Natural selection was never supposed to be THAT fast. Marines have a fairly low speed cap, and bunnyhopping exploits and jetpacks aside, aren't generally meant to go flying all over the place.
Nothing looks or plays worse than something like the old FireArms mod, where two players rush at each other circlestrafing, spraying bullets at each other while dancing in a tight circle until one of them dies.
With no info on NS2, but knowing what we do of NS1, you can probably expect the game to be mobile and fast paced, but not insanely so.
<!--quoteo(post=1737616:date=Nov 14 2009, 01:46 PM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 14 2009, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My vote goes for much, much slower pace like it was in v1. Leaves more time to make decisions, sneak around, build stuff, and actually become involved. If I had to give one reason why NS1 failed, in the end, <i><blathering snipped></i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I had to give one reason why NS1 failed, I couldn't, because it didn't fail. There were no changes to the speed of combat between any of the versions of NS. If anything, v1 had the fastest paced combat what with infinite jetpacks and 3x res gorges. All of the changes in subsequent versions made the combat more accessible to more people which is why the competitive scene endured. The introduction of Combat mode didn't have any impact on commanding at all, and commanding has never been about a set of predefined steps. There's so many inaccuracies in your post, I'm thinking the only thing that changed between v1 and later for you is that you realized how bad you were at the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->F*ck fraggers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're aware NS is a first person shooter, right?
All these things about strategy and timing and counters are all in the game, its just you have to play people of an equal skill level to you. This system makes the game take more skill to play as you have to master two elements instead of one and if youre not so good at one you can always recompensate with the other and take out the enemy. It's a good equilibrium.
It's not about the depth when it comes to the game tempo. Both slow and fast games have got the options for depth and strategy. Fast games can do better without huge all around depth though. For example in NS most decisions are interesting because they are quick and you can't get third reconsiderations before making the move. At that point you need the ability to recognize the situation quickly and adapt to it. The better players make more precise analysis quicker and react better to the situation.
With slow gameplay NS would require a little different approach to be interesting as the positioning and such wouldn't be as dynamic and challenging. I could definitely live with some more strategy and tactics, but those can also be achieved without slowing the game down.
I don't know if alot of people are misunderstanding the original question, but I'm pretty sure the OP was concerned about the actual movement SPEED of the marines bunnyhopping around, and the speed of (probably celerity'd) skulks. And maybe throw in a YMCA fade or two.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I had to give one reason why NS1 failed, I couldn't, because it didn't fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at first, but if forum and server activity are of any indication "Yes, it did fail." The only reason why people are now coming back is the teaser.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything, v1 had the fastest paced combat what with infinite jetpacks and 3x res gorges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Jetpack rushes became the norm only at the later stages, a few months before v2 was published, and you're right about it being wrong. Another was the two hive lockdown, but I didn't claim v1 was perfect. It had glaring flaws, but at least the games weren't over in five minutes once things got rolling. The problem is that in v3 every game was a short one and I remember several occasions when players made jokes about "When was the last game that lasted an hour? :p"
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All of the changes in subsequent versions made the combat more accessible to more people which is why the competitive scene endured.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To a degree, yes, but not <i>all</i> of the changes were positive. I remember sensory chambers cloaking skulks in about two seconds, which was great fun, because you could drop a bite in and re-cloak while running like a nutball. Then they nerfed it to something like 5 seconds, which effectively ruined the fun. I dare to say that most of us don't play to compete, but to have fun. If some want to play a game as an esport, sure, but they aren't the end of all.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The introduction of Combat mode didn't have any impact on commanding at all, and commanding has never been about a set of predefined steps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not directly, but it changed the playerbase. When I started playing NS most of the people were a friendly, cooperative lot and didn't mind long games, but at some point this begun to disappear as NS took a turn towards a regular frag'em'up. I guess they, too, "realized how bad they were" and left. Combat simply epitomizes this, standing against everything that made NS different.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's so many inaccuracies in your post, I'm thinking the only thing that changed between v1 and later for you is that you realized how bad you were at the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hope you didn't skim past the previous part, because what you are saying now is exactly what is wrong with people. I'm not pulling stuff out of my 4ss, but telling you how I experienced it. Feel free to disagree, but don't be an 4sshole.
