armoury when you play with bots.
Because the vast majority of pub players are so terrible now that not only do they fail to grasp the simple and easy solutions to rambo players but they do not realize that their overall methods of play are totally ineffective, and thus do not adapt and form new more advantageous ways of achieving victory.
You are in all likelihood one of these people, and it's probable that the only one you're hurting by continuing to argue the contrary is yourself. You would be better off to spend the effort looking at NSLearn documents (linked in Sig) or simply analyzing the flow of a generic pub game.
But I will say this, it's not all your fault - the nature of NS is to force reliance on your teammates (which in itself is a form of skill communism, but unavoidable in a game striving for RTS mechanics) - because so many people are so incomprehensibly bad now, you're being forced to work with a team in many cases that is far below par human competence for even new players - this is unfortunate, but is the nature of a declining game, and NS's teamplay elements exacerbate the problem significantly.
Absolutely not. A good marine with a lot of practice should be able to stomp any public game he joins until aliens have enough teamwork/pub champions to take the marine down. It's not exactly like NSBAD/GUNS regulars can't kill the average pug player. The only time aliens will have serious trouble killing a marine is on ns_veil, when the marine actively retreats to a highly advantageous area after an attack or brings backup from hell. Not really a problem with rambos if you ask me.
You reap what you sow, most people aren't very nice to the competitive population.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that's a skill requirement that's added by squad play. Oh wait, forcing teamwork is skill communism, I forgot. The reason pub players do this so much though is because they always leave FF off, which encourages sloppy aiming - for pubs I'd like to see the default setting be mirror FF, i.e. hits to your teammate damage you and not them. And again, I said nothing about buffing either damage or HP, skulks need a buff that only applies to ambushes and isn't so easy to out-skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? Solo players dying to ambushes isn't a problem at all, of course it happens sometimes but I want it to happen most of the time. And the aliens can do whatever they want, it just shouldn't be necessary to gang up on a vanilla rambo. It shouldn't be the same for both teams because they are asymmetrical, the aliens are the team of independent combat lifeforms and the marines are the coordinate squad team. I don't know what you mean by the game "changing," I'm simply saying tactics should be of increased importance to marines. In the lategame it's fine that an HA/HMG can beat a skulk or two, but they already don't want to go alone because they're expensive and can be worn down.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fortunately this is NS2 not L4D, I simply meant it as an example that restrictions on solo play lead to increased teamwork even among the most clueless pubbers. It's true that it's hard to coordinate in excessive numbers, which is why marines would be split up into squads(a system which is already being improved for NS2).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying many players with respectable twitch skills are useless anyway because they always run off alone, taking after their pubstar heroes. If the game drills the futility of that into their skulls then they'll be more likely to play in a way that's useful to their team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are comparable on the single point that in L4D, going off on your own is suicide no matter how good you are - a Hunter or Smoker will lock you down in one hit and it's over unless somebody saves you. And as a result of this mechanic, people play very closely as a team. That extreme would be inappropriate for NS2 but the premise is the same - there's a direct inverse correlation between the effectiveness of solo players and the prevalence of teamwork.
And we've been over this, <i>I know solo play is useful to the team in NS</i>. That's why good players do it, because it works. But it still only just barely qualifies as teamwork, and only if you actually do coordinate it with your team. But actually fighting in the same area and covering eachother's backs takes far more teamwork. For the sake of increasing the emphasis on organized teamwork in NS2's marines, rambos needs to be nerfed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not as difficult as it is to take your argument seriously when you're basically saying that because NS1 was fun there's no point in pursuing changes for the sequel.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You're the one assuming forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, why else are you opposed? You're also assuming that my suggestions would be a detriment despite no evidence to support that claim. Your whole definition of hindering play is that a strat that used to work won't anymore, which first of all goes without saying with all the new changes being made in NS2, but more importantly you still haven't noticed that you have tunnel vision. What about the strats that don't work as a result of rambo marines being effective? Like, for example, strats that involve skulks setting up solo ambushes for marines? I've told you time and time again that restricting certain undesirable play styles is the very nature of game design, it happened every step of the way in NS and it's already happening in NS2. What do you think the removal of one alien player on the field to play comm will do to old alien strategies?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, they'll be capable of it if there opponents are bad enough. It happens. You're certainly understating the vast decrease in effectiveness of crazy rambo marines in 2.0 though with the nerfs to bunnyhopping and JPs. It made a huge difference, they just didn't go so far as to actually force squad gameplay, which wasn't really an objective to begin with as far as I know. And if you're implying that skulks winning ambushes 1v1 will lead to aliens being overpowered, that's a pointless argument, there are dozens of ways to nerf one team or buff the other to make it work.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well L4D is doing just fine. And nobody's suggesting turning NS2 into a clone, it's just that L4D pioneered some very solid design decisions towards the goal of encouraging squad teamwork. NS2 will always be its own game, but it's silly to ignore the new ideas that have become popularized since NS' release.
