schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
<!--quoteo(post=1818941:date=Dec 24 2010, 02:39 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 24 2010, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So let's remove backpedalling altogether then. Just so there's no confusion or unrealistic expectations, you know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> that would be silly.
it needs to be in there so that you can still move around without feeling restricted - like for climbing and jumping up crates, and just getting about easily - don't you hate those rainbow six games that don't let you jump?
I just don't see what the big issue is, it was like this in ns1 and i don't remember anyone having an issue with it
<!--quoteo(post=1818945:date=Dec 24 2010, 07:50 AM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Dec 24 2010, 07:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just don't see what the big issue is, it was like this in ns1 and i don't remember anyone having an issue with it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Biggest issue is you not taking couples pages back to see why its not.
Also, slow backpedal = feels restricted. But, the general sentiment of 'those in the know' is that, if you want to succeed in combat you don't use the backpedal at all. Why not remove it altogether then? In fact, you could put a positive spin on it. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><i>WE ARE FRONTIERSMEN. WE CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD!</i></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 'cause you know, otherwise you just give 'those in the know' an advantage for doing things 'the right way' and penalise 'those who don't know' for doing things 'the wrong way' (because they don't know any better), rather than 'forcing' everyone to do things 'the right way' - which is harsher, sure, but it's more equal. Parents and governments and game developers must be harsh and fair.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1818563:date=Dec 22 2010, 04:03 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 22 2010, 04:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once the intuitive easy to learn hard to impossible to master skill based movement replacement for bunnyhopping for skulks is in, we'll have a lot more intel.
In any case, letting a ranged class move and attack simultaneously when facing a melee opponent enormously and hilariously increases ranged combat efficiency. Anyone who doesn't understand this concept need to look up "kiting". Anyone who knows what kiting is and disagrees with me is a retard. If the ranged attacker has a higher speed than the melee fighter, the ranged attacker wins no matter the health or DPS of either fighter and by default.
This is an obvious balance pitfall Unknown Worlds Entertainment has just decided to brute force into oblivion. They could have tried some finesse technique. Maybe slowly decreasing the backpedal speed over several patches. They could have altered the skulk in some convoluted backwards attempt to fix marines. Instead, they went with the most effective route of squashing this instantly with a little bit of over kill so they never have to think about this again.
Since Unknown Worlds Entertainment is not Activision-Blizzard, they do not have the same unique luxuries/resources (time, money, employees, experience) afforded to the best balance team in existence. They are an indie team developing their own engine and attempting to define a genre. They need to take the easy route because they can't waste anything. They can't do finesse.
Unknown Worlds Entertainment made the decision which took everything into account, the right decision. As Charlie said when the Beta was released, he said they had been obsessed with solving problems perfectly instead of just rolling through with what <b>works</b>. The alpha was long and barely any progress was made. In that same post, Charlie said things would change. Now UWE is making the right decisions considering their limitations, making some real visible progress on the technical, artwork, and gameplay sides of things. In my eyes, UWE is making good on that promise.
Does that mean not everything will be perfect for everyone? Yeah. Does it mean NS2 actually ships? Yeah.
Who cares if marine backpedal isn't perfect if NS2 doesn't ship? If UWE has to sacrifice a little bit from everything to make sure everything gets at least something. This is one of those imperfections.
In my opinion, you're all whining babies and need to train before you come back to the forums whining about how marine back pedal is nerfed. NS2 depends highly on skill. Not only should you get over it, you need to embrace it because you're going to see a lot more of skill dependency coming up. Revolutionary idea for an FPS in these times, I know, but I think if you guys understand NS2 is about limitless player growth instead of limitless avatar growth, you'll be a lot happier. There's no way to be perfect, but there's always more growth. Not many contemporary games take the risk to offer such opportunities. NS2 is a rare gem in that regard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My issue isn't that I care about harsh changes or the imperfect but fast release schedule, its that I don't see the reason for the nerf. Most of my marine vs skulk encounters end with the skulks winning. I could see that changing with larger maps (i.e. more open space than rockdown), but why not wait until those maps are playable before nerfing marine backpeddling?