Originally NS1 was actually a slow paced game style. I remember a match could last 2 hours, as another could last 30minutes. The deciding factor was on how the skilled players were balanced out. I stopped playing before the game got a make over. Some maps were small which kinda led to a short play through, as some other maps were significantly bigger which allowed to a more stealthy/trap laying game. Although through speaking with people who I used to play with, they said they were disappointed with the fast paced style, and eventually quit playing. But you know, I guess it all depends on when you started playing the game, and how much time you want to put into a single game. Personally, I prefer a long match, if something comes up, the quit button is always there for you. A long match also allows for a more strategy based approach to the game, where I think fast paced will just lead to rushes over and over, which will make every match have a very similar play through. None the less, this is my opinion, I'll buy this game either way and hope it delivers to my anticipation.
AngeluszHarmonic entropistJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18072Members, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1737698:date=Nov 15 2009, 07:20 AM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 15 2009, 07:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737698"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not at first, but if forum and server activity are of any indication "Yes, it did fail." The only reason why people are now coming back is the teaser.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, great - now you forced me to enter this discussion. <b>No, NS1 did <!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->not<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> fail...</b> When was the HL1 engine released? When was NS1 released? Ever stopped to think that the game never failed, but just slowly died out, like <b>every other old game</b>. Think about warcraft II, command and conquer red alert, DOOM, duke nukem, Commander keen... still play those games? I think (and hope :p) not.. but did those games fail? Hell no!
---
On topic: I hope they do keep the "sense" of speed. Nothing is more exciting than hearing skulks running near and suddenly having one leaping by, your reaction being a jerk to the side it passes, almost accidentally pulling the trigger, pumping it chock-full of shotgun shells whilst littering your pants... don't you agree?
<!--quoteo(post=1737917:date=Nov 17 2009, 03:02 AM:name=Angelusz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Angelusz @ Nov 17 2009, 03:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On topic: I hope they do keep the "sense" of speed. Nothing is more exciting than hearing skulks running near and suddenly having one leaping by, your reaction being a jerk to the side it passes, almost accidentally pulling the trigger, pumping it chock-full of shotgun shells whilst littering your pants... don't you agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
agree :D I can't tell you how many bullets I wasted in NS1 just from nervous twitchy trigger finger.
NS is 7 years old. That is INCREDIBLY old in the gaming world. How does having this many players after 7 years mean it failed? The current server activity is god-damned impressive imo. You are crazy
<!--quoteo(post=1737617:date=Nov 14 2009, 08:48 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 14 2009, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737617"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, because faster = harder like in Diablo and NS Combat lolol.
It's all about how you design the game. Tribes 2 was slower paced than Tribes 1 but had WAY more strategic and tactical involvement. The game simply had a lot more 'stuff' and in order to properly use all this stuff the game was slowed down somewhat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're correct, but some of us aren't convinced that's the direction the game is headed. Instead, it's looking suspiciously like another TF2, with all the problems that entails. The game was made more accessible for new players at the price of being less fun once you actually learned how to play it.
...but I won't panic until the twitter update about attacks randomly doing triple damage.
Here are some semi-arbitrary goals to think of first:<ul><li>On average, each side should be able to get two-thirds of the way through their tech-tree before a game ends.</li><li>The outcome of the game should not be practically decided in the first five minutes.</li><li>There should be enough time during engagements that it makes sense to take side routes and be sneaky.</li><li>Resource towers should matter.</li></ul>
I think the ideal for NS2 Is to have fast tactics, slow strategy. Seek the happy medium where individual engagements are fast paced and surprise attacks succeed, but the overall game doesn't run so quickly that the ending is decided within the first five minutes.
Aside: I think some form of game-metric-reporting module for the devs (disable-able by server admins) could be extremely useful down the road when it comes to looking for balance issues. You could mine the data to find things like: "How often do the Kharaa win after they achieve 2 hives on map X", etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1737921:date=Nov 16 2009, 07:22 PM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Nov 16 2009, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737921"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead, it's looking suspiciously like another TF2, with all the problems that entails. The game was made more accessible for new players at the price of being less fun once you actually learned how to play it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->We've had these talks over in the Steam forums, so I'll just say I disagree :P
<!--quoteo(post=1737928:date=Nov 17 2009, 04:17 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 17 2009, 04:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here are some semi-arbitrary goals to think of first:<ul><li>On average, each side should be able to get two-thirds of the way through their tech-tree before a game ends.</li><li>The outcome of the game should not be practically decided in the first five minutes.</li><li>There should be enough time during engagements that it makes sense to take side routes and be sneaky.</li><li>Resource towers should matter.</li></ul>
I think the ideal for NS2 Is to have fast tactics, slow strategy. Seek the happy medium where individual engagements are fast paced and surprise attacks succeed, but the overall game doesn't run so quickly that the ending is decided within the first five minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is THE best post on these forums I have read to date.
