<!--quoteo(post=1724328:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:11 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The pistol isn't in any way iconic. It's a pistol...every game has a pistol. It's pin point accuracy is related closely to the Halo 1 Pistol in terms of functionality. Funnily enough, the Halo 1 Pistol was also deemed one of the best weapons in that game because it too, was basically a fast firing rifle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I want to see these people who say the "pistol is the best weapon in the game" join an NS1 server and go pistol only for the whole game. Afterward, let me know your K/D and how much of a help you were to the team while in combat.
The pistol was one of the rare weapons that wasn't overshadowed by tech as the game went on. This, along with it's high rate of fire and pin point accuracy is what made the pistol memorable. Honestly, what NS1 player doesn't have found memories of pistol'ing an injured skulk or rapidly killing a skulk who thought they were sneaking up on you in a vent?
The pistol wasn't overpowered but yet it added another thing to master which separated the good players from the great players without destroying the whole balance of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1724331:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:23 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 21 2009, 12:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724331"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I want to see these people who say the "pistol is the best weapon in the game" join an NS1 server and go pistol only for the whole game. Afterward, let me know your K/D and how much of a help you were to the team while in combat.
The pistol was one of the rare weapons that wasn't overshadowed by tech as the game went on. This, along with it's high rate of fire and pin point accuracy is what made the pistol memorable. Honestly, what NS1 player doesn't have found memories of pistol'ing an injured skulk or rapidly killing a skulk who thought they were sneaking up on you in a vent?
The pistol wasn't overpowered but yet it added another thing to master which separated the good players from the great players without destroying the whole balance of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not strictly against the pistol. I found the idea that a marine would stop shooting his space-age rifle to whip out the pistol because it's <i>better</i> to be silly. I should have explained my Halo parallel further. In Halo 1, the best combo of weapons was the Assault Rifle and the Pistol. The Assault rifle dealt with close to mid range, while the Pistol handled long range targets because it was pin point accurate with a good rate of fire. Those two were essentially the best weapons in the game. This is extremely similar how it works in NS1. The idea of a Pistol being not terrible is not unique to NS1.
I would prefer the pistol having a bigger clip and ammo reserve to it being the end-all in long range combat. If they dropped the high rate of fire from the pistol and kept its accuracy, I think it would a more palatable weapon (at least for me). You would still be able to finish off retreating skulks, but you won't be able to outright kill one with a pistol unless the skulk is being outstandingly dumb.
Evil_bOb1Join Date: 2002-07-13Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
>The falling tree makes more noise than the growing forest<
Be careful of what you hear, its hardly ever relevant of whats really going on.
I find it sad NS-team dropped a unique idea cuz of complaints of people who don't even know. And I don't see how the visual side of things changes the gameplay.
A pistol doing 50 damage per bullet or a taser doing 50 damage per bolt- Wheres the difference?
<!--quoteo(post=1724337:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724337"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I found the idea that a marine would stop shooting his space-age rifle to whip out the pistol because it's <i>better</i> to be silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me know when you have the freetime to play a round of NS1 with me. You go pistol only and I'll use the LMG. We'll compare K/D and overall combat usefulness to our team once the round is finished.
Until you're willing to do that, stop saying the pistol is a better weapon than the LMG. It is a stupid statement to make because it makes no sense.
They're different guns with different purposes and each weapon serves their purpose well.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited August 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1724337:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724337"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not strictly against the pistol. I found the idea that a marine would stop shooting his space-age rifle to whip out the pistol because it's <i>better</i> to be silly. I should have explained my Halo parallel further. In Halo 1, the best combo of weapons was the Assault Rifle and the Pistol. The Assault rifle dealt with close to mid range, while the Pistol handled long range targets because it was pin point accurate with a good rate of fire. Those two were essentially the best weapons in the game. This is extremely similar how it works in NS1. The idea of a Pistol being not terrible is not unique to NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No but the role of the pistol is unique. Halo has lot's of large outdoor maps making the pistol into a sniper rifle(it even has a scope). The main use of the pistol in NS2 is fleeing targets or relatively stationary and hard to reach targets, a la lerk in a vent. It isn't good for close range combat so it's not like the pistol is strictly better than the lmg. The fact that there are certain situations where you want to switch to the pistol is <i>good</i> IMO. It's a Yomi layer for the game. Is the skulk around the corner fleeing into a vent, pistol. Is he right on top of me, lmg. Guess wrong and you'll be at a disadvantage.