<!--quoteo(post=1818973:date=Dec 24 2010, 08:01 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 24 2010, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818973"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My issue isn't that I care about harsh changes or the imperfect but fast release schedule, its that I don't see the reason for the nerf. Most of my marine vs skulk encounters end with the skulks winning. I could see that changing with larger maps (i.e. more open space than rockdown), but why not wait until those maps are playable before nerfing marine backpeddling?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... the hell? Since when did we start to use words like "nerf" in fps games? This isn't a MMORPG. You have certain obstacles and you can use your own prowess to overcome those and win. You're not restricted by the DPS of your avatar or it's armour. You're restricted by your own skill. Deal with it.
In the case of a competition both teams would end up playing khaara and TSA so balance in itself is really only a design issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1819033:date=Dec 24 2010, 08:29 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 08:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the case of a competition both teams would end up playing khaara and TSA so balance in itself is really only a design issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go out on a limb and say balance is important. I would even go as far to say that balance is paramount. I know, I'm risking my e-cred with such bold and controversial statements.
Of course it's important. But it's a design issue. This isn't Starcraft where you play and compete with your one race in three different match ups. It's a fps game where you in competition would switch between the sides and play both. That's why a marine and a skulk dont have to be equal in strength to each other and "balance" is only important in-so-far as to make the game fun to play and to create a roughly even playing field between the two *teams*. " It's also not an MMORPG where we need to balance the egos of players of different classes. We change things up to make for a more interesting and fun game.
<!--quoteo(post=1819039:date=Dec 24 2010, 08:45 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 08:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"balance" is only important in-so-far as to make the game fun to play and to create a roughly even playing field between the two *teams*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So chance of winning is must be somewhat independent of team choice, and the game must also be fun for the two teams.
Okay, I agree. I mean, I'm okay with 45-55 chances. 50-50 is of course the goal because not everyone are "competitive" serious gamers who switch teams every round on honor code in pre-arranged matches.
Actually, I'm going to go out on another limb and say less than 10% of all people playing NS2 <b>and</b> less than 10% of all matches played in NS2 will be like the "competitive" matches you describe. Thus, we need to think about the 90% of players and matches as well as those competitive players and matches.
I almost want to say competitive players and matches are in such a obscenely small minority we don't even need to think about them if the game is broken for the masses (I'm an esports fan, a skill elitist in favor of competitive/professional players by any measure). But that's not fair. The best solution would be pleasing everyone. Which would be accomplished if the game was 50-50 even chances of winning (or 45-55 at the very most extreme acceptable case).
<!--quoteo(post=1819041:date=Dec 24 2010, 09:04 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 09:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819041"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure let's twist words. Or not. Have a cookie it's christmas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, I could rip your post to shreds just on its poor diction, but instead I only took the part which made sense, agreed with it, and then made standalone logical argument for 50-50 balance between the two teams (which disagreed with you, I think).
Don't tell me I'm twisting words because I could if I wanted. I'm not being mean, and I'm not going into laborious detail. I'm making simple, well-thought out statements in response to your post because this is a forum and that's what we do if we can.
Or you could just insult me and then run away because you have no answer. See? I got angry. Out comes the counter insults.
<!--quoteo(post=1819043:date=Dec 24 2010, 03:21 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 24 2010, 03:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dude, I could rip your post to shreds just on its poor diction, but instead I only took the part which made sense, agreed with it, and then made standalone logical argument for 50-50 balance between the two teams (which disagreed with you, I think).
Don't tell me I'm twisting words because I could if I wanted. I'm not being mean, and I'm not going into laborious detail. I'm making simple, well-thought out statements in response to your post because this is a forum and that's what we do if we can.
Or you could just insult me and then run away because you have no answer. See? I got angry. Out comes the counter insults.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're REALLY saying is you excluded the main part of my post and responded to a less relevant side point. Now English might not be my native language and I might miss things now and then, but try not to argue like a teenager.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1819033:date=Dec 24 2010, 06:29 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 06:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... the hell? Since when did we start to use words like "nerf" in fps games? This isn't a MMORPG. You have certain obstacles and you can use your own prowess to overcome those and win. You're not restricted by the DPS of your avatar or it's armour. You're restricted by your own skill. Deal with it.
In the case of a competition both teams would end up playing khaara and TSA so balance in itself is really only a design issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Nerf" and "buff" aren't limited to MMORPGs. I've seen them used on all sorts of games (fps, rts, platformers, etc). They are useful and common words to describe balance changes.