Yes, you're right Zek - it is horribly HORRIBLY frustrating when a bad pubber runs off with rosy images of their favorite pubstar in mind trying to be the best rambo they can be, but the way to solve that problem is not by preventing it, but by showing them a better way to play - if you try to build the ENTIRE GAME around a bunch of idiots your game will be designed in stupid terms.
Better ways to address the real issue that after over a dozen pages is finally clear, would be through the methods I've put forward on general to give more emphasis to those who are truly skilled trying to teach new (or simply clueless) players the best ways to play.
You can't just control people you don't like Zek, especially in a game that's supposed to be both fun and open-ended, but you can exist in a realm where others have the same values you do. This is why I like to pug, and why I advocate teaching whenever it can be applied.
Let me put it this way: why do you like to play in groups with tactics?
Meh, I can see your where you're going on these posts and I partitially even agree that pubs are in a terrible shape now. But then you kick in arguments like solo ambushing in competetive play and the credibility is gone.
Solo ambushing is absolutely viable, just as a solo marine. You'll just need to understand the metagame and do it right for it to be effective against a marine of similar skill level. That's partitially the beaty of things like skulking. You're the underdog in fights, but in control how you take the them. I could write huge posts of the skulk decisionmaking and how I love the skulk gameplay because it's so situational and rewarding.
I can't see the squad enforcer being in competetive play anyway, unless the maps are really cramped or the gameplay is set to 7 vs 7 or 8 vs 8. The maps are smaller and that most likely affects the skulk-marine balance anyway as skulks don't have that much space to roam free and set up ambushes. I'm not going to address that as we haven't got a clue how the gameplay works in NS2.
However, limiting a 6v6 into a comm and 2 squads sounds terrible. On the other hand 7v7 and 8v8 making it more and more difficult to organise games, so you'll need a big community to support them at least.
So you're going to introduce a tutorial on how to play with your fellow teammates? You think when new players to natural selection 2 begin to be less 'newby' that they'd choose to play together despite the fact that ramboing is more effective?
The only way you're going to be able to show players a 'better' way to play is if it really is a better way to play. They can choose to rambo all they want, though like any other bad strategy, you wouldn't want to do it because you'd do that which allows you to perform best in the game.
[quote]the nature of NS is to force reliance on your teammates ... because so many people are so incomprehensibly bad now, you're being forced to work with a team in many cases that is far below par human competence for even new players - this is unfortunate, but is the nature of a declining game, and NS's teamplay elements exacerbate the problem significantly.[quote]
So why try to make natural selection 2 some sort of duplicate? Alien players aren't so incomprehensibly bad because it just so happens that bad players choose the alien team. It's because it's far more difficult to play well as an alien (at least skulk).
So rather than buff skulks, you tell me we should let marines continue to decide to rambo if that's what works best and continue this trend into Natural Selection 2.
I would never presume to tell you what you should do with your game Hawkeye.
Regardless, even if you show people a better way to play they won't necessarily do it, in fact they probably won't if they're the same unconscious mass that plays NS today. The only hope for NS2 in terms of achieving a balance of teamwork and positive gameplay is an influx of actual newbies (people who aren't set in their ways) who can then be taught, which is why I suggested using ingame methods to teach players intuitively.
At the heart of the issue, I'm saying that you're fighting human nature, and you can win, but it will be at the cost of making a good game.
Yes, you're right Zek - it is horribly HORRIBLY frustrating when a bad pubber runs off with rosy images of their favorite pubstar in mind trying to be the best rambo they can be, but the way to solve that problem is not by preventing it, but by showing them a better way to play - if you try to build the ENTIRE GAME around a bunch of idiots your game will be designed in stupid terms.
Better ways to address the real issue that after over a dozen pages is finally clear, would be through the methods I've put forward on general to give more emphasis to those who are truly skilled trying to teach new (or simply clueless) players the best ways to play.
You can't just control people you don't like Zek, especially in a game that's supposed to be both fun and open-ended, but you can exist in a realm where others have the same values you do. This is why I like to pug, and why I advocate teaching whenever it can be applied.
Let me put it this way: why do you like to play in groups with tactics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that was the entire basis of my argument, it's just one of the ways in which ramboing being an effective strategy impedes teamwork. It's the same for pro players who are actually good at ramboing. They run off and rambo because they know they can do it, but do you deny that making that an ineffective strategy would cause those players to work more closely with their teammates? I understand not wanting to bother with them if you're way out of their league but that's just part of playing a team game. I don't think we should build the ENTIRE GAME around preventing frustration for the pro players out looking for a pubstomp.
What you fail to understand is that the average player doesn't care that much about training themselves, they play the game to have fun. Explaining to them the subtleties of why their ramboing isn't the #1 most effective strategy is pointless, they don't want to analyze the game that deeply. It's not because they're stupid or whatever, it's just a difference in motivation. Especially when unlike a scrim they're playing with people they don't know and there's a communication barrier there which discourages people from working together unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course I'm not suggesting eliminating all depth from the game for the benefit of these players, but when it comes to an important concept like encouraging teamwork, that's not something you can leave to training and expect to happen naturally just because competitive players do it. The average pub player isn't unwilling to work with teammates, they might even become damn good team players when they put their mind to it, but they won't be motivated to try working with strangers unless the game puts its foot down and shows them that if they don't work together they <i>will</i> die.
<!--quoteo(post=1698828:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:23 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jan 29 2009, 01:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Meh, I can see your where you're going on these posts and I partitially even agree that pubs are in a terrible shape now. But then you kick in arguments like solo ambushing in competetive play and the credibility is gone.
Solo ambushing is absolutely viable, just as a solo marine. You'll just need to understand the metagame and do it right for it to be effective against a marine of similar skill level. That's partitially the beaty of things like skulking. You're the underdog in fights, but in control how you take the them. I could write huge posts of the skulk decisionmaking and how I love the skulk gameplay because it's so situational and rewarding.
I can't see the squad enforcer being in competetive play anyway, unless the maps are really cramped or the gameplay is set to 7 vs 7 or 8 vs 8. The maps are smaller and that most likely affects the skulk-marine balance anyway as skulks don't have that much space to roam free and set up ambushes. I'm not going to address that as we haven't got a clue how the gameplay works in NS2.
However, limiting a 6v6 into a comm and 2 squads sounds terrible. On the other hand 7v7 and 8v8 making it more and more difficult to organise games, so you'll need a big community to support them at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly how competitive players play doesn't concern me at all, it makes little difference to me if you guys can play solo in scrims. But unless you want tournament mode to also make a bunch of gameplay changes, we're stuck playing the same game and the health of pubs takes priority IMHO. It will determine not only the financial success of the game, but also the size of the player pool who decide to move on to competitive play.
It probably makes no difference to you because it counters one of your arguments. This seems like a recurring pattern by now, and actually much earlier. Whenever someone argues the contrary to what you say, you either redirect the discussion, or you build up hollow evidence to argue with their research. It's to the point of absurdity now - if you go back and actually read the counters to your points with an open mind, you will see the silliness of what you are proposing in a total loss of personal skill in favor of blind faith in complete strangers over the internet! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But unless you want tournament mode to also make a bunch of gameplay changes, we're stuck playing the same game and the health of pubs takes priority IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is clearly ridiculous to anyone who has any concept of balance. The health of pub games is directly proportionate to their playerbase, and pub players do not push the envelope to break the game the way competitive players do, as a result, if you balance around them you will have an unbalanced game when you're done.
<b>Bad games are bad business.</b>
======================================
The only reason pubbers get stomped in the first place is because of the skill gap.
That skill gap is a natural part of a skill-based declining game.
If you remove the individual skill of the game you will remove that problem at the cost of making the game skillful.
Your argument presupposes that a significant degree of skill is not a necessity of a good game.
Every game in history with any staying power has been competitive in nature even if it was not played in leagues.
Good games need that competition that doesn't let you hide behind other players. <u>The only result of the communism you are suggesting is more reason for players to scapegoat (and fail to learn) than they already have.</u>
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the same for pro players who are actually good at ramboing. They run off and rambo because they know they can do it, but do you deny that making that an ineffective strategy would cause those players to work more closely with their teammates?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would not make them work more closely with their teammates, it would remove them from the community leaving you with <BAD> clan and Guns members as your playerbase.
<!--quoteo(post=1698878:date=Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 29 2009, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you fail to understand is that the average player doesn't care that much about training themselves, they play the game to have fun. Explaining to them the subtleties of why their ramboing isn't the #1 most effective strategy is pointless, they don't want to analyze the game that deeply.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry Zek, you're right, I know nothing about how unwilling players are to be taught the deeper aspects of NS.
What you fail to understand is any concept of combative multiplayer game design in all of its many forms. We live in a competitive world, Zek - if you try to remove the fact that bad players will get raped by good players you undermine the quality of the competition in favor of letting TG fanboys cluster###### each other to defeat. It isn't good game design and it isn't good business.
You need to adapt your perspective in exactly the same way those unconscious pub players need to adapt their playstyles, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->but instead you will continue to prove my argument that maladaptive behavior gets punished<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> by the way you fail to articulate a convincing argument here because your perspective on personal skill and teamwork, despite how much you want it to be true, is baseless.
Your arguments have been countered on the order of dozens of times and your perspective has not changed. I have nothing else I can do to explain to you why you're wrong except invite you to play in a game that is not defined by unconscious players, but you will not do that because you are unwilling to consider the facts presented by the alternative perspective.
You never answered my question Zek. What motive do you have for this proposal to undermine all personal skill in favor of the false hope that strangers on the internet will make good team players?
You don't care how competetive games play out, so you might want to stop argumenting on their strategy, that's what I was saying <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . I'm not sure how the game could be balanced out anyway, I just pointed out the few problems anti-rambo system has with smaller playercounts.
What? I'm saying I personally don't care how competitive players play because I'm not one. My suggestions are guided at changing the gameplay of pubs, and I've only mentioned competitive play in response to the backlash from you guys. If you want to send marines ramboing that's your business, but that strategy being viable is harmful to pubs. I'm not suggesting that competitive players should be thrown to the wolves, but their mentality is not compatible with the vast majority of players and it would be irresponsible to design a game to their every whim. The basic gameplay should be designed in a way that maximizes fun for most players, and then afterwards the competitive balance can be perfected.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is clearly ridiculous to anyone who has any concept of balance. The health of pub games is directly proportionate to their playerbase, and pub players do not push the envelope to break the game the way competitive players do, as a result, if you balance around them you will have an unbalanced game when you're done.
<b>Bad games are bad business.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't about balance. I never said NS wasn't balanced. I'm saying the game design should be changed for the sake of pub players. If doing that breaks the balance then there's plenty of time to fix it, during development and throughout the life of the game. Balance is a non-issue at this stage in development.
Only you guys would equate a very slightly reduced skill curve with a bad game. Competitive players are in their own world when it comes to game design.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason pubbers get stomped in the first place is because of the skill gap.
That skill gap is a natural part of a skill-based declining game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When pubber aliens get stomped they should get stomped by a team, not a single player(unless they're really really bad). That's what I'm saying. In NS, a skill imbalance destroys the strategy of the game and turns it into a twitch contest for the marines. I think a far better marine team should be able to win easily, but only if they actually apply their skills cooperatively instead of running around like action heroes. Marines being successful solo is frustrating to aliens and destructive to marine teamplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you remove the individual skill of the game you will remove that problem at the cost of making the game skillful.
Your argument presupposes that a significant degree of skill is not a necessity of a good game.
Every game in history with any staying power has been competitive in nature even if it was not played in leagues.
Good games need that competition that doesn't let you hide behind other players. <u>The only result of the communism you are suggesting is more reason for players to scapegoat (and fail to learn) than they already have.</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody ever said anything about removing individual skill. Enough with the dumb exaggerations. I'm saying that in the case of marines, individual skills should contribute to the marine team as a whole(your squad, to be more specific), and be not so much applicable to solo play. When it comes to a game in which the entire team is roughly even in skill, i.e. a scrim, this is hardly an issue. It's only really offensive to you that you can't stand in a league of your own above all your teammates when you're pubstomping, to which I say deal with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It would not make them work more closely with their teammates, it would remove them from the community leaving you with <BAD> clan and Guns members as your playerbase.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If their sole source of enjoyment in the game is reinforcing their feeling of superiority over 90% of players without stooping to the level of helping their teammates, then maybe they will. But I assume most competitive players get their real fun from actual competitive games, i.e. scrims and pugs, in which case at most we're talking about a tweak in effective strategies.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry Zek, you're right, I know nothing about how unwilling players are to be taught the deeper aspects of NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you do then you wouldn't have suggested that better tutoring from selfless competitive players would solve anything.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you fail to understand is any concept of combative multiplayer game design in all of its many forms. We live in a competitive world, Zek - if you try to remove the fact that bad players will get raped by good players you undermine the quality of the competition in favor of letting TG fanboys cluster###### each other to defeat. It isn't good game design and it isn't good business.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a <i>team</i> game, bad <i>teams</i> should get raped by good <i>teams</i>. That's what I'm saying. 1v1 is a trivial scenario in a game like this. Certainly in a fair 1v1 fight, the better player should win. But walking into a skulk ambush is not a fair fight, just like a skulk charging across a room at a waiting marine is not a fair fight.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You need to adapt your perspective in exactly the same way those unconscious pub players need to adapt their playstyles, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->but instead you will continue to prove my argument that maladaptive behavior gets punished<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> by the way you fail to articulate a convincing argument here because your perspective on personal skill and teamwork, despite how much you want it to be true, is baseless.
Your arguments have been countered on the order of dozens of times and your perspective has not changed. I have nothing else I can do to explain to you why you're wrong except invite you to play in a game that is not defined by unconscious players, but you will not do that because you are unwilling to consider the facts presented by the alternative perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not even sure what you're saying here, what is an "unconscious player?" You mean like the sheep that are still blind to the glory of competitive play? I think your own competitive blinders are preventing you from empathizing with the vast majority of the playerbase and understanding what really makes the game good to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You never answered my question Zek. What motive do you have for this proposal to undermine all personal skill in favor of the false hope that strangers on the internet will make good team players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My motivation is that I think it will make NS2 a better game. The whole FPS/RTS structure is very poorly suited to individual deathmatch, especially with asymmetric teams, and so I see ramboing as a very minimal sacrifice for the sake of improving the overall teamwork, which works better with the team objectives and is more likely to be fun for people who are drawn to the game's premise. There are games that do deathmatch better, and NS2 should stick to its strengths.
My turn for a question: would you say that NS has more or less emphasis on individual skill than Quake 3? And is it a worse game for it?
In competetive games, marines do not "rambo". Ever. I think I have the experience to be an authority on this matter (Played at top European level, shoutcasted 4-5 seasons of European finals, shoutcasted EU vs NA exhibition matches etc), although you should probably be listening to FireWater as he's far better at wasting his time on retarded forum debates than I am (despite the fact that he makes brilliant eloquent points).
The only reason it happens in pubs now (it never used to) is because of 2 reasons.
1) The playerbase is significantly diminished that the skill gap between "pro" competetive players who have years of experience, and the average pub skulk, is insurmountable. Public players today are just so bad it blows my mind. This is not a fault on the part of the game design, just an evolution of the gameplay which is emergent from the declining community.
If I join a server nowadays and join marine, I will literally walk over every single skulk on that server, usually 2 or 3 at a time. And the ones that kill me, I'll know on a first-name basis because they're experienced competetive players who have been around for years.
2) The player is a moron thinking he's god's gift to NS, runs off and dies to a lone skulk.
At the end of the day, you're arguing to fix an aspect of gameplay which is emergent from the declining pool of players, which forces <b>really </b>good players and <b>really</b> bad players into the same games. NS2 will not have this problem, because NS2 will not have the same declining playerbase that NS does.
This is a solution looking for a problem. Honestly Zek, as much as I'd love to be able to take you seriously, your arguments are absolute tripe. Listen to FireWater and Radix, they both really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to game design and balance. Now just drop it guys, this debate isn't worth your time.
Heh... As if it was possible to convince anyone over the internet. I kinda like the drama value since I don't think we are getting any real discussion around the gameplay going until the devs start talking about it.
Look if you want to prevent Ramboing then you have to reward non Ramboing behavior.
~ Give points for x amount of welding/building/damage/following way points/capping res.
~ Reduce the number of points for kill (still give them but not above the team stuff)
~ Give credit for assisted kills
This will result in more people playing for the team and not themselves.
Punishing people or making it hard for a marine to sneak around (ninjaing to a hive when the marines are getting kicked) etc will just eliminate may strats for the marines.
In competetive games, marines do not "rambo". Ever. I think I have the experience to be an authority on this matter (Played at top European level, shoutcasted 4-5 seasons of European finals, shoutcasted EU vs NA exhibition matches etc), although you should probably be listening to FireWater as he's far better at wasting his time on retarded forum debates than I am (despite the fact that he makes brilliant eloquent points).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firewater is the one who conceded that marines often hold down an area by themselves in competitive play when appropriate. Whether or not you want to call it "ramboing" is up to you. And I assume the reason so many competitive players are up in arms about this is because they feel that nerfing solo marines will impact their competitive games. That said, competitive play really isn't my concern.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason it happens in pubs now (it never used to) is because of 2 reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It never used to happen? Are you kidding me? People have ramboed all the time since NS was released. The extent to which it's successful depends on the marine's skill, but it's always been a reasonable enough strategy against pub aliens for competent players to attempt it, and a good marine has always had a very solid chance at walking into a good skulk's ambush and beating him anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) The playerbase is significantly diminished that the skill gap between "pro" competetive players who have years of experience, and the average pub skulk, is insurmountable. Public players today are just so bad it blows my mind. This is not a fault on the part of the game design, just an evolution of the gameplay which is emergent from the declining community.
If I join a server nowadays and join marine, I will literally walk over every single skulk on that server, usually 2 or 3 at a time. And the ones that kill me, I'll know on a first-name basis because they're experienced competetive players who have been around for years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what it's like now, but probably a pretty significant portion of current pubbers are actually either new to the game or returning players just messing around. With the community how it is there aren't many pubbers that play regularly anymore. In any case, since I don't play NS anymore my argument is based on my memory of when it was actually active and there were people like me who have played pubs for years and didn't suck, but very few of them still play after all this time. There's also room for other improvements in this area to make the skulk's proper playstyle more intuitive for players, which is a separate issue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The player is a moron thinking he's god's gift to NS, runs off and dies to a lone skulk.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No problem then. If the player is repeatedly unsuccessful even against lone skulks and continues to do it then it's a behavioral issue. It's unlikely he's actually a moron btw but he probably just doesn't care and is screwing around. In this case it would be appropriate for the comm and/or the team to have disciplinary options like the OP suggests, though that sort of thing has to be approached with caution since people are unlikely to respond well to excessive punishment from the comm even if he is supposed to be in charge.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the end of the day, you're arguing to fix an aspect of gameplay which is emergent from the declining pool of players, which forces <b>really </b>good players and <b>really</b> bad players into the same games. NS2 will not have this problem, because NS2 will not have the same declining playerbase that NS does.
This is a solution looking for a problem. Honestly Zek, as much as I'd love to be able to take you seriously, your arguments are absolute tripe. Listen to FireWater and Radix, they both really know wtf they're talking about when it comes to game design and balance. Now just drop it guys, this debate isn't worth your time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm definitely talking about NS in its prime, not today's NS, and I don't know what to say to you claiming that ramboing didn't happen in the old days. Think about it again without the rose-tinted glasses.
I'm sure Firewater and Radix know what they're talking about when it comes to the design of tournament-friendly competitive games, but it's very obvious the target demographic that they're aiming for. You can't make a successful game with that sort of approach alone. The most hardcore fans of a franchise can't be trusted to design a sequel because they're dead set in their ways and addicted to the gameplay mechanics they've played with for so long. For a good example, take a look at what happened with Team Fortress 2 vs. Fortress Forever. Obviously the name brand was part of it, but TF2 sacrificed some competitive depth for accessible fun and FF is just a circlejerk for competitive TFC players.
I don't know if that's a good example after all. TF2 was published in orange box, with _hl2_ and _portal_. The publicity doesn't get much bigger than that. Meanwhile I just realised they've released the fortress forever. I guess the learning curve has it's effect too, but those games never got started even close to equal.
Yes, there is a commander and yes it does have some control over the field, but you are looking at dividing a team even further than the non-coop in already dividing it; that is game design suicide.
The design of the game should promote players to work together, rather than force them to.
PTs drew first blood, but I agree the competitive community should rose above the snobbery of the initial PTs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, that's a skill requirement that's added by squad play. Oh wait, forcing teamwork is skill communism, I forgot. The reason pub players do this so much though is because they always leave FF off, which encourages sloppy aiming - for pubs I'd like to see the default setting be mirror FF, i.e. hits to your teammate damage you and not them. And again, I said nothing about buffing either damage or HP, skulks need a buff that only applies to ambushes and isn't so easy to out-skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you put mirror damage on in pubs (at least the state that they are in now) aliens will win a majority of their games within the first 5 mintues. What buff should be applied to skulks exactly to ambush? Also how do we know that said buff will not be over powered when a "teamwork" using group of marines gets ambushed by a pack of skulks?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Huh? Solo players dying to ambushes isn't a problem at all, of course it happens sometimes but I want it to happen most of the time. And the aliens can do whatever they want, it just shouldn't be necessary to gang up on a vanilla rambo. It shouldn't be the same for both teams because they are asymmetrical, the aliens are the team of independent combat lifeforms and the marines are the coordinate squad team. I don't know what you mean by the game "changing," I'm simply saying tactics should be of increased importance to marines. In the lategame it's fine that an HA/HMG can beat a skulk or two, but they already don't want to go alone because they're expensive and can be worn down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the problem is when solo players do die its to getting out played by the aliens. As you stated in another post, that most pub players are not going to learn how to play the game at its deepest levels. Why should the game favor those players who do not care about winning to the point where they will not adapt and learn from said mistakes over those who practice and attempt to get better at the game? You are basically stating that an unskilled player who ambushes should beat a skilled player who may have went off on his or her own. Thats not creating depth, thats watering down the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fortunately this is NS2 not L4D, I simply meant it as an example that restrictions on solo play lead to increased teamwork even among the most clueless pubbers. It's true that it's hard to coordinate in excessive numbers, which is why marines would be split up into squads(a system which is already being improved for NS2).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well in L4D I was able to take out 3 hunters that were trying to pounce man when I ran off ahead because my team was slowing down. Should I have not been able to do that? If so, why was I able to? If not, doesn't that prove the point that no matter how much you dumb down the game, there will be exceptions to it that will ALWAYS be beyond the dev's control?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm saying many players with respectable twitch skills are useless anyway because they always run off alone, taking after their pubstar heroes. If the game drills the futility of that into their skulls then they'll be more likely to play in a way that's useful to their team.
They are comparable on the single point that in L4D, going off on your own is suicide no matter how good you are - a Hunter or Smoker will lock you down in one hit and it's over unless somebody saves you. And as a result of this mechanic, people play very closely as a team. That extreme would be inappropriate for NS2 but the premise is the same - there's a direct inverse correlation between the effectiveness of solo players and the prevalence of teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't you state earlier that players who can solo play successully are contributing to the team? I think the truth comes out in this statement. <i>Bottom line is that you do not like twitch skilled players which is a vital part but not the end all be all of solo play. You want everyone to play the way YOU do, without any regard to what it would do to the game balance. For some reason solo play is wrong (despite you admit it is useful and only exists with significant skill disparities.) and everyone should play YOUR way instead of the way they choose.</i>
But solo player are contributing to the team by freeing up the others to cap/destroy nodes. Solo players can only survive with Comm's help. So I would define that as teamwork as well, and thus the "solo" player is not truly alone and is using teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And we've been over this, <i>I know solo play is useful to the team in NS</i>. That's why good players do it, because it works. But it still only just barely qualifies as teamwork, and only if you actually do coordinate it with your team.
But actually fighting in the same area and covering eachother's backs takes far more teamwork. For the sake of increasing the emphasis on organized teamwork in NS2's marines, rambos needs to be nerfed.
Not as difficult as it is to take your argument seriously when you're basically saying that because NS1 was fun there's no point in pursuing changes for the sequel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't you say above that players who run off on their own are "useless anyway"? How can you have a non-consistent opinion of solo players and be taken seriously?
Changes are fine as long as they are based on sound game theory and not based on a set of principles that no matter how hard it was tried to change something, it never did. The devs would be wise to implement changes that do not restrict skill (except for the RTS aspects, i.e. aliens out teching marines, so they die more as a result) and would add elements to the existing gameplay (i.e. secondary fire, new weapons/alien tech).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You're the one assuming forcing squad play would hinder competitive play, why else are you opposed? You're also assuming that my suggestions would be a detriment despite no evidence to support that claim
Your whole definition of hindering play is that a strat that used to work won't anymore, which first of all goes without saying with all the new changes being made in NS2, but more importantly you still haven't noticed that you have tunnel vision.
What about the strats that don't work as a result of rambo marines being effective? Like, for example, strats that involve skulks setting up solo ambushes for marines?
I've told you time and time again that restricting certain undesirable play styles is the very nature of game design, it happened every step of the way in NS and it's already happening in NS2. What do you think the removal of one alien player on the field to play comm will do to old alien strategies?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, teamwork is a neccessity in competitive play, thats why we formed <b><i><u>TEAMS</b></i></u> that would play consistently to improve on said teamwork. I am opposed because the conversation is solely concerned based on a 1v1 vanilla situation where the skulk should just simply win. Based on this proposal, I fear that it will have HORRIBLE balance issues not only when the marines lose a little momentum, but when the aliens decide to ambush in packs. Your desire to take out solo play in my opinion will actually wind up making the game too alien favored, regardless of squads/solo play. It is the revenge effects of such a radical balance change based on social desirability vs actual game play mechancis is what I am against.
Lots of irony in that quote about Tunnel Vision. You are only able to the see the game from your perspective as you have stated repeatedly that you do not care about competitive play. I am focusing on both public and competitive play. See the above post.
What about strats that involve a squad of marines getting destroyed by 2 skulks?
Ummmm, you said that solo play is undesirable, does not make it law. I know that you are one of the playtesters and all, but really you do not know how hard restrictions will impact NS. Its actually kind of embarassing for me to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.
I do not know what the alien commander will be able to do. I have spoken to Charlie about it when he asked me what I thought. I felt bad because I did not have a good answer for him other than "its worth testing".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, they'll be capable of it if there opponents are bad enough. It happens. You're certainly understating the vast decrease in effectiveness of crazy rambo marines in 2.0 though with the nerfs to bunnyhopping and JPs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked solo players were actually still dominate in 2.01 if the aliens were bad enough. part of the reason why solo play took more skill in 2.01 is the prevelance of early lerking that was not available in 1.04 (in most cases) also the unbinding of fades to the hive. That is an example of a GOOD balance change. Giving the aliens access to the tools needed to turn the game around in their favor. In my opinion these were the most significant balance changes that were required for the aliens to get their win ratio up.
If affected solo play in a positive way by allowing more options to the aliens. It was up to the aliens to use these options effectively, or to continue to get killed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It made a huge difference, they just didn't go so far as to actually force squad gameplay, which wasn't really an objective to begin with as far as I know. And if you're implying that skulks winning ambushes 1v1 will lead to aliens being overpowered, that's a pointless argument, there are dozens of ways to nerf one team or buff the other to make it work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name me 1 dozen ways to make it work. Until then balancing a game based on your perception of social favorability instead of sound game design is terrible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well L4D is doing just fine. And nobody's suggesting turning NS2 into a clone, it's just that L4D pioneered some very solid design decisions towards the goal of encouraging squad teamwork. NS2 will always be its own game, but it's silly to ignore the new ideas that have become popularized since NS' release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah L4D is selling quite well, I haven't played in while because my desktop just died and I have school/internship. But the problem with L4D is that I am never able to finish a whole game in a pub because of the rage quits when the survivors get stuffed one round. I mean most of the time I am just joining a random lobby. Forget about when I play with my friends/team and we all know what we are doing. It is also VERY frustrating to play on a team in competitive play where my skill cannot overcome that player's deficits because of the mechanics. I am forced down to a lower standard of play because two players on my team are not able to keep up. That is NOT fun, and NOT a factor in NS (Which is awesome).
Even in competitive play rage quitting is a huge problem. Granted there are some downie teams out there but even when the big sponsored teams get rolled they continually cry about it.
I hope L4D is not a fad game and has significat staying power, I really do enjoy the game and I think given its system has great potential for competitive play. But L4D mechanics are simply not a good decision to implement into NS2.