Good games never die and I think NS could still be alive if the devs had devoted more time to it. But then I also think that NS1 went from glory to the crapper faster than it should had all the while these boards were full of good ideas (and several bad ones) that could had made the game a goldmine. I can describe that only as a "fail."
Terr's post is one such example about a good post. I understand it as "fast encounters, slow games." I.e: no more fades spamming acid rockets for hours while marines turtle, but no more five minute games either.
<!--quoteo(post=1737948:date=Nov 17 2009, 08:47 AM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 17 2009, 08:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good games never die<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Name a few.
I think most people agree that a little longer effective round time is good. NS had some pretty terrible gameplay factors, like the nearly forced 2nd hive push in some situations. At least I thought improving the RTS structure was rather self explanatory as soon as they announced a sequel.
The speed of the pure FPS part is more controversial. I'd like to keep things fast and dynamic as much as possible.
Good games never die and I think NS could still be alive if the devs had devoted more time to it. But then I also think that NS1 went from glory to the crapper faster than it should had all the while these boards were full of good ideas (and several bad ones) that could had made the game a goldmine. I can describe that only as a "fail."
Terr's post is one such example about a good post. I understand it as "fast encounters, slow games." I.e: no more fades spamming acid rockets for hours while marines turtle, but no more five minute games either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can only agree partially there. Yes, NS1 could have been more and better than it is today. But no, it's still not a fail. I can't blame Flayra for moving on though. Lets face the fact that NS1 was a non-profit, donation-based funded modification for an existing game.
Yes, it grew to be much more than just that, but hell - Flay needs money to live as well. From my perspective, development on NS1 stopped because they hadn't the resources to keep working on it. NS2 however, is a whole new story. It's a funded game, which will bring money to the table when people buy it. That is a solid base to start with.
As for Terr's post, I too have to agree - a perfect summation of the average sentiment.
One way to get the effect would be to have strong weapons, tough buildings, slow building repairs, and relatively fragile players.
Main problem: If you die quickly, the time spent re-spawning and walking from spawn to battlefield becomes more significant.
In retrospect, I don't think I ever felt <i>bored</i> traveling from A to B in NS1 unless I was on Marines with motion-sensing. There was always enough scenery and possible danger from an ambush, or someone <i>to</i> ambush.
Then in the late-game you gain access to weapons/abilities with significant anti-building bonuses...
so am i the only one here who thinks that ns1 isnt really a fast paced game? im referring to classic ns, not combat of course. yes, its fast as in u need to have lightning fast reflexs to be able to hit ur opponent in battle.... but i find the pace of the game rather slow compared to most shooters...
One way to get the effect would be to have strong weapons, tough buildings, slow building repairs, and relatively fragile players.
Main problem: If you die quickly, the time spent re-spawning and walking from spawn to battlefield becomes more significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The major problem on heavy building bias is that the game last unnecessary amounts of time even if the teams aren't anywhere close to each other in skill (see DotA for example). In addition NS based itself on skirmishes, your suggestion pushes the game far more into stationary warfare.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so am i the only one here who thinks that ns1 isnt really a fast paced game? im referring to classic ns, not combat of course. yes, its fast as in u need to have lightning fast reflexs to be able to hit ur opponent in battle.... but i find the pace of the game rather slow compared to most shooters...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say it's rather mobile compared to most shooters and the skilled lifeforms are somewhat difficult to hit with air curve and all. Various situations come and go quickly. So, in a way it's fast.
<!--quoteo(post=1737984:date=Nov 17 2009, 10:52 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Nov 17 2009, 10:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The major problem on heavy building bias is that the game last unnecessary amounts of time even if the teams aren't anywhere close to each other in skill<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> IMO the opposite extreme is far worse. If I had to err in one direction or another, I'd prefer games where I actually get a chance to play in a variety of situations and encounters before one team gets stomped 15% of the way through the tech-tree.
But I also think that the different genre matters. In a top-down strategy game or a click-to-hack-and-slash game, a war of attrition can be pretty boring. In a first-person shooter, <b>you</b> are the one in a kill-or-be-killed situation, and you've got a full suite of movement and firing abilities left to you. Even if it seems like both teams are at an impasse, you're still involved doing much more than you would in a pure RTS or click-to-slash RPG.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->your suggestion pushes the game far more into stationary warfare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.
<!--quoteo(post=1737986:date=Nov 17 2009, 07:11 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Nov 17 2009, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope the pace of the combat slows down but the game length remains the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1737698:date=Nov 15 2009, 05:20 AM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 15 2009, 05:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737698"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not at first, but if forum and server activity are of any indication "Yes, it did fail." The only reason why people are now coming back is the teaser.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure how to respond except to repeat myself with different words. This is the opposite of my experience and most of the experiences of the people that actually played NS, as I saw player counts growing, more frequently filled servers and a more active forum well past the release of 3.0. I can only conclude that the reason the rest of your statements are wrong is because they proceed from this flawed assumption. Besides maybe DoTA NS is probably the most played 3rd party mod in the history of gaming, and receives almost unanimous acclaim whenever it's mentioned in the wider gaming scene. Adding in your statements about fades and jetpacks and tigers oh my, a reasonable person can only conclude that you think it's "fail" simply because you're bad at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what you are saying now is exactly what is wrong with people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really? Being frank about what seems obvious about your underlying motivations for calling NS "fail" is what's wrong with people? Not war or hunger or whatever. I suppose it justifies calling me names though, right? Because clearly name-calling elevates the conversation...
<!--quoteo(post=1738042:date=Nov 17 2009, 07:49 PM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 17 2009, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738042"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Besides maybe DoTA NS is probably the most played 3rd party mod in the history of gaming<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that's stretching it a bit.
<!--quoteo(post=1737948:date=Nov 17 2009, 08:47 AM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 17 2009, 08:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But then I also think that NS1 went from glory to the crapper faster than it should had all the while these boards were full of good ideas (and several bad ones) that could had made the game a goldmine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I'm inclined to agree. I don't think I'd have used the term 'fail', but 3.0 was inarguably the weakest, worst version of NS. Even with 2.0, people were pining for the days of 1.04 in all its unbalanced glory; with 3.0, between Combat butchering Classic populations and the game balance and direction turning in unquestionably psychotic directions, <b>within a year</b> most of our regs had quit playing and the server soon shut down because we didn't give a damn about the game anymore. It was the least fun version in existence, and the sanity behind the ideas that looked bad on paper and were even worse in implementation helped nothing.
<!--quoteo(post=1738042:date=Nov 17 2009, 09:49 PM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 17 2009, 09:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738042"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Besides maybe DoTA NS is probably the most played 3rd party mod in the history of gaming<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would say maybe for non-commercial mods (although that's kinda changing, DOTA is becoming HON, and NS2 is coming out)
<!--quoteo(post=1737991:date=Nov 17 2009, 08:34 PM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 17 2009, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO the opposite extreme is far worse. If I had to err in one direction or another, I'd prefer games where I actually get a chance to play in a variety of situations and encounters before one team gets stomped 15% of the way through the tech-tree.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like playing variety of situations too, even if I get totally outskilled. However, public servers tend to empty when a stacked team fails to finish the game within 5 minutes. In addition you're still getting just stomped on your defensive perimeter, which doesn't provide much of variety after a few games. The RTS slippery slope also causes that you get less and less options to cause damage to the opponent as they control the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I also think that the different genre matters. In a top-down strategy game or a click-to-hack-and-slash game, a war of attrition can be pretty boring. In a first-person shooter, <b>you</b> are the one in a kill-or-be-killed situation, and you've got a full suite of movement and firing abilities left to you. Even if it seems like both teams are at an impasse, you're still involved doing much more than you would in a pure RTS or click-to-slash RPG.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you ignore that you can't push out of your base and affect the game in any real way, it's some fun. However, the alien melee based system doesn't have that many rewarding moments unless you get to roam and pick your attacks. Just charging desperately to the enemy's offensive push without proper meatshields and such isn't usually fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess it can be balanced to some extend, but eventually it's going to be a stationary warfare on your core buildings then. That's assuming the teams are imbalanced of course, otherwise it doesn't affect the game that much on general level. I don't think it serves much purpose for the gameplay either though, as it just prolongs the most useless period of time when the winner is already obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=1738067:date=Nov 17 2009, 09:58 PM:name=monopolowa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (monopolowa @ Nov 17 2009, 09:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say maybe for non-commercial mods (although that's kinda changing, DOTA is becoming HON, and NS2 is coming out)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah that's really what I meant. Anyway it was a bit of hyperbole but the point is that NS was successful.
I liked combat, i think it was a good idea... It meant that when i got tired of playing NS classic, instead of shutting down NS and going and playing CS or some other more mindless shooter instead, i would still play NS...just the more mindless game mode :) I think it probably had less effect of "butchering" the classic player population, simply because if they weren't playing combat they would have been playing something else that still wasn't NS (DoD, CS, etc.)
Comments
Nothing looks or plays worse than something like the old FireArms mod, where two players rush at each other circlestrafing, spraying bullets at each other while dancing in a tight circle until one of them dies.
With no info on NS2, but knowing what we do of NS1, you can probably expect the game to be mobile and fast paced, but not insanely so.
If I had to give one reason why NS1 failed, I couldn't, because it didn't fail. There were no changes to the speed of combat between any of the versions of NS. If anything, v1 had the fastest paced combat what with infinite jetpacks and 3x res gorges. All of the changes in subsequent versions made the combat more accessible to more people which is why the competitive scene endured. The introduction of Combat mode didn't have any impact on commanding at all, and commanding has never been about a set of predefined steps. There's so many inaccuracies in your post, I'm thinking the only thing that changed between v1 and later for you is that you realized how bad you were at the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->F*ck fraggers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're aware NS is a first person shooter, right?
With slow gameplay NS would require a little different approach to be interesting as the positioning and such wouldn't be as dynamic and challenging. I could definitely live with some more strategy and tactics, but those can also be achieved without slowing the game down.
Not at first, but if forum and server activity are of any indication "Yes, it did fail." The only reason why people are now coming back is the teaser.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything, v1 had the fastest paced combat what with infinite jetpacks and 3x res gorges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jetpack rushes became the norm only at the later stages, a few months before v2 was published, and you're right about it being wrong. Another was the two hive lockdown, but I didn't claim v1 was perfect. It had glaring flaws, but at least the games weren't over in five minutes once things got rolling. The problem is that in v3 every game was a short one and I remember several occasions when players made jokes about "When was the last game that lasted an hour? :p"
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All of the changes in subsequent versions made the combat more accessible to more people which is why the competitive scene endured.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To a degree, yes, but not <i>all</i> of the changes were positive. I remember sensory chambers cloaking skulks in about two seconds, which was great fun, because you could drop a bite in and re-cloak while running like a nutball. Then they nerfed it to something like 5 seconds, which effectively ruined the fun. I dare to say that most of us don't play to compete, but to have fun. If some want to play a game as an esport, sure, but they aren't the end of all.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The introduction of Combat mode didn't have any impact on commanding at all, and commanding has never been about a set of predefined steps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not directly, but it changed the playerbase. When I started playing NS most of the people were a friendly, cooperative lot and didn't mind long games, but at some point this begun to disappear as NS took a turn towards a regular frag'em'up. I guess they, too, "realized how bad they were" and left. Combat simply epitomizes this, standing against everything that made NS different.
<!--quoteo(post=1737629:date=Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM:name=noncomposmentis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noncomposmentis @ Nov 15 2009, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's so many inaccuracies in your post, I'm thinking the only thing that changed between v1 and later for you is that you realized how bad you were at the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you didn't skim past the previous part, because what you are saying now is exactly what is wrong with people. I'm not pulling stuff out of my 4ss, but telling you how I experienced it. Feel free to disagree, but don't be an 4sshole.
Yeah, great - now you forced me to enter this discussion. <b>No, NS1 did <!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->not<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> fail...</b> When was the HL1 engine released? When was NS1 released? Ever stopped to think that the game never failed, but just slowly died out, like <b>every other old game</b>. Think about warcraft II, command and conquer red alert, DOOM, duke nukem, Commander keen... still play those games? I think (and hope :p) not.. but did those games fail? Hell no!
---
On topic: I hope they do keep the "sense" of speed. Nothing is more exciting than hearing skulks running near and suddenly having one leaping by, your reaction being a jerk to the side it passes, almost accidentally pulling the trigger, pumping it chock-full of shotgun shells whilst littering your pants... don't you agree?
agree :D I can't tell you how many bullets I wasted in NS1 just from nervous twitchy trigger finger.
It's all about how you design the game. Tribes 2 was slower paced than Tribes 1 but had WAY more strategic and tactical involvement. The game simply had a lot more 'stuff' and in order to properly use all this stuff the game was slowed down somewhat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're correct, but some of us aren't convinced that's the direction the game is headed. Instead, it's looking suspiciously like another TF2, with all the problems that entails. The game was made more accessible for new players at the price of being less fun once you actually learned how to play it.
...but I won't panic until the twitter update about attacks randomly doing triple damage.
I think the ideal for NS2 Is to have fast tactics, slow strategy. Seek the happy medium where individual engagements are fast paced and surprise attacks succeed, but the overall game doesn't run so quickly that the ending is decided within the first five minutes.
Aside: I think some form of game-metric-reporting module for the devs (disable-able by server admins) could be extremely useful down the road when it comes to looking for balance issues. You could mine the data to find things like: "How often do the Kharaa win after they achieve 2 hives on map X", etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1737921:date=Nov 16 2009, 07:22 PM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Nov 16 2009, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737921"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead, it's looking suspiciously like another TF2, with all the problems that entails. The game was made more accessible for new players at the price of being less fun once you actually learned how to play it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->We've had these talks over in the Steam forums, so I'll just say I disagree :P
I think the ideal for NS2 Is to have fast tactics, slow strategy. Seek the happy medium where individual engagements are fast paced and surprise attacks succeed, but the overall game doesn't run so quickly that the ending is decided within the first five minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is THE best post on these forums I have read to date.
Good games never die and I think NS could still be alive if the devs had devoted more time to it. But then I also think that NS1 went from glory to the crapper faster than it should had all the while these boards were full of good ideas (and several bad ones) that could had made the game a goldmine. I can describe that only as a "fail."
Terr's post is one such example about a good post. I understand it as "fast encounters, slow games." I.e: no more fades spamming acid rockets for hours while marines turtle, but no more five minute games either.
Name a few.
I think most people agree that a little longer effective round time is good. NS had some pretty terrible gameplay factors, like the nearly forced 2nd hive push in some situations. At least I thought improving the RTS structure was rather self explanatory as soon as they announced a sequel.
The speed of the pure FPS part is more controversial. I'd like to keep things fast and dynamic as much as possible.
Good games never die and I think NS could still be alive if the devs had devoted more time to it. But then I also think that NS1 went from glory to the crapper faster than it should had all the while these boards were full of good ideas (and several bad ones) that could had made the game a goldmine. I can describe that only as a "fail."
Terr's post is one such example about a good post. I understand it as "fast encounters, slow games." I.e: no more fades spamming acid rockets for hours while marines turtle, but no more five minute games either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can only agree partially there. Yes, NS1 could have been more and better than it is today. But no, it's still not a fail.
I can't blame Flayra for moving on though. Lets face the fact that NS1 was a non-profit, donation-based funded modification for an existing game.
Yes, it grew to be much more than just that, but hell - Flay needs money to live as well. From my perspective, development on NS1 stopped because they hadn't the resources to keep working on it.
NS2 however, is a whole new story. It's a funded game, which will bring money to the table when people buy it. That is a solid base to start with.
As for Terr's post, I too have to agree - a perfect summation of the average sentiment.
One way to get the effect would be to have strong weapons, tough buildings, slow building repairs, and relatively fragile players.
Main problem: If you die quickly, the time spent re-spawning and walking from spawn to battlefield becomes more significant.
In retrospect, I don't think I ever felt <i>bored</i> traveling from A to B in NS1 unless I was on Marines with motion-sensing. There was always enough scenery and possible danger from an ambush, or someone <i>to</i> ambush.
Then in the late-game you gain access to weapons/abilities with significant anti-building bonuses...
One way to get the effect would be to have strong weapons, tough buildings, slow building repairs, and relatively fragile players.
Main problem: If you die quickly, the time spent re-spawning and walking from spawn to battlefield becomes more significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The major problem on heavy building bias is that the game last unnecessary amounts of time even if the teams aren't anywhere close to each other in skill (see DotA for example). In addition NS based itself on skirmishes, your suggestion pushes the game far more into stationary warfare.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so am i the only one here who thinks that ns1 isnt really a fast paced game? im referring to classic ns, not combat of course. yes, its fast as in u need to have lightning fast reflexs to be able to hit ur opponent in battle.... but i find the pace of the game rather slow compared to most shooters...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say it's rather mobile compared to most shooters and the skilled lifeforms are somewhat difficult to hit with air curve and all. Various situations come and go quickly. So, in a way it's fast.
IMO the opposite extreme is far worse. If I had to err in one direction or another, I'd prefer games where I actually get a chance to play in a variety of situations and encounters before one team gets stomped 15% of the way through the tech-tree.
But I also think that the different genre matters. In a top-down strategy game or a click-to-hack-and-slash game, a war of attrition can be pretty boring. In a first-person shooter, <b>you</b> are the one in a kill-or-be-killed situation, and you've got a full suite of movement and firing abilities left to you. Even if it seems like both teams are at an impasse, you're still involved doing much more than you would in a pure RTS or click-to-slash RPG.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->your suggestion pushes the game far more into stationary warfare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.
I find it funny you say this with a quake avatar.
I'm not sure how to respond except to repeat myself with different words. This is the opposite of my experience and most of the experiences of the people that actually played NS, as I saw player counts growing, more frequently filled servers and a more active forum well past the release of 3.0. I can only conclude that the reason the rest of your statements are wrong is because they proceed from this flawed assumption. Besides maybe DoTA NS is probably the most played 3rd party mod in the history of gaming, and receives almost unanimous acclaim whenever it's mentioned in the wider gaming scene. Adding in your statements about fades and jetpacks and tigers oh my, a reasonable person can only conclude that you think it's "fail" simply because you're bad at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what you are saying now is exactly what is wrong with people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? Being frank about what seems obvious about your underlying motivations for calling NS "fail" is what's wrong with people? Not war or hunger or whatever. I suppose it justifies calling me names though, right? Because clearly name-calling elevates the conversation...
I think that's stretching it a bit.
Actually I'm inclined to agree. I don't think I'd have used the term 'fail', but 3.0 was inarguably the weakest, worst version of NS. Even with 2.0, people were pining for the days of 1.04 in all its unbalanced glory; with 3.0, between Combat butchering Classic populations and the game balance and direction turning in unquestionably psychotic directions, <b>within a year</b> most of our regs had quit playing and the server soon shut down because we didn't give a damn about the game anymore. It was the least fun version in existence, and the sanity behind the ideas that looked bad on paper and were even worse in implementation helped nothing.
I would say maybe for non-commercial mods (although that's kinda changing, DOTA is becoming HON, and NS2 is coming out)
I like playing variety of situations too, even if I get totally outskilled. However, public servers tend to empty when a stacked team fails to finish the game within 5 minutes. In addition you're still getting just stomped on your defensive perimeter, which doesn't provide much of variety after a few games. The RTS slippery slope also causes that you get less and less options to cause damage to the opponent as they control the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I also think that the different genre matters. In a top-down strategy game or a click-to-hack-and-slash game, a war of attrition can be pretty boring. In a first-person shooter, <b>you</b> are the one in a kill-or-be-killed situation, and you've got a full suite of movement and firing abilities left to you. Even if it seems like both teams are at an impasse, you're still involved doing much more than you would in a pure RTS or click-to-slash RPG.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you ignore that you can't push out of your base and affect the game in any real way, it's some fun. However, the alien melee based system doesn't have that many rewarding moments unless you get to roam and pick your attacks. Just charging desperately to the enemy's offensive push without proper meatshields and such isn't usually fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it can be balanced to some extend, but eventually it's going to be a stationary warfare on your core buildings then. That's assuming the teams are imbalanced of course, otherwise it doesn't affect the game that much on general level. I don't think it serves much purpose for the gameplay either though, as it just prolongs the most useless period of time when the winner is already obvious.
Yeah that's really what I meant. Anyway it was a bit of hyperbole but the point is that NS was successful.
I think it probably had less effect of "butchering" the classic player population, simply because if they weren't playing combat they would have been playing something else that still wasn't NS (DoD, CS, etc.)