What are you talking about being limited just by your skill? There are all sorts of limits in every game (including NS2). The slower backwards speed is a limit on speed. The assault rifle and skulk attack have limits on damage. The limits are used for balance and complexity. I'm not complaining about needing skill in NS2, but a balance change that seems completely backwards to me. Maybe UWE has a clever reason for it that I'm not seeing? The only reason I see for the change is because it was done in NS1.
Also, I'm of the opinion that if you want to make a successful game, you need to balance it for both casual and competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1819050:date=Dec 24 2010, 04:07 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 24 2010, 04:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819050"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not complaining about needing skill in NS2, but a balance change that seems completely backwards to me. Maybe UWE has a clever reason for it that I'm not seeing? The only reason I see for the change is because it was done in NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not a balancing feature. The game isn't in a state where you'd think things through balance. Right now UWE are adding features that direct NS2 towards their vision of NS2.
At this point you have to see the backward speed change as something similar as addition of the onos and exoskeleton to the game and not as a slight tweak in some nearly finished Blizzard beta.
Keep in mind, you have no in any way shape or form actually responded to any of my arguments. You have only said I was twisting words or not responding to your entire post. This means you are wrong and have no counter argument.
Alright, I'll play your game and you still won't have an answer because your entire post is more retarded than the bit I quoted to spare you the embarrassment.
<!--quoteo(post=1819047:date=Dec 24 2010, 09:48 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 09:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you're REALLY saying is you excluded the main part of my post and responded to a less relevant side point. Now English might not be my native language and I might miss things now and then, but try not to argue like a teenager.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I didn't. I quoted and responded to the parts which weren't retarded because calling you out on everything would be in bad taste. But since you're asking me to respond to each and every part of your post now, I will.
What the hell does this even mean? Everything is related to a developing game a "design issue". This sentence doesn't actually mean anything. Why was this sentence typed? I know you're trying to justify something, but this sentence is meaningless and doesn't specify anything or say something special. Thus, it supports nothing. Try again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This isn't Starcraft where you play and compete with your one race in three different match ups. It's a fps game where you in competition would switch between the sides and play both.
That's why a marine and a skulk dont have to be equal in strength to each other and "balance" is only important in-so-far as to make the game fun to play and to create a roughly even playing field between the two *teams*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is only true because UWE can't balance Marine vs. Marine or Alien vs. Alien. I'm twisting words. In any case, why in the ###### do we only care about serious "competitive" gamers who play with honor codes in pre-arranged matches. Calling them competitive is hilarious since, by definition, every online multiplayer match is competitive, thus every NS2 gamer by definition is competitive. I'm twisting words. In any case, those more serious gamers who actually switch off every round to be "fair" and their games are in the obscenely small minority of less than 10% of all players and all matches. Everyone must be considered, and if we must choose, we choose the overwhelming majority because that's where the money comes from.
But we don't have to choose between the two if the game was balanced 50-50. And letting the game get seriously out of balance (30-70) would harm the overwhelming majority of players who have the perfectly justified desire to have a balanced game every single time they play. And that doesn't even help the serious honorable gamers you describe because apparently they don't need a balanced game to play! Thus, making a seriously imbalanced NS2 ONLY hurts the overwhelming majority (>90%).
Side note: NS1 serious gamers are forced to pick both teams because AvA and MvM matches were nonexistent back then. NS2 serious gamers will probably be forced to play both teams because UWE's lack of resources to make AvA and MvM matches good to play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's also not an MMORPG where we need to balance the egos of players of different classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Totally agree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We change things up to make for a more interesting and fun game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Imbalance does not make a fun or interesting game since this is a competitive online multiplayer game.
Also, I am a teenager, so by definition I always argue like a teenager. But that's twisting words.
As far as I am concerned, the backpedaling “nerf†was a tough an painful change, but one I welcomed. It gives challenge and improves the asymmetry.
At first I mas dying constantly, then I learned to change my gameplay. Now I can fight properly against skulk (actually I find that strafing is much better against them than running backward) or fade (sprint is very useful against them, if they come too close)
However, I find many arguments interesting so I tried to collect them to give a wide view of the subject. Some arguments may seem identical for you, and I may have forgotten some others.
Backward speed reduction to 40%:
YES - NS is not a ‘quick shooter’ - marines shouldn't have too much mobility, it is the aliens’ asset - it improves the asymmetry - the main asset of the marines is range - it forces the marines to play in groups, and improves team-play - it was the case, and accepted, in NS1 - backpedaling shouldn't be the all-in-one solution in fights - it is still possible to sprint and/or make 180/360 jumps - it stands to reason to have to turn one’s back to an alien in order to run away
NO - better a small alien speed or damage boost to an hindering marine limitation - it is an annoyance factor for players - it further slows the gameplay - many combats are close range due to aliens abilities, strategies - it may discourage new players to play the game (learning curve debate is back) - NS2 is not NS1, and aims at a wider range of players
Does something need to be done ? 1) Nothing, it is good as it is or 2) Go back to 100% or 3) 40% is way too slow => increase to 50/60/70%...
Possibly : 4) Don’t have the same limitation when backpedalling and strafing at the same time example : <!--quoteo(post=1818379:date=Dec 22 2010, 03:35 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 22 2010, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://i52.tinypic.com/2luqmiv.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 5) Make the backward speed change given many factors (weapons used, firing or not, damage taken,...)
After reading this thread, it seems to me that for most people, the problem isn’t about the reduction by itself, but about it’s value (40%) on which the developers can easily play, according to *their* criteria. But it doesn’t prevent us to give ideas of improvement.
As far as I am concerned, though, I find the current value perfectly playable.
<!--quoteo(post=1819069:date=Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819069"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Keep in mind, you have no in any way shape or form actually responded to any of my arguments. You have only said I was twisting words or not responding to your entire post. <b>This means you are wrong and have no counter argument.(edit: boldness not by author)</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No it means I don't feel like having a proper discussion with someone who doesn't care to think before they respond.
As for your second paragraph, if you have trouble understanding what I mean by something then ask. Figuring out a common language concerning a subject is an important and ever present task. I considered it basic but I see you might not.
Now if you can't be bothered and want to use the post as a basis for further, unrelated, discussion then feel free to do so but don't post it as a response to me because in that case I can't be bothered either.
As for your last sentence: <!--quoteo(post=1819069:date=Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819069"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I am a teenager, so by definition I always argue like a teenager. But that's twisting words.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll let that stand for itself.
[Edit] Damnit. Did I waste my 1337th post on this? sadface.
<!--quoteo(post=1819126:date=Dec 24 2010, 02:51 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819126"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No it means I don't feel like having a proper discussion with someone who doesn't care to think before they respond.
As for your second paragraph, if you have trouble understanding what I mean by something then ask. Figuring out a common language concerning a subject is an important and ever present task. I considered it basic but I see you might not.
Now if you can't be bothered and want to use the post as a basis for further, unrelated, discussion then feel free to do so but don't post it as a response to me because in that case I can't be bothered either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently balance isn't necessary for competitive players, therefore NS2 shouldn't have any balance at all. You heard it from Tjosan first, folks. Perhaps Unknown Worlds Entertainment should use this in their advertising: "Hardcore imbalance! Asymmetric races and asymmetric winning chances! Just another terrible strategy game! Buy now!"
Go ahead, find a counter argument. Oh, that's right, your idea was so retarded there is no possible way to defend it. Why did I even let you try? Oh, that's right, because I was playing nicely. And then you brought out the insults and stupidity.
Perhaps I should stop asking rhetorical questions and just talk bluntly. You are retarded. Your english is perfectly fine and I wouldn't know it was your second language unless you told me. You just don't actually say many correct things.
Just stop trying. Ad hominem attacks, dodging the discussion, running away multiple times.... none of these constitute a logical argument. You cannot defend your terrible idea, so just stop trying.
Or, hell, go ahead and try. If you're right, I'd like to know so I can switch over to your side.
Guys, i cant understand why anyone can support this backwards speed.
You
a) dont play marines 80% of the time anyways b) you dont care about movement as marine, or you are unable to do it properly - so this change doesnt affect you. c) You think this gives more depth for marines, but you are not able to think it trough. - You say "marines aren't meant to be lone rambo's, move in a group and take turns at being at the front of the line, when you take damage swap out for someone with more health and let the commander medpack you." while thinking aliens are only rambos and not able to play in a group dont have lots of healing structures, infestation, escape machanics and a healer alien... d) You where never good at fps games, commander is your role - you dont care either.
Ppl forget this is still an FPS game, and fps games cant be balanced like rts games -> if you restrict the players down to force a more rts style of movement it kills the fun of fps gamers. I dont want a Quake, but this is madness!
Backspeed 80% is the way to go. Not more not less.
Marines need to move backwards faster. Its so slow its annoying. I can understand making it a little bittle slower. But this is just waaaaaaaaaaaay to slow. OMG...cant stand it.
I'm not attached to super slow backwards speed, but there needs to be something that makes it difficult for marines to escape from close range while shooting their attacker. Penalizing the player for getting themselves into a bad situation is very important for giving the game a tactical feel. NS isn't Counter-Strike but it's not Quake either, there needs to be a good balance between arcade action and squad-based tactics.
The backwards strafing speed is too slow though IMO, it feels too jarring compared to normal strafing. Maybe it should be 60% strafing and 40% straight backwards?
moving backwards more slowly makes sense superficially, but when you think about it its actually an arbitrary nerf. It's perfectly possible, IRL, to<b> run forwards while looking back over your shoulder and even aiming/firing</b>. That's what moving backwards in a FPS game represents, since most games don't allow independent head/body movement for the sake of simplicty.
In other words, 's' shouldn't be thought of as walking/running backwards, it should be thought of as running forwards while aiming backwards. So perhaps, if backwards movement needs to be nerfed, it would make more sense to nerf weapon spread to simulate the fact that it would be slightly harder to aim a rifle backwards over one's shoulder.
Put yourself in the Skulks position ... he spots you and dashes to engage , as he is trying to close the distance the Marine is backpedaling as fast as he runs forward...this nearly doubles the range required for the Skulk to get to his target, all the time the Marine is firing at the Skulk with no penalty.
Skulks cant rely only on ambush and Marine stupidity for kills you know, there are times they have to just engage and hope or risk losing a vital position... like say west in rockdown ?
Backpedaling should be viewed as a means to retreat while firing, not a rapid escape from the hotzone ... if you want to flee , turn about and leggit, or try strafing about ... works for me most of the time, except with Fades ( but ironically I find rushing a Fade messes up thier attacks a lot ).
<!--quoteo(post=1819186:date=Dec 24 2010, 07:32 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Dec 24 2010, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819186"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->moving backwards more slowly makes sense superficially, but when you think about it its actually an arbitrary nerf. It's perfectly possible, IRL, to<b> run forwards while looking back over your shoulder and even aiming/firing</b>. That's what moving backwards in a FPS game represents, since most games don't allow independent head/body movement for the sake of simplicty.
In other words, 's' shouldn't be thought of as walking/running backwards, it should be thought of as running forwards while aiming backwards. So perhaps, if backwards movement needs to be nerfed, it would make more sense to nerf weapon spread to simulate the fact that it would be slightly harder to aim a rifle backwards over one's shoulder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe in the movies but in real life that's absolutely impossible, at best you could spray bullets wildly. Even moving backwards while shooting accurately is very difficult and probably dangerous.
<!--quoteo(post=1819194:date=Dec 25 2010, 12:59 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Dec 25 2010, 12:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819194"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe in the movies but in real life that's absolutely impossible, at best you could spray bullets wildly. Even moving backwards while shooting accurately is very difficult and probably dangerous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect, but either way I've explained the logic behind it. Due to the flexibility of the human spine, it IS possible to aim backwards and run forwards. Shooting while running is highly inaccurate, and quite possibly less accurate if you are aiming over the shoulder. Therefore like I said originally, it makes more sense to nerf aim while moving backwards than it does to nerf movement speed.
<!--quoteo(post=1819198:date=Dec 24 2010, 08:26 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Dec 24 2010, 08:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819198"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incorrect, but either way I've explained the logic behind it. Due to the flexibility of the human spine, it IS possible to aim backwards and run forwards. Shooting while running is highly inaccurate, and quite possibly less accurate if you are aiming over the shoulder. Therefore like I said originally, it makes more sense to nerf aim while moving backwards than it does to nerf movement speed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Anybody can point a gun wherever they want, but actually shooting it is another matter entirely. Besides, nerfed accuracy is even worse than moving slow IMO, then people wouldn't want to shoot while moving backwards at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1819199:date=Dec 25 2010, 01:33 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Dec 25 2010, 01:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819199"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anybody can point a gun wherever they want, but actually shooting it is another matter entirely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not really, you just pull the little metal lever with your finger and it shoots.
Reduced back peddling has been implemented because it worked in NS1. That doesn't mean it automatically works in NS2; it's being tested like everything else. It certainly gets me killed a lot, but I don't really mind it. By the time I notice it, I get killed.
Comments
that would be silly.
it needs to be in there so that you can still move around without feeling restricted - like for climbing and jumping up crates, and just getting about easily - don't you hate those rainbow six games that don't let you jump?
I just don't see what the big issue is, it was like this in ns1 and i don't remember anyone having an issue with it
Biggest issue is you not taking couples pages back to see why its not.
Also, jump =/= backpedal.
Also, slow backpedal = feels restricted. But, the general sentiment of 'those in the know' is that, if you want to succeed in combat you don't use the backpedal at all. Why not remove it altogether then?
In fact, you could put a positive spin on it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><i>WE ARE FRONTIERSMEN. WE CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD!</i></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
'cause you know, otherwise you just give 'those in the know' an advantage for doing things 'the right way' and penalise 'those who don't know' for doing things 'the wrong way' (because they don't know any better), rather than 'forcing' everyone to do things 'the right way' - which is harsher, sure, but it's more equal. Parents and governments and game developers must be harsh and fair.
In any case, letting a ranged class move and attack simultaneously when facing a melee opponent enormously and hilariously increases ranged combat efficiency. Anyone who doesn't understand this concept need to look up "kiting". Anyone who knows what kiting is and disagrees with me is a retard. If the ranged attacker has a higher speed than the melee fighter, the ranged attacker wins no matter the health or DPS of either fighter and by default.
This is an obvious balance pitfall Unknown Worlds Entertainment has just decided to brute force into oblivion. They could have tried some finesse technique. Maybe slowly decreasing the backpedal speed over several patches. They could have altered the skulk in some convoluted backwards attempt to fix marines. Instead, they went with the most effective route of squashing this instantly with a little bit of over kill so they never have to think about this again.
Since Unknown Worlds Entertainment is not Activision-Blizzard, they do not have the same unique luxuries/resources (time, money, employees, experience) afforded to the best balance team in existence. They are an indie team developing their own engine and attempting to define a genre. They need to take the easy route because they can't waste anything. They can't do finesse.
Unknown Worlds Entertainment made the decision which took everything into account, the right decision. As Charlie said when the Beta was released, he said they had been obsessed with solving problems perfectly instead of just rolling through with what <b>works</b>. The alpha was long and barely any progress was made. In that same post, Charlie said things would change. Now UWE is making the right decisions considering their limitations, making some real visible progress on the technical, artwork, and gameplay sides of things. In my eyes, UWE is making good on that promise.
Does that mean not everything will be perfect for everyone? Yeah. Does it mean NS2 actually ships? Yeah.
Who cares if marine backpedal isn't perfect if NS2 doesn't ship? If UWE has to sacrifice a little bit from everything to make sure everything gets at least something. This is one of those imperfections.
In my opinion, you're all whining babies and need to train before you come back to the forums whining about how marine back pedal is nerfed. NS2 depends highly on skill. Not only should you get over it, you need to embrace it because you're going to see a lot more of skill dependency coming up. Revolutionary idea for an FPS in these times, I know, but I think if you guys understand NS2 is about limitless player growth instead of limitless avatar growth, you'll be a lot happier. There's no way to be perfect, but there's always more growth. Not many contemporary games take the risk to offer such opportunities. NS2 is a rare gem in that regard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My issue isn't that I care about harsh changes or the imperfect but fast release schedule, its that I don't see the reason for the nerf. Most of my marine vs skulk encounters end with the skulks winning. I could see that changing with larger maps (i.e. more open space than rockdown), but why not wait until those maps are playable before nerfing marine backpeddling?
... the hell? Since when did we start to use words like "nerf" in fps games? This isn't a MMORPG. You have certain obstacles and you can use your own prowess to overcome those and win. You're not restricted by the DPS of your avatar or it's armour. You're restricted by your own skill. Deal with it.
In the case of a competition both teams would end up playing khaara and TSA so balance in itself is really only a design issue.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say balance is important. I would even go as far to say that balance is paramount. I know, I'm risking my e-cred with such bold and controversial statements.
"
It's also not an MMORPG where we need to balance the egos of players of different classes. We change things up to make for a more interesting and fun game.
So chance of winning is must be somewhat independent of team choice, and the game must also be fun for the two teams.
Okay, I agree. I mean, I'm okay with 45-55 chances. 50-50 is of course the goal because not everyone are "competitive" serious gamers who switch teams every round on honor code in pre-arranged matches.
Actually, I'm going to go out on another limb and say less than 10% of all people playing NS2 <b>and</b> less than 10% of all matches played in NS2 will be like the "competitive" matches you describe. Thus, we need to think about the 90% of players and matches as well as those competitive players and matches.
I almost want to say competitive players and matches are in such a obscenely small minority we don't even need to think about them if the game is broken for the masses (I'm an esports fan, a skill elitist in favor of competitive/professional players by any measure). But that's not fair. The best solution would be pleasing everyone. Which would be accomplished if the game was 50-50 even chances of winning (or 45-55 at the very most extreme acceptable case).
Dude, I could rip your post to shreds just on its poor diction, but instead I only took the part which made sense, agreed with it, and then made standalone logical argument for 50-50 balance between the two teams (which disagreed with you, I think).
Don't tell me I'm twisting words because I could if I wanted. I'm not being mean, and I'm not going into laborious detail. I'm making simple, well-thought out statements in response to your post because this is a forum and that's what we do if we can.
Or you could just insult me and then run away because you have no answer. See? I got angry. Out comes the counter insults.
Don't tell me I'm twisting words because I could if I wanted. I'm not being mean, and I'm not going into laborious detail. I'm making simple, well-thought out statements in response to your post because this is a forum and that's what we do if we can.
Or you could just insult me and then run away because you have no answer. See? I got angry. Out comes the counter insults.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're REALLY saying is you excluded the main part of my post and responded to a less relevant side point. Now English might not be my native language and I might miss things now and then, but try not to argue like a teenager.
In the case of a competition both teams would end up playing khaara and TSA so balance in itself is really only a design issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Nerf" and "buff" aren't limited to MMORPGs. I've seen them used on all sorts of games (fps, rts, platformers, etc). They are useful and common words to describe balance changes.
What are you talking about being limited just by your skill? There are all sorts of limits in every game (including NS2). The slower backwards speed is a limit on speed. The assault rifle and skulk attack have limits on damage. The limits are used for balance and complexity. I'm not complaining about needing skill in NS2, but a balance change that seems completely backwards to me. Maybe UWE has a clever reason for it that I'm not seeing? The only reason I see for the change is because it was done in NS1.
Also, I'm of the opinion that if you want to make a successful game, you need to balance it for both casual and competitive play.
It's not a balancing feature. The game isn't in a state where you'd think things through balance. Right now UWE are adding features that direct NS2 towards their vision of NS2.
At this point you have to see the backward speed change as something similar as addition of the onos and exoskeleton to the game and not as a slight tweak in some nearly finished Blizzard beta.
Alright, I'll play your game and you still won't have an answer because your entire post is more retarded than the bit I quoted to spare you the embarrassment.
<!--quoteo(post=1819047:date=Dec 24 2010, 09:48 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 09:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you're REALLY saying is you excluded the main part of my post and responded to a less relevant side point. Now English might not be my native language and I might miss things now and then, but try not to argue like a teenager.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I didn't. I quoted and responded to the parts which weren't retarded because calling you out on everything would be in bad taste. But since you're asking me to respond to each and every part of your post now, I will.
<!--quoteo(post=1819039:date=Dec 24 2010, 08:45 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Dec 24 2010, 08:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course it's important. <b>But it's a design issue.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell does this even mean? Everything is related to a developing game a "design issue". This sentence doesn't actually mean anything. Why was this sentence typed? I know you're trying to justify something, but this sentence is meaningless and doesn't specify anything or say something special. Thus, it supports nothing. Try again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This isn't Starcraft where you play and compete with your one race in three different match ups. It's a fps game where you in competition would switch between the sides and play both.
That's why a marine and a skulk dont have to be equal in strength to each other and "balance" is only important in-so-far as to make the game fun to play and to create a roughly even playing field between the two *teams*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is only true because UWE can't balance Marine vs. Marine or Alien vs. Alien. I'm twisting words. In any case, why in the ###### do we only care about serious "competitive" gamers who play with honor codes in pre-arranged matches. Calling them competitive is hilarious since, by definition, every online multiplayer match is competitive, thus every NS2 gamer by definition is competitive. I'm twisting words. In any case, those more serious gamers who actually switch off every round to be "fair" and their games are in the obscenely small minority of less than 10% of all players and all matches. Everyone must be considered, and if we must choose, we choose the overwhelming majority because that's where the money comes from.
But we don't have to choose between the two if the game was balanced 50-50. And letting the game get seriously out of balance (30-70) would harm the overwhelming majority of players who have the perfectly justified desire to have a balanced game every single time they play. And that doesn't even help the serious honorable gamers you describe because apparently they don't need a balanced game to play! Thus, making a seriously imbalanced NS2 ONLY hurts the overwhelming majority (>90%).
Side note: NS1 serious gamers are forced to pick both teams because AvA and MvM matches were nonexistent back then. NS2 serious gamers will probably be forced to play both teams because UWE's lack of resources to make AvA and MvM matches good to play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's also not an MMORPG where we need to balance the egos of players of different classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally agree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We change things up to make for a more interesting and fun game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imbalance does not make a fun or interesting game since this is a competitive online multiplayer game.
Also, I am a teenager, so by definition I always argue like a teenager. But that's twisting words.
At first I mas dying constantly, then I learned to change my gameplay.
Now I can fight properly against skulk (actually I find that strafing is much better against them than running backward) or fade (sprint is very useful against them, if they come too close)
However, I find many arguments interesting so I tried to collect them to give a wide view of the subject. Some arguments may seem identical for you, and I may have forgotten some others.
Backward speed reduction to 40%:
YES
- NS is not a ‘quick shooter’
- marines shouldn't have too much mobility, it is the aliens’ asset
- it improves the asymmetry
- the main asset of the marines is range
- it forces the marines to play in groups, and improves team-play
- it was the case, and accepted, in NS1
- backpedaling shouldn't be the all-in-one solution in fights
- it is still possible to sprint and/or make 180/360 jumps
- it stands to reason to have to turn one’s back to an alien in order to run away
NO
- better a small alien speed or damage boost to an hindering marine limitation
- it is an annoyance factor for players
- it further slows the gameplay
- many combats are close range due to aliens abilities, strategies
- it may discourage new players to play the game (learning curve debate is back)
- NS2 is not NS1, and aims at a wider range of players
Does something need to be done ?
1) Nothing, it is good as it is
or 2) Go back to 100%
or 3) 40% is way too slow => increase to 50/60/70%...
Possibly :
4) Don’t have the same limitation when backpedalling and strafing at the same time
example :
<!--quoteo(post=1818379:date=Dec 22 2010, 03:35 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 22 2010, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1818379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://i52.tinypic.com/2luqmiv.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
5) Make the backward speed change given many factors (weapons used, firing or not, damage taken,...)
After reading this thread, it seems to me that for most people, the problem isn’t about the reduction by itself, but about it’s value (40%) on which the developers can easily play, according to *their* criteria. But it doesn’t prevent us to give ideas of improvement.
As far as I am concerned, though, I find the current value perfectly playable.
No it means I don't feel like having a proper discussion with someone who doesn't care to think before they respond.
As for your second paragraph, if you have trouble understanding what I mean by something then ask. Figuring out a common language concerning a subject is an important and ever present task. I considered it basic but I see you might not.
Now if you can't be bothered and want to use the post as a basis for further, unrelated, discussion then feel free to do so but don't post it as a response to me because in that case I can't be bothered either.
As for your last sentence:
<!--quoteo(post=1819069:date=Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Dec 24 2010, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1819069"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I am a teenager, so by definition I always argue like a teenager. But that's twisting words.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll let that stand for itself.
[Edit] Damnit. Did I waste my 1337th post on this? sadface.
As for your second paragraph, if you have trouble understanding what I mean by something then ask. Figuring out a common language concerning a subject is an important and ever present task. I considered it basic but I see you might not.
Now if you can't be bothered and want to use the post as a basis for further, unrelated, discussion then feel free to do so but don't post it as a response to me because in that case I can't be bothered either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently balance isn't necessary for competitive players, therefore NS2 shouldn't have any balance at all. You heard it from Tjosan first, folks. Perhaps Unknown Worlds Entertainment should use this in their advertising: "Hardcore imbalance! Asymmetric races and asymmetric winