<!--quoteo(post=1729882:date=Sep 30 2009, 01:36 PM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Sep 30 2009, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It was tactics based and slower paced than most, at least thats the way it used to be. It kinda turned into a Zerg rush strategy once CO came out. As for your game picks, OPF I didn't care for, Red Orchestra I own and is good, but CS COD & DoD are abominations. They shouldn't be even in the same sentence as realism. I know that NS hasn't been about absolute realism, i'm just asking if in NS2 if there will be more of a threat when it comes to first strike opportunities (i.e. damage bonus when fade strikes from behind)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTF? Combat didnt change classic mode gameplay what-so-ever. NS has ALWAYS been a fast-paced game.
<!--quoteo(post=1729862:date=Sep 30 2009, 11:15 AM:name=-Diesel-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (-Diesel- @ Sep 30 2009, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah you are right.
Lets make confetti fly out instead of blood and the weapons can be water guns. Lets have the marine armor be pink and then have them ride magical unicorns.
Good idea, HEY SCOTT Bring me that nobel prize for Mr tjosan here.. He surely deserves it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do any of these suggestions make the gameplay better?
<!--quoteo(post=1729882:date=Sep 30 2009, 09:36 PM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Sep 30 2009, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It was tactics based and slower paced than most, at least thats the way it used to be. It kinda turned into a Zerg rush strategy once CO came out. As for your game picks, OPF I didn't care for, Red Orchestra I own and is good, but CS COD & DoD are abominations. They shouldn't be even in the same sentence as realism. I know that NS hasn't been about absolute realism, i'm just asking if in NS2 if there will be more of a threat when it comes to first strike opportunities (i.e. damage bonus when fade strikes from behind)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS has just as much threat with first strike opportunities as most other games, the only difference is you need to be skilled enough to capitalise on that first strike and follow up with a good second or third strike. In fact NS is better because you can negate first strike ownage but only with enough skill to out-think the enemy. I'm not even going to get into the stupid bugs with direction oriented damage bonuses.
I can only hope NS2 contains the same style of combat that made NS1 great and not the type that you seem to believe once existed and propose.
<!--quoteo(post=1729886:date=Sep 30 2009, 05:50 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Sep 30 2009, 05:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS has just as much threat with first strike opportunities as most other games, the only difference is you need to be skilled enough to capitalise on that first strike and follow up with a good second or third strike. In fact NS is better because you can negate first strike ownage but only with enough skill to out-think the enemy. I'm not even going to get into the stupid bugs with direction oriented damage bonuses.
I can only hope NS2 contains the same style of combat that made NS1 great and not the type that you seem to believe once existed and propose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post reminds me of the typical responses you find in other communities that consist of 'hur hur learn2play'. The whole discussion has taken a hostile turn since you and a few others started posting in it, attacking any idea I put forth.
I do not play a Sci-fi shooter involving jetpacks, nanites, and crazy evolving aliens for a realistic experience. All I ask for is a skill based combat system involving chomping marines and shooting aliens. If confetti blood helps to achieve this, then so be it.
Anyway, I am not sure what is realistic about "damage bonuses." We're not living in Diablo II and soldiers in Afghanistan don't creep around behind for the extra 50 damage. Attacking from behind in NS is its own advantage because you have the jump on the enemy. To me, that seems more realistic than "critical hits" or whatever vogue term from TF2.
What I thought you were asking and something I would like to know myself is, will they have different bullet damage types, such as piercing, explosion etc. Sort of like how the HMG did more less to buildings. Now if they added this to every weapon it would increase versatility and strategy. Like for instance the flame thrower, being fire it should damage buildings at a faster rate, but enemies with higher carapace such as an onos, at a slower rate.
Another idea could be to instead of letting the weapons have a damage type to begin with perhaps make them upgrades, so let's say the human's decide that taking down buildings is the highest priority over killing aliens, than they can take the explosive (or whatever) type ammo which would cause less damage to aliens but more to buildings, which would be good for a hive rush.
I did a quick search and saw nothing on this but it's such a common element that I'd be shocked if it hasn't been discussed already and if it has what was the outcome of the discussion?
<!--quoteo(post=1729932:date=Sep 30 2009, 11:22 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Sep 30 2009, 11:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I thought you were asking and something I would like to know myself is, will they have different bullet damage types, such as piercing, explosion etc. Sort of like how the HMG did more less to buildings. Now if they added this to every weapon it would increase versatility and strategy. Like for instance the flame thrower, being fire it should damage buildings at a faster rate, but enemies with higher carapace such as an onos, at a slower rate.
Another idea could be to instead of letting the weapons have a damage type to begin with perhaps make them upgrades, so let's say the human's decide that taking down buildings is the highest priority over killing aliens, than they can take the explosive (or whatever) type ammo which would cause less damage to aliens but more to buildings, which would be good for a hive rush.
I did a quick search and saw nothing on this but it's such a common element that I'd be shocked if it hasn't been discussed already and if it has what was the outcome of the discussion?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's dangerous thinking there, be careful in stating your opinion, it stirs up the hive.
<!--quoteo(post=1729933:date=Sep 30 2009, 10:24 PM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Sep 30 2009, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729933"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's dangerous thinking there, be careful in stating your opinion, it stirs up the hive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People dislike your ideas because your posts lack any sort of effort or thought. What do you mean by realism and arcadey? It's just buzzword garbage you threw together in 2 sentences. Games are primarily about fun, so maybe you like to get sick and have to stay well fed in games, but the rest of us don't really like the Sims. Some things are better left out of the simulation, and you don't even give us proper examples to disagree with. Just this vague hand waving about your firsthand experience with weapons and alien combat.
But no, I think we are all some hiveminded conspiracy echo-chamber circle jerk where we just hate on all ideas because we are mean. Yes this has to be the best answer. Anything that points to your ideas being bad and poorly thought out cannot be true.
Also I agree with the dude about weapon types. Star-Craft did it well, and that game seems to be balanced pretty fantastically.
<!--quoteo(post=1729935:date=Oct 1 2009, 12:35 AM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Oct 1 2009, 12:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People dislike your ideas because your posts lack any sort of effort or thought. What do you mean by realism and arcadey? It's just buzzword garbage you threw together in 2 sentences. Games are primarily about fun, so maybe you like to get sick and have to stay well fed in games, but the rest of us don't really like the Sims. Some things are better left out of the simulation, and you don't even give us proper examples to disagree with. Just this vague hand waving about your firsthand experience with weapons and alien combat.
But no, I think we are all some hiveminded conspiracy echo-chamber circle jerk where we just hate on all ideas because we are mean. Yes this has to be the best answer. Anything that points to your ideas being bad and poorly thought out cannot be true.
Also I agree with the dude about weapon types. Star-Craft did it well, and that game seems to be balanced pretty fantastically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're absolutely right, thinking about putting bleeding in a game where you cause death by massive trauma is absolutely ridiculous! What was I thinking? Perhaps I should make a piechart and come prepared with a long thesis on how I feel realism benefits the experience of the end user! I should come more prepared to this internet thing, it clearly is serious business and proper posting will lead me to securing that six figure income job in todays fast paced market!
See, extreme sarcasm is easy. That's the funny thing about your reply, and everyone elses. You accuse me of not putting any effort into my ideas and 'waving my hands around', yet the first thing you (and others) do is immediately shoot down any idea, and tell me how I should be playing a different game. Offering any sort of constructive answer is clearly asking too much effort.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1730007:date=Oct 1 2009, 01:13 PM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Oct 1 2009, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See, extreme sarcasm is easy. That's the funny thing about your reply, and everyone elses. You accuse me of not putting any effort into my ideas and 'waving my hands around', yet the first thing you (and others) do is immediately shoot down any idea, and tell me how I should be playing a different game. Offering any sort of constructive answer is clearly asking too much effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forums are about posing ideas and defending them with, hopefully, logic. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you use them to bash your point across without regard for other people's opinions your point ends up not being worth much.
Your opinion is that realism makes the game more fun, probably based on the fact you enjoy games that are more realistic. This is not true for everyone else, and is probably a minority opinion of players in a game about space aliens set in the future.
So that means you have to analyze your opinion and try and justify it beyond "realism is fun" if you want other people of different opinions to support your ideas. How does realism make the game more fun for you? Do you feel more or less connected to the character(s) in the game? Do you find actions more or less intuitive? Do you feel like the game world is more open or more structured?
You might find common desires with other people in specific gameplay areas even if they don't agree that "realism is fun".
<!--quoteo(post=1730009:date=Oct 1 2009, 01:29 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 1 2009, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Forums are about posing ideas and defending them with, hopefully, logic. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you use them to bash your point across without regard for other people's opinions your point ends up not being worth much.
Your opinion is that realism makes the game more fun, probably based on the fact you enjoy games that are more realistic. This is not true for everyone else, and is probably a minority opinion of players in a game about space aliens set in the future.
So that means you have to analyze your opinion and try and justify it beyond "realism is fun" if you want other people of different opinions to support your ideas. How does realism make the game more fun for you? Do you feel more or less connected to the character(s) in the game? Do you find actions more or less intuitive? Do you feel like the game world is more open or more structured?
You might find common desires with other people in specific gameplay areas even if they don't agree that "realism is fun".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for your actual input. I'm not exclusive when it comes to realistic games, I like some laxness too. My whole opinion was centered around making the life of an alien or marine more valuable. Instead of jumping around that corner blindly, have enough systems in place where the player questions his actions instead of relying on that constant respawn. I always found myself having the most fun in NS way back when games took 1-2 hours (sometimes upwards of 4) and were a constant back and forth territory war. Of course, different factors play into this, player skill, team stacking, etc. But always the most fun was in those types of situations. Some of the additions already announced I feel will ramp up the 'realism' factor, with the interactive armory and such, and hopefully other elements follow suit.
I think the most promising thing of them all is having LUA available, so that custom servers could change damage variables, even make entire new game modes for people like me who want a little more in their NS ;)
Territorial gameplay and higher damage generally reduce the value of a single marine/alien on my logic. Territorial means that there will be less pushing and such, thus fragging doesn't contribute to the map control unless you manage to the whole enemy control area afterwards. I remember kamikazing a lot when the gameplay relied heavily on turrets and permanent area control.
Higher damage on the other hand means that a single landed hit can easier turn the tide, so no need to group up as much. So, it's not as big deal if you're going down as long as you've got teammates that land the hits. Of course the difference to the present isn't massive, but on a quick thought process it still seems to lower the value of an individual a bit.
Of course those can be turned around by connecting other features, but you really should explain the whole picture then.
I don't think realism belongs in Natural Selection (1 or 2). It should be grounded in realism (a shotgun behaves like a shotgun) to help players figure out a weapons or abilities functions, but total realism plays have havoc with balance. Simply put, realistic damage would result in everything dying way too fast and ties the developer's hands due to the constraints of reality (even if that reality takes place a space station filled with rapidly mutating aliens).
Abstraction is important for that reason. Things function the way you think they kind of should, but modified in a way to control the pace and frankly, enjoyment of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1730018:date=Oct 1 2009, 02:16 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Oct 1 2009, 02:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Territorial gameplay and higher damage generally reduce the value of a single marine/alien on my logic. Territorial means that there will be less pushing and such, thus fragging doesn't contribute to the map control unless you manage to the whole enemy control area afterwards. I remember kamikazing a lot when the gameplay relied heavily on turrets and permanent area control.
Higher damage on the other hand means that a single landed hit can easier turn the tide, so no need to group up as much. So, it's not as big deal if you're going down as long as you've got teammates that land the hits. Of course the difference to the present isn't massive, but on a quick thought process it still seems to lower the value of an individual a bit.
Of course those can be turned around by connecting other features, but you really should explain the whole picture then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, concentrated gunfire from a group of marines would be optimal, and that would be lessened if the damage were to be ramped up. I feel that keeping a large group of marines together also lessens the aliens experience as they rely (especially early on) on singling out the strays, isolating them from eachother. Gameplay has always centered around controlling res nodes and securing hive locations, so after so many years of playing the same maps, it's only natural that people would figure out hive locations quickly and have time tested strategies to guarantee a win. I think it relates back in a lot of ways to the thread about all of us who played the first day NS was released. It's about not knowing where the enemy will come from, where the 'hive' is, where to build. There was alot of fun in that unknown situation. Dynamic hive location would improve the overall experience, i've always wanted that feature. Alot the tech improvements with the new engine will help, with lighting (hooray no gamma ramp) playing a huge part of stealth on the aliens part.
In order to bring any sort of longevity to a gameplay session they will need to have more emphasis on making the player wary to advance rapidly (especially on his own) and improvements on stationary defense. Whether this be lingering gas spores, infested corpses, or some sort of slowing effect ground slime on alienside, to proximity mines, map based defense (laser fields activated by repairing generator?) on marine side. Previous people have talked about how its an RTS, well, RTS's tend to place a large value on strong base defense along with chokepoint holds. Being able to block off doorways with OC's and such in earlier versions was great (later taken out much to many peoples dismay). I'm pretty sure most of my ideas could be implemented in a mod of some sorts, but hey it doesn't hurt to sling around ideas to pass the time right?
<!--quoteo(post=1730058:date=Oct 1 2009, 11:56 AM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Oct 1 2009, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Previous people have talked about how its an RTS, well, RTS's tend to place a large value on strong base defense along with chokepoint holds. Being able to block off doorways with OC's and such in earlier versions was great (later taken out much to many peoples dismay).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most good RTS games place a large value in offensive initiative. Very few actually place large value in strong stationary defenses, unless you are playing it poorly.
The positional advantage is normally more than enough of an advantage for the defender. If stationary defenses are overly powerful, in the hands of people that actually know how to play the game, games lead to stalemates.
<!--quoteo(post=1730079:date=Oct 1 2009, 05:31 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 1 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most good RTS games place a large value in offensive initiative. Very few actually place large value in strong stationary defenses, unless you are playing it poorly.
The positional advantage is normally more than enough of an advantage for the defender. If stationary defenses are overly powerful, in the hands of people that actually know how to play the game, games lead to stalemates.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's personal preference, the items are in place to accomodate different playstyles. No defense is fool proof is the general rule, and the offensive initiative falls back on the Zerg Rush mentality I discussed earlier. Everyone plays their roles differently, having the systems in place to accomodate for either is what makes the difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1730134:date=Oct 1 2009, 08:10 PM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Oct 1 2009, 08:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's personal preference, the items are in place to accomodate different playstyles. No defense is fool proof is the general rule, and the offensive initiative falls back on the Zerg Rush mentality I discussed earlier. Everyone plays their roles differently, having the systems in place to accomodate for either is what makes the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no such thing as personal preference in games. They are not personal and preference means absolutely nothing.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1730140:date=Oct 2 2009, 12:56 AM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 2 2009, 12:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no such thing as personal preference in games. They are not personal and preference means absolutely nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hah, that's patently untrue. The competitive community is itself a preference in how to play a game. I agree 100% with your post before this though.
<!--quoteo(post=1730134:date=Oct 2 2009, 04:10 AM:name=FuNiOnZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FuNiOnZ @ Oct 2 2009, 04:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's personal preference, the items are in place to accomodate different playstyles. No defense is fool proof is the general rule, and the offensive initiative falls back on the Zerg Rush mentality I discussed earlier. Everyone plays their roles differently, having the systems in place to accomodate for either is what makes the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Still, you're getting away with defensive play only if your opponent is playing bad or you're also prepared for offensive play. Sure, you can defend yourself to victory in most games, but basically you need to have the offensive capability to deny enemy expansions to win. For example in Starcraft the best players are the ones who's defence barely holds the enemy pushes back. It means you've spend enough, but not too much on defense.
Also note that most of RTS defensive situations are because the races have different early game options, so at some point one player is naturally offensive and the other has to defend. However, after the early-mid game timing pushes are gone, the game goes into quite offensive warfare and battle for area control. The general system is quite similar to NS as it is now: The early marine pushing switches into 2 hive defense and slowly turns into a res war when marines are ready to push out of their PG areas. The major difference is that quite often the game just won't go far enough to reach the two latter stages.
<!--quoteo(post=1730210:date=Oct 2 2009, 11:34 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Oct 2 2009, 11:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730210"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Still, you're getting away with defensive play only if your opponent is playing bad or you're also prepared for offensive play. Sure, you can defend yourself to victory in most games, but basically you need to have the offensive capability to deny enemy expansions to win. For example in Starcraft the best players are the ones who's defence barely holds the enemy pushes back. It means you've spend enough, but not too much on defense.
Also note that most of RTS defensive situations are because the races have different early game options, so at some point one player is naturally offensive and the other has to defend. However, after the early-mid game timing pushes are gone, the game goes into quite offensive warfare and battle for area control. The general system is quite similar to NS as it is now: The early marine pushing switches into 2 hive defense and slowly turns into a res war when marines are ready to push out of their PG areas. The major difference is that quite often the game just won't go far enough to reach the two latter stages.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or your defense could be good enough to repel the 'superior' offense. But yes you are right, offensive capability is what denies the enemy of resources and expands their control over territory. Defense is what slows an offensive enemy down, and theres nothing to say that defensive items couldn't be used offensively too. You can still move out of your base to capture rez and still rely on building defensive structures throughout the map to help provide a front of sorts.
Again, it all falls on the playstyle of the person whos commanding/building. Contrary to what the other guy says, it IS personal preference. There is no right or wrong way to play a game really. You may build a strong defense and it may fall victim to the enemy, but in the end if you had an enjoyable time doing such, then your primary goal is achieved.
My suggestions of lingering gas and such were made to offer a quick defensive capability, for those who like to assault, but also want a way to stall the enemy by a few more seconds while they try to counter, offering either time to hide or retreat.
Comments
WTF? Combat didnt change classic mode gameplay what-so-ever. NS has ALWAYS been a fast-paced game.
Lets make confetti fly out instead of blood and the weapons can be water guns. Lets have the marine armor be pink and then have them ride magical unicorns.
Good idea, HEY SCOTT Bring me that nobel prize for Mr tjosan here.. He surely deserves it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do any of these suggestions make the gameplay better?
NS has just as much threat with first strike opportunities as most other games, the only difference is you need to be skilled enough to capitalise on that first strike and follow up with a good second or third strike. In fact NS is better because you can negate first strike ownage but only with enough skill to out-think the enemy. I'm not even going to get into the stupid bugs with direction oriented damage bonuses.
I can only hope NS2 contains the same style of combat that made NS1 great and not the type that you seem to believe once existed and propose.
Nah not really.
I can only hope NS2 contains the same style of combat that made NS1 great and not the type that you seem to believe once existed and propose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post reminds me of the typical responses you find in other communities that consist of 'hur hur learn2play'. The whole discussion has taken a hostile turn since you and a few others started posting in it, attacking any idea I put forth.
It sounds to me like you are the hostile one here. If the amount of criticism you are receiving concerns you, I'll give some advice: you should be careful when using clichéd terms like "realistic." Meaning and tone are already vague on the internet, and your idea of "realism" is most assuredly different than mine. Even if you don't want to think that hard, you definitely shouldn't assume someone is hostile because they disagree with you. For example, I might think your ideas are poor and I may even think you were rather stupid, but going from there to assuming I am hostile is a stretch considering how little I have emotionally invested in anything you do.
Anyway, I am not sure what is realistic about "damage bonuses." We're not living in Diablo II and soldiers in Afghanistan don't creep around behind for the extra 50 damage. Attacking from behind in NS is its own advantage because you have the jump on the enemy. To me, that seems more realistic than "critical hits" or whatever vogue term from TF2.
Another idea could be to instead of letting the weapons have a damage type to begin with perhaps make them upgrades, so let's say the human's decide that taking down buildings is the highest priority over killing aliens, than they can take the explosive (or whatever) type ammo which would cause less damage to aliens but more to buildings, which would be good for a hive rush.
I did a quick search and saw nothing on this but it's such a common element that I'd be shocked if it hasn't been discussed already and if it has what was the outcome of the discussion?
Another idea could be to instead of letting the weapons have a damage type to begin with perhaps make them upgrades, so let's say the human's decide that taking down buildings is the highest priority over killing aliens, than they can take the explosive (or whatever) type ammo which would cause less damage to aliens but more to buildings, which would be good for a hive rush.
I did a quick search and saw nothing on this but it's such a common element that I'd be shocked if it hasn't been discussed already and if it has what was the outcome of the discussion?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's dangerous thinking there, be careful in stating your opinion, it stirs up the hive.
People dislike your ideas because your posts lack any sort of effort or thought. What do you mean by realism and arcadey? It's just buzzword garbage you threw together in 2 sentences. Games are primarily about fun, so maybe you like to get sick and have to stay well fed in games, but the rest of us don't really like the Sims. Some things are better left out of the simulation, and you don't even give us proper examples to disagree with. Just this vague hand waving about your firsthand experience with weapons and alien combat.
But no, I think we are all some hiveminded conspiracy echo-chamber circle jerk where we just hate on all ideas because we are mean. Yes this has to be the best answer. Anything that points to your ideas being bad and poorly thought out cannot be true.
Also I agree with the dude about weapon types. Star-Craft did it well, and that game seems to be balanced pretty fantastically.
But no, I think we are all some hiveminded conspiracy echo-chamber circle jerk where we just hate on all ideas because we are mean. Yes this has to be the best answer. Anything that points to your ideas being bad and poorly thought out cannot be true.
Also I agree with the dude about weapon types. Star-Craft did it well, and that game seems to be balanced pretty fantastically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're absolutely right, thinking about putting bleeding in a game where you cause death by massive trauma is absolutely ridiculous! What was I thinking? Perhaps I should make a piechart and come prepared with a long thesis on how I feel realism benefits the experience of the end user! I should come more prepared to this internet thing, it clearly is serious business and proper posting will lead me to securing that six figure income job in todays fast paced market!
See, extreme sarcasm is easy. That's the funny thing about your reply, and everyone elses. You accuse me of not putting any effort into my ideas and 'waving my hands around', yet the first thing you (and others) do is immediately shoot down any idea, and tell me how I should be playing a different game. Offering any sort of constructive answer is clearly asking too much effort.
Forums are about posing ideas and defending them with, hopefully, logic. You are entitled to your opinions, but when you use them to bash your point across without regard for other people's opinions your point ends up not being worth much.
Your opinion is that realism makes the game more fun, probably based on the fact you enjoy games that are more realistic. This is not true for everyone else, and is probably a minority opinion of players in a game about space aliens set in the future.
So that means you have to analyze your opinion and try and justify it beyond "realism is fun" if you want other people of different opinions to support your ideas. How does realism make the game more fun for you? Do you feel more or less connected to the character(s) in the game? Do you find actions more or less intuitive? Do you feel like the game world is more open or more structured?
You might find common desires with other people in specific gameplay areas even if they don't agree that "realism is fun".
Your opinion is that realism makes the game more fun, probably based on the fact you enjoy games that are more realistic. This is not true for everyone else, and is probably a minority opinion of players in a game about space aliens set in the future.
So that means you have to analyze your opinion and try and justify it beyond "realism is fun" if you want other people of different opinions to support your ideas. How does realism make the game more fun for you? Do you feel more or less connected to the character(s) in the game? Do you find actions more or less intuitive? Do you feel like the game world is more open or more structured?
You might find common desires with other people in specific gameplay areas even if they don't agree that "realism is fun".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for your actual input. I'm not exclusive when it comes to realistic games, I like some laxness too. My whole opinion was centered around making the life of an alien or marine more valuable. Instead of jumping around that corner blindly, have enough systems in place where the player questions his actions instead of relying on that constant respawn. I always found myself having the most fun in NS way back when games took 1-2 hours (sometimes upwards of 4) and were a constant back and forth territory war. Of course, different factors play into this, player skill, team stacking, etc. But always the most fun was in those types of situations. Some of the additions already announced I feel will ramp up the 'realism' factor, with the interactive armory and such, and hopefully other elements follow suit.
I think the most promising thing of them all is having LUA available, so that custom servers could change damage variables, even make entire new game modes for people like me who want a little more in their NS ;)
Higher damage on the other hand means that a single landed hit can easier turn the tide, so no need to group up as much. So, it's not as big deal if you're going down as long as you've got teammates that land the hits. Of course the difference to the present isn't massive, but on a quick thought process it still seems to lower the value of an individual a bit.
Of course those can be turned around by connecting other features, but you really should explain the whole picture then.
Abstraction is important for that reason. Things function the way you think they kind of should, but modified in a way to control the pace and frankly, enjoyment of the game.
Higher damage on the other hand means that a single landed hit can easier turn the tide, so no need to group up as much. So, it's not as big deal if you're going down as long as you've got teammates that land the hits. Of course the difference to the present isn't massive, but on a quick thought process it still seems to lower the value of an individual a bit.
Of course those can be turned around by connecting other features, but you really should explain the whole picture then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, concentrated gunfire from a group of marines would be optimal, and that would be lessened if the damage were to be ramped up. I feel that keeping a large group of marines together also lessens the aliens experience as they rely (especially early on) on singling out the strays, isolating them from eachother. Gameplay has always centered around controlling res nodes and securing hive locations, so after so many years of playing the same maps, it's only natural that people would figure out hive locations quickly and have time tested strategies to guarantee a win. I think it relates back in a lot of ways to the thread about all of us who played the first day NS was released. It's about not knowing where the enemy will come from, where the 'hive' is, where to build. There was alot of fun in that unknown situation. Dynamic hive location would improve the overall experience, i've always wanted that feature. Alot the tech improvements with the new engine will help, with lighting (hooray no gamma ramp) playing a huge part of stealth on the aliens part.
In order to bring any sort of longevity to a gameplay session they will need to have more emphasis on making the player wary to advance rapidly (especially on his own) and improvements on stationary defense. Whether this be lingering gas spores, infested corpses, or some sort of slowing effect ground slime on alienside, to proximity mines, map based defense (laser fields activated by repairing generator?) on marine side. Previous people have talked about how its an RTS, well, RTS's tend to place a large value on strong base defense along with chokepoint holds. Being able to block off doorways with OC's and such in earlier versions was great (later taken out much to many peoples dismay). I'm pretty sure most of my ideas could be implemented in a mod of some sorts, but hey it doesn't hurt to sling around ideas to pass the time right?
Most good RTS games place a large value in offensive initiative. Very few actually place large value in strong stationary defenses, unless you are playing it poorly.
The positional advantage is normally more than enough of an advantage for the defender. If stationary defenses are overly powerful, in the hands of people that actually know how to play the game, games lead to stalemates.
The positional advantage is normally more than enough of an advantage for the defender. If stationary defenses are overly powerful, in the hands of people that actually know how to play the game, games lead to stalemates.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's personal preference, the items are in place to accomodate different playstyles. No defense is fool proof is the general rule, and the offensive initiative falls back on the Zerg Rush mentality I discussed earlier. Everyone plays their roles differently, having the systems in place to accomodate for either is what makes the difference.
There is no such thing as personal preference in games. They are not personal and preference means absolutely nothing.
Hah, that's patently untrue. The competitive community is itself a preference in how to play a game. I agree 100% with your post before this though.
Still, you're getting away with defensive play only if your opponent is playing bad or you're also prepared for offensive play. Sure, you can defend yourself to victory in most games, but basically you need to have the offensive capability to deny enemy expansions to win. For example in Starcraft the best players are the ones who's defence barely holds the enemy pushes back. It means you've spend enough, but not too much on defense.
Also note that most of RTS defensive situations are because the races have different early game options, so at some point one player is naturally offensive and the other has to defend. However, after the early-mid game timing pushes are gone, the game goes into quite offensive warfare and battle for area control. The general system is quite similar to NS as it is now: The early marine pushing switches into 2 hive defense and slowly turns into a res war when marines are ready to push out of their PG areas. The major difference is that quite often the game just won't go far enough to reach the two latter stages.
Also note that most of RTS defensive situations are because the races have different early game options, so at some point one player is naturally offensive and the other has to defend. However, after the early-mid game timing pushes are gone, the game goes into quite offensive warfare and battle for area control. The general system is quite similar to NS as it is now: The early marine pushing switches into 2 hive defense and slowly turns into a res war when marines are ready to push out of their PG areas. The major difference is that quite often the game just won't go far enough to reach the two latter stages.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or your defense could be good enough to repel the 'superior' offense. But yes you are right, offensive capability is what denies the enemy of resources and expands their control over territory. Defense is what slows an offensive enemy down, and theres nothing to say that defensive items couldn't be used offensively too. You can still move out of your base to capture rez and still rely on building defensive structures throughout the map to help provide a front of sorts.
Again, it all falls on the playstyle of the person whos commanding/building. Contrary to what the other guy says, it IS personal preference. There is no right or wrong way to play a game really. You may build a strong defense and it may fall victim to the enemy, but in the end if you had an enjoyable time doing such, then your primary goal is achieved.
My suggestions of lingering gas and such were made to offer a quick defensive capability, for those who like to assault, but also want a way to stall the enemy by a few more seconds while they try to counter, offering either time to hide or retreat.