<!--quoteo(post=1724347:date=Aug 21 2009, 11:13 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 21 2009, 11:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No but the role of the pistol is unique. Halo has lot's of large outdoor maps making the pistol into a sniper rifle(it even has a scope). The main use of the pistol in NS2 is fleeing targets or relatively stationary and hard to reach targets, a la lerk in a vent. It isn't good for close range combat so it's not like the pistol is strictly better than the lmg. The fact that there are certain situations where you want to switch to the pistol is <i>good</i> IMO. It's a Yomi layer for the game. Is the skulk around the corner fleeing into a vent, pistol. Is he right on top of me, lmg. Guess wrong and you'll be at a disadvantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet in no way do we know of the taser to be worse. In fact, it's better because it has more Yomi layers.. do I shoot or shield? Charge the shot or try rapid bolt hits?
This is what really disturbs me about it. Nothing from the taser post indicated that it WOULDN'T be anything the pistol isn't, other than the one note about them not wanting a scriptable sniper-rifle analogue. Well, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* shape it is, if the devs stay true to that concern, then when the game starts, you're going to hear so many howls about how they've made the pistol too weak. When it was the taser, at least there's the built in excuse of, "It's not a pistol, stop trying to snipe with it."
Not to mention, the taser had the advantage of being able to gracefully explain why its power in up close combat might be greater than at range -- something which would make sense as a decent "last resort" weapon. The taser allowed for flexibility on the devs part. The pistol allows for whining on the players part.
My hope now is that the round of complaints we hear when the pistol turns out not to be the skulk sniping rifle everybody knew and loved will allow the devs to switch back to the taser as the more innovative concept.
<!--quoteo(post=1724344:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:05 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 21 2009, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the pistol is a better weapon than the LMG.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (Disclaimer: I do not support the isolated statement, just making a point.)
Please don't isolate one phrase out of a paragraph and then use it as justification for something.
<!--quoteo(post=1724337:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724337"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Assault rifle dealt with close to mid range, while the Pistol handled long range targets because it was pin point accurate with a good rate of fire. Those two were essentially the best weapons in the game. This is extremely similar how it works in NS1. The idea of a Pistol being not terrible is not unique to NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not say you can beat the game with just the pistol, never did. You got with the LMG in short to medium ranges, then switch to the pistol for long range combat. Pistols should be a sidearm, that kind of dynamic makes it a primary weapon because it dominates a role.
I liked the Taser because it was something different and still contributed to the game without becoming such an overbearing weapon.
<!--quoteo(post=1724352:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Disclaimer: I do not support the isolated statement, just making a point.)
Please don't isolate one phrase out of a paragraph and then use it as justification for something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I honestly don't understand. You blatantly called the pistol better than an LMG. I didn't isolate anything, I quoted your entire sentence.
You don't make any sense and reading you try to debate/argue points makes me want to blow my brains out.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1724352:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did not say you can beat the game with just the pistol, never did. You got with the LMG in short to medium ranges, then switch to the pistol for long range combat. Pistols should be a sidearm, that kind of dynamic makes it a primary weapon because it dominates a role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I simply disagree. If it doesn't have a role, then what good is it? You might as well have just left it out and added more ammo to the lmg. The pistol is still a secondary weapon even if it dominates a role, because that role is a secondary role. Most of the time in the close quarters twisty-turny-ness of NS1 maps the lmg is a better choice, hence it being a primary weapon. <!--quoteo(post=1724352:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I liked the Taser because it was something different and still contributed to the game without becoming such an overbearing weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was open to the idea of the taser too. What I didn't like about it was: the concept art, and the changed function of the pistol side of it which is what we're talking about now.
<!--quoteo(post=1724356:date=Aug 21 2009, 11:47 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 21 2009, 11:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I simply disagree. If it doesn't have a role, then what good is it? You might as well have just left it out and added more ammo to the lmg. The pistol is still a secondary weapon even if it dominates a role, because that role is a secondary role. Most of the time in the close quarters twisty-turny-ness of NS1 maps the lmg is a better choice, hence it being a primary weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now combine that with what we've heard about NS2 maps. Bigger rooms, less twisty corridors. Hmmm..
<!--quoteo(post=1724356:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:47 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 21 2009, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I simply disagree. If it doesn't have a role, then what good is it? You might as well have just left it out and added more ammo to the lmg. The pistol is still a secondary weapon even if it dominates a role, because that role is a secondary role. Most of the time in the close quarters twisty-turny-ness of NS1 maps the lmg is a better choice, hence it being a primary weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given what Kwil said, he is right to say that it does depend on how big the new maps are. Reading over your responses and thinking it over, I am seeing your point. That and I realized that having a sidearm that has its primary function of having a lot of ammo is kind of redundant when one of the duties of the commander is to supply the marines on the field with ammo. : \
RE: SentrySteve. Read the rest of the Paragraph.
EDIT: Maybe the new pistol will have an interesting secondary, who knows.
<!--quoteo(post=1724352:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did not say you can beat the game with just the pistol, never did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is what it sounded like you said. Especially when you compare it to the Halo 1 pistol, which was good enough to be your primary weapon in a multilayer game and I think most Halo 1 players would agree that the best weapons combo was the shotgun and pistol so that is now two games I question your knowledge of.
<!--quoteo(post=1724129:date=Aug 21 2009, 02:30 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Aug 21 2009, 02:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As of now, the Taser is dropped. It's less then favorable reception by the community got us to rethink the taser, which we weren't quite comfortable with to begin with. After discussing it at length internally we felt a return to the tried and true pistol would be the best way to go, for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps the Taser may make a reappearance in some form down the road, but for now we've moved on.
<!--quoteo(post=1724424:date=Aug 22 2009, 04:07 AM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Aug 22 2009, 04:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724424"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look we play games cause they are fun.
The pistol is an insanely fun weapon in NS1 whilst being very balanced!
You know the old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus the idiocy of the "Go pistol+knife" crowd is encapsulated in a single post. You like the NS1 weapons, you think they were cool or even balanced (despite the absolute bizarre nature of a pistol being as accurate as a sniper rifle in the first second of the game), and now that you've got your way you *assume* that the team are going to essentially port the NS1 pistol in to NS2?
Seriously, why don't you just go and play NS1 and leave the prospect of progression and advancement to those of us that give a ######, not just to those of you that want a prettier NS1?
For me the taser was a new gun with so cool abilites, I wanted to fries skulks with it, but it was too much changes for someones...
People who argue on NS1 should stay playing NS1. NS2 is something really new, and I would have see something new in this game, like electrical shots, that already exists in NS1 ...
<!--quoteo(post=1724473:date=Aug 22 2009, 05:36 AM:name=niaccurshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (niaccurshi @ Aug 22 2009, 05:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thus the idiocy of the "Go pistol+knife" crowd is encapsulated in a single post. You like the NS1 weapons, you think they were cool or even balanced (despite the absolute bizarre nature of a pistol being as accurate as a sniper rifle in the first second of the game), and now that you've got your way you *assume* that the team are going to essentially port the NS1 pistol in to NS2?
Seriously, why don't you just go and play NS1 and leave the prospect of progression and advancement to those of us that give a ######, not just to those of you that want a prettier NS1?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I do play NS1 like every day....
I've been playing NS since beta its a testament to how well this game is designed that after all these years it is still very fun to play..
Ns2 doesn't need a lot of change particularly the core elements which made it so awesome to begin with... Evolution is fine but radical changes to core aspects of the game is very risky imho.
Oh and I give a ###### I've bought 2 consti donations back in the day and the collectors edition if I had little more money hell I'd give it to flayra so he could get this out the door.
NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little.
<!--quoteo(post=1724473:date=Aug 22 2009, 10:36 AM:name=niaccurshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (niaccurshi @ Aug 22 2009, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously, why don't you just go and play NS1 and leave the prospect of progression and advancement to those of us that give a ######, not just to those of you that want a prettier NS1?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to ask you what makes you think you have more of a say in this than the jerk you are addressing? I am sure everyone posting on this forum is supporting Unknown Worlds, or are going to support them in the future, and have invested money and time into this game. So, why does he not give as much of a ###### as you do? I like the pistol, but I never said I wouldn't like to TRY the taser, I would just like to keep the pistol as well. We could have both. Until we have tried it, none of us really know for sure if we will like it or not. Also, funny enough, I waited all these years for NS2 because of the simple fact that it is NS on a better graphics engine. Are you honestly telling me you are not sick of the HL1 engine? If so, I think you are the one that should just go and play NS1, or does my opinion not sound like I'm giving enough of a ######? Jerk.
<!--quoteo(post=1724491:date=Aug 22 2009, 01:58 PM:name=Cattabliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cattabliss @ Aug 22 2009, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, funny enough, I waited all these years for NS2 because of the simple fact that it is NS on a better graphics engine. Are you honestly telling me you are not sick of the HL1 engine? If so, I think you are the one that should just go and play NS1, or does my opinion not sound like I'm giving enough of a ######? Jerk.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the gameplay that makes it, and NS1 is just as good as it ever was. If you need a graphical update to keep playing it then you're a fool as far as I'm concerned. I am amused you think that I think I have more of a say here, or that I think the guy doesn't care, but the fact is this, NS2 IS going to change somewhat, indeed something in the region of being not recognisable. This is a positive, if I want to play NS1 I will play it, if I want to play a different but similar game I'll play NS2. Hopefully people like you will go and use LUA, make your retard ######isation of the two and leave the rest of us in peace.
<!--quoteo(post=1724490:date=Aug 22 2009, 01:46 PM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Aug 22 2009, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was going to say this in response to the other guy, but I'll say it to you.
There are two absolutely asinine factions operating in these forums, and they probably cross over hugely. The "Don't change this" crowd and the "I want it now" crowd. Both are thinking they're aiming for what's best for the game but in fact what they (and therefore you) are doing is simply aiming for selfish gratification. You want the game that solely you want, and you want it quick. ###### whether that's the best game for everyone, because hey, at least it'll be your cup of tea.
I personally don't want to have a situation where every server I go on is different with a different set of rules. It watered down CS, it has threatened to enjoyability of TF2. The base game needs to be robust, otherwise the community that is built is fractured and, worse, no use as a feedback mechanism as (as you can see with TF2) the general people playing don't understand the difference between a server mod (or LUA extension) and what was shipped.
But hey, rush it out, don't let's give it enough time to bed in and be tested through public participation (which is the PRIMARY reason NS1 was so successful), and certainly let's not try new things that could delay that rush. At least then YOU will be happy, instead of having to have waited in the region of 40 months instead of 36. Poor thing.
Can't they just add a secondary to the pistol which does what the taser was going to do? Fire out "bullets" that electrocute players and structures over time, and ideally doing more damage to structures since that is what they seemed to have wanted it for.
"NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little."
To sort of go along with what niaccurshi said, not only that but the initial release of a game is usually the most critical and crucial part of its life. If the game comes out buggy, glitched, not balanced etc. it will get bad reviews which leads to less people buying or playing the game which leads to a small community and less chance of a NS3. This isn't a huge name company like Blizzard who has billions of dollars and can take a chance like that, this game HAS to make a huge impression on the day one release, it doesn't have the convenience of pushing it out fast then patching it up later, which of course they will do, but only after it is fully tested and ready to be released.
<!--quoteo(post=1724490:date=Aug 22 2009, 06:46 AM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Aug 22 2009, 06:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do play NS1 like every day....
I've been playing NS since beta its a testament to how well this game is designed that after all these years it is still very fun to play..
Ns2 doesn't need a lot of change particularly the core elements which made it so awesome to begin with... Evolution is fine but radical changes to core aspects of the game is very risky imho.
Oh and I give a ###### I've bought 2 consti donations back in the day and the collectors edition if I had little more money hell I'd give it to flayra so he could get this out the door.
NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, this is a very bad strategy. Why? Because NS1 is still out there, still free.
So if they release what is essentially the same game with a graphical update, many people will go, "Meh.. looks prettier, but I can play the same game for free if I want." As such, in order to avoid competing with themselves and free, they *have* to change NS2 up. There have to be significant enough gameplay improvements that most people who play NS2 will feel it is a clearly superior game to the free alternative of NS1.. not an easy bar to reach, but it's what these guys set themselves.
As such, every time we argue for things to stay the same as they were in NS1 because that was just fine, we're arguing for them to lose customers *to* NS1. That isn't where I want NS2 to be, and certainly not where I want to see UWE go.
<!--quoteo(post=1724518:date=Aug 22 2009, 12:36 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 22 2009, 12:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little."
To sort of go along with what niaccurshi said, not only that but the initial release of a game is usually the most critical and crucial part of its life. If the game comes out buggy, glitched, not balanced etc. it will get bad reviews which leads to less people buying or playing the game which leads to a small community and less chance of a NS3. This isn't a huge name company like Blizzard who has billions of dollars and can take a chance like that, this game HAS to make a huge impression on the day one release, it doesn't have the convenience of pushing it out fast then patching it up later, which of course they will do, but only after it is fully tested and ready to be released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay then to keep it balanced non glitchy they need to stick to the core of what made the game so great to begin with...
Lets get one thing clear GRAPHICS sells titles particularly upfront the sustained sales come from solid gameplay but you want to move 1 million units in the first week you best hope you game looks the business..
<!--quoteo(post=1724372:date=Aug 21 2009, 03:24 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 21 2009, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is what it sounded like you said. Especially when you compare it to the Halo 1 pistol, which was good enough to be your primary weapon in a multilayer game and I think most Halo 1 players would agree that the best weapons combo was the shotgun and pistol so that is now two games I question your knowledge of.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I apologize for the confusion, I worded a few sentences incorrectly that unintentionally gave ambiguity to what I said. Also, I haven't played Halo in what, 5 or 6 years now? Give me a break if I don't play NS1 and Halo1 still every week just for the purpose of helping me support one-off discussions.
I think most of the point of the Taser is gone if they decide to have a separate melee and range weapon. The main benefit of the Taser in my eyes was to save resources by not having to commission a melee weapon.
I just wish they held off making the sidearms and used placeholders in the game to figure out the best solution before creating the art for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1724167:date=Aug 21 2009, 03:53 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 03:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry for posting the wrong link, I'll update my post.
EDIT: The Taser did not seem like a bad idea. The concept of combining of the secondary range and melee together is a good one. The opposition was split into four camps: 1) The concept of energy weapons in the Natural Selection universe is odd. 2) The suggested implementation of the weapon is unwieldy. 3) LOL Taser is a dumb name. Why does it stun? (For the record, stunning was never mentioned in the weapon description...) 4) I like the old pistol and knife.
Two of those camps I consider legit. Guess which two.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's a massive simplification of the camps.
There was at least one other major camp that questioned why any military force would opt to arm their soldiers with a main automatic weapon and only a hand-to-hand weapon as a flal back, considering the nature of their foe (close combat specialists). A ranged weapon makes much more sense.
Then there was another camp that said the concept of the Taser didn't look militaristic enough, or that it looked 'sissy'.
Finally, there's very little point in counting the amount of posts for or against, since if a point has been made very few people will repeat that post to lend open support. Most will look at it and think, huh, that's exactly what I think, glad someone said it so I don't have to bother typing it out.
The pistol was better than an LMG, 10 bullets at a time. The LMG's bigger clip was it's only saving grace. I'd prefer to see the pistol not be more accurate than a rifle. High rate of fire or high accuracy, pick one, shouldn't have both at the same time. Old pistol was just silly.
To kill aliens you have to AIM, not just "FAST SHOOT OMG SCRIPTORS". If the pistol had 25 bullets I'd see it unbalanced, but 10, it's just 3 clips and you have to ask for ammo.
I don't say the taser was bad, but the pistol isn't that IMBA as you all seem to think.
It doesn't mean you're getting rolled as a lerk because a guy totally raped you with the pistol and it's "imba", it means the guy is good (or you're bad).
As it is now, the game is almost perfectly balanced, maybe in long-term games alien should need some extra advantage, because full-tech'd marines > full-tech'd aliens. That's all.
Comments
I want to see these people who say the "pistol is the best weapon in the game" join an NS1 server and go pistol only for the whole game. Afterward, let me know your K/D and how much of a help you were to the team while in combat.
The pistol was one of the rare weapons that wasn't overshadowed by tech as the game went on. This, along with it's high rate of fire and pin point accuracy is what made the pistol memorable. Honestly, what NS1 player doesn't have found memories of pistol'ing an injured skulk or rapidly killing a skulk who thought they were sneaking up on you in a vent?
The pistol wasn't overpowered but yet it added another thing to master which separated the good players from the great players without destroying the whole balance of the game.
The pistol was one of the rare weapons that wasn't overshadowed by tech as the game went on. This, along with it's high rate of fire and pin point accuracy is what made the pistol memorable. Honestly, what NS1 player doesn't have found memories of pistol'ing an injured skulk or rapidly killing a skulk who thought they were sneaking up on you in a vent?
The pistol wasn't overpowered but yet it added another thing to master which separated the good players from the great players without destroying the whole balance of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not strictly against the pistol. I found the idea that a marine would stop shooting his space-age rifle to whip out the pistol because it's <i>better</i> to be silly. I should have explained my Halo parallel further. In Halo 1, the best combo of weapons was the Assault Rifle and the Pistol. The Assault rifle dealt with close to mid range, while the Pistol handled long range targets because it was pin point accurate with a good rate of fire. Those two were essentially the best weapons in the game. This is extremely similar how it works in NS1. The idea of a Pistol being not terrible is not unique to NS1.
I would prefer the pistol having a bigger clip and ammo reserve to it being the end-all in long range combat. If they dropped the high rate of fire from the pistol and kept its accuracy, I think it would a more palatable weapon (at least for me). You would still be able to finish off retreating skulks, but you won't be able to outright kill one with a pistol unless the skulk is being outstandingly dumb.
Be careful of what you hear, its hardly ever relevant of whats really going on.
I find it sad NS-team dropped a unique idea cuz of complaints of people who don't even know. And I don't see how the visual side of things changes the gameplay.
A pistol doing 50 damage per bullet or a taser doing 50 damage per bolt- Wheres the difference?
tssk!
Let me know when you have the freetime to play a round of NS1 with me. You go pistol only and I'll use the LMG. We'll compare K/D and overall combat usefulness to our team once the round is finished.
Until you're willing to do that, stop saying the pistol is a better weapon than the LMG. It is a stupid statement to make because it makes no sense.
They're different guns with different purposes and each weapon serves their purpose well.
No but the role of the pistol is unique. Halo has lot's of large outdoor maps making the pistol into a sniper rifle(it even has a scope). The main use of the pistol in NS2 is fleeing targets or relatively stationary and hard to reach targets, a la lerk in a vent. It isn't good for close range combat so it's not like the pistol is strictly better than the lmg. The fact that there are certain situations where you want to switch to the pistol is <i>good</i> IMO. It's a Yomi layer for the game. Is the skulk around the corner fleeing into a vent, pistol. Is he right on top of me, lmg. Guess wrong and you'll be at a disadvantage.
And yet in no way do we know of the taser to be worse. In fact, it's better because it has more Yomi layers.. do I shoot or shield? Charge the shot or try rapid bolt hits?
This is what really disturbs me about it. Nothing from the taser post indicated that it WOULDN'T be anything the pistol isn't, other than the one note about them not wanting a scriptable sniper-rifle analogue. Well, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* shape it is, if the devs stay true to that concern, then when the game starts, you're going to hear so many howls about how they've made the pistol too weak. When it was the taser, at least there's the built in excuse of, "It's not a pistol, stop trying to snipe with it."
Not to mention, the taser had the advantage of being able to gracefully explain why its power in up close combat might be greater than at range -- something which would make sense as a decent "last resort" weapon. The taser allowed for flexibility on the devs part. The pistol allows for whining on the players part.
My hope now is that the round of complaints we hear when the pistol turns out not to be the skulk sniping rifle everybody knew and loved will allow the devs to switch back to the taser as the more innovative concept.
(Disclaimer: I do not support the isolated statement, just making a point.)
Please don't isolate one phrase out of a paragraph and then use it as justification for something.
<!--quoteo(post=1724337:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724337"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Assault rifle dealt with close to mid range, while the Pistol handled long range targets because it was pin point accurate with a good rate of fire. Those two were essentially the best weapons in the game. This is extremely similar how it works in NS1. The idea of a Pistol being not terrible is not unique to NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not say you can beat the game with just the pistol, never did. You got with the LMG in short to medium ranges, then switch to the pistol for long range combat. Pistols should be a sidearm, that kind of dynamic makes it a primary weapon because it dominates a role.
I liked the Taser because it was something different and still contributed to the game without becoming such an overbearing weapon.
EDIT: Did the position of my post just move?
Please don't isolate one phrase out of a paragraph and then use it as justification for something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I honestly don't understand. You blatantly called the pistol better than an LMG. I didn't isolate anything, I quoted your entire sentence.
You don't make any sense and reading you try to debate/argue points makes me want to blow my brains out.
I simply disagree. If it doesn't have a role, then what good is it? You might as well have just left it out and added more ammo to the lmg. The pistol is still a secondary weapon even if it dominates a role, because that role is a secondary role. Most of the time in the close quarters twisty-turny-ness of NS1 maps the lmg is a better choice, hence it being a primary weapon.
<!--quoteo(post=1724352:date=Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Aug 21 2009, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1724352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I liked the Taser because it was something different and still contributed to the game without becoming such an overbearing weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was open to the idea of the taser too. What I didn't like about it was: the concept art, and the changed function of the pistol side of it which is what we're talking about now.
Now combine that with what we've heard about NS2 maps. Bigger rooms, less twisty corridors. Hmmm..
Given what Kwil said, he is right to say that it does depend on how big the new maps are. Reading over your responses and thinking it over, I am seeing your point. That and I realized that having a sidearm that has its primary function of having a lot of ammo is kind of redundant when one of the duties of the commander is to supply the marines on the field with ammo. : \
RE: SentrySteve. Read the rest of the Paragraph.
EDIT: Maybe the new pistol will have an interesting secondary, who knows.
That is what it sounded like you said. Especially when you compare it to the Halo 1 pistol, which was good enough to be your primary weapon in a multilayer game and I think most Halo 1 players would agree that the best weapons combo was the shotgun and pistol so that is now two games I question your knowledge of.
The pistol is an insanely fun weapon in NS1 whilst being very balanced!
You know the old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Perhaps the Taser may make a reappearance in some form down the road, but for now we've moved on.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gg vocal minority of stuck-in-the-mud-ers!
The pistol is an insanely fun weapon in NS1 whilst being very balanced!
You know the old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus the idiocy of the "Go pistol+knife" crowd is encapsulated in a single post. You like the NS1 weapons, you think they were cool or even balanced (despite the absolute bizarre nature of a pistol being as accurate as a sniper rifle in the first second of the game), and now that you've got your way you *assume* that the team are going to essentially port the NS1 pistol in to NS2?
Seriously, why don't you just go and play NS1 and leave the prospect of progression and advancement to those of us that give a ######, not just to those of you that want a prettier NS1?
People who argue on NS1 should stay playing NS1. NS2 is something really new, and I would have see something new in this game, like electrical shots, that already exists in NS1 ...
Seriously, why don't you just go and play NS1 and leave the prospect of progression and advancement to those of us that give a ######, not just to those of you that want a prettier NS1?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I do play NS1 like every day....
I've been playing NS since beta its a testament to how well this game is designed that after all these years it is still very fun to play..
Ns2 doesn't need a lot of change particularly the core elements which made it so awesome to begin with... Evolution is fine but radical changes to core aspects of the game is very risky imho.
Oh and I give a ###### I've bought 2 consti donations back in the day and the collectors edition if I had little more money hell I'd give it to flayra so he could get this out the door.
NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little.
I'd like to ask you what makes you think you have more of a say in this than the jerk you are addressing? I am sure everyone posting on this forum is supporting Unknown Worlds, or are going to support them in the future, and have invested money and time into this game. So, why does he not give as much of a ###### as you do? I like the pistol, but I never said I wouldn't like to TRY the taser, I would just like to keep the pistol as well. We could have both. Until we have tried it, none of us really know for sure if we will like it or not. Also, funny enough, I waited all these years for NS2 because of the simple fact that it is NS on a better graphics engine. Are you honestly telling me you are not sick of the HL1 engine? If so, I think you are the one that should just go and play NS1, or does my opinion not sound like I'm giving enough of a ######? Jerk.
It's the gameplay that makes it, and NS1 is just as good as it ever was. If you need a graphical update to keep playing it then you're a fool as far as I'm concerned. I am amused you think that I think I have more of a say here, or that I think the guy doesn't care, but the fact is this, NS2 IS going to change somewhat, indeed something in the region of being not recognisable. This is a positive, if I want to play NS1 I will play it, if I want to play a different but similar game I'll play NS2. Hopefully people like you will go and use LUA, make your retard ######isation of the two and leave the rest of us in peace.
I was going to say this in response to the other guy, but I'll say it to you.
There are two absolutely asinine factions operating in these forums, and they probably cross over hugely. The "Don't change this" crowd and the "I want it now" crowd. Both are thinking they're aiming for what's best for the game but in fact what they (and therefore you) are doing is simply aiming for selfish gratification. You want the game that solely you want, and you want it quick. ###### whether that's the best game for everyone, because hey, at least it'll be your cup of tea.
I personally don't want to have a situation where every server I go on is different with a different set of rules. It watered down CS, it has threatened to enjoyability of TF2. The base game needs to be robust, otherwise the community that is built is fractured and, worse, no use as a feedback mechanism as (as you can see with TF2) the general people playing don't understand the difference between a server mod (or LUA extension) and what was shipped.
But hey, rush it out, don't let's give it enough time to bed in and be tested through public participation (which is the PRIMARY reason NS1 was so successful), and certainly let's not try new things that could delay that rush. At least then YOU will be happy, instead of having to have waited in the region of 40 months instead of 36. Poor thing.
To sort of go along with what niaccurshi said, not only that but the initial release of a game is usually the most critical and crucial part of its life. If the game comes out buggy, glitched, not balanced etc. it will get bad reviews which leads to less people buying or playing the game which leads to a small community and less chance of a NS3. This isn't a huge name company like Blizzard who has billions of dollars and can take a chance like that, this game HAS to make a huge impression on the day one release, it doesn't have the convenience of pushing it out fast then patching it up later, which of course they will do, but only after it is fully tested and ready to be released.
I've been playing NS since beta its a testament to how well this game is designed that after all these years it is still very fun to play..
Ns2 doesn't need a lot of change particularly the core elements which made it so awesome to begin with... Evolution is fine but radical changes to core aspects of the game is very risky imho.
Oh and I give a ###### I've bought 2 consti donations back in the day and the collectors edition if I had little more money hell I'd give it to flayra so he could get this out the door.
NS is fantastic IP what they need to do is focus on getting NS2 out the door and holding onto all the elements which made NS1 great.... Latter on down the track it will be very easy to build mods and expansions which mix it up a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, this is a very bad strategy. Why? Because NS1 is still out there, still free.
So if they release what is essentially the same game with a graphical update, many people will go, "Meh.. looks prettier, but I can play the same game for free if I want." As such, in order to avoid competing with themselves and free, they *have* to change NS2 up. There have to be significant enough gameplay improvements that most people who play NS2 will feel it is a clearly superior game to the free alternative of NS1.. not an easy bar to reach, but it's what these guys set themselves.
As such, every time we argue for things to stay the same as they were in NS1 because that was just fine, we're arguing for them to lose customers *to* NS1. That isn't where I want NS2 to be, and certainly not where I want to see UWE go.
To sort of go along with what niaccurshi said, not only that but the initial release of a game is usually the most critical and crucial part of its life. If the game comes out buggy, glitched, not balanced etc. it will get bad reviews which leads to less people buying or playing the game which leads to a small community and less chance of a NS3. This isn't a huge name company like Blizzard who has billions of dollars and can take a chance like that, this game HAS to make a huge impression on the day one release, it doesn't have the convenience of pushing it out fast then patching it up later, which of course they will do, but only after it is fully tested and ready to be released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay then to keep it balanced non glitchy they need to stick to the core of what made the game so great to begin with...
Lets get one thing clear GRAPHICS sells titles particularly upfront the sustained sales come from solid gameplay but you want to move 1 million units in the first week you best hope you game looks the business..
Its a tried and true sales hook.
I apologize for the confusion, I worded a few sentences incorrectly that unintentionally gave ambiguity to what I said. Also, I haven't played Halo in what, 5 or 6 years now? Give me a break if I don't play NS1 and Halo1 still every week just for the purpose of helping me support one-off discussions.
I think most of the point of the Taser is gone if they decide to have a separate melee and range weapon. The main benefit of the Taser in my eyes was to save resources by not having to commission a melee weapon.
I just wish they held off making the sidearms and used placeholders in the game to figure out the best solution before creating the art for it.
EDIT: The Taser did not seem like a bad idea. The concept of combining of the secondary range and melee together is a good one. The opposition was split into four camps:
1) The concept of energy weapons in the Natural Selection universe is odd.
2) The suggested implementation of the weapon is unwieldy.
3) LOL Taser is a dumb name. Why does it stun? (For the record, stunning was never mentioned in the weapon description...)
4) I like the old pistol and knife.
Two of those camps I consider legit. Guess which two.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's a massive simplification of the camps.
There was at least one other major camp that questioned why any military force would opt to arm their soldiers with a main automatic weapon and only a hand-to-hand weapon as a flal back, considering the nature of their foe (close combat specialists). A ranged weapon makes much more sense.
Then there was another camp that said the concept of the Taser didn't look militaristic enough, or that it looked 'sissy'.
Finally, there's very little point in counting the amount of posts for or against, since if a point has been made very few people will repeat that post to lend open support. Most will look at it and think, huh, that's exactly what I think, glad someone said it so I don't have to bother typing it out.
The pistol was better than an LMG, 10 bullets at a time. The LMG's bigger clip was it's only saving grace. I'd prefer to see the pistol not be more accurate than a rifle. High rate of fire or high accuracy, pick one, shouldn't have both at the same time. Old pistol was just silly.
I don't say the taser was bad, but the pistol isn't that IMBA as you all seem to think.
It doesn't mean you're getting rolled as a lerk because a guy totally raped you with the pistol and it's "imba", it means the guy is good (or you're bad).
As it is now, the game is almost perfectly balanced, maybe in long-term games alien should need some extra advantage, because full-tech'd marines > full-tech'd aliens. That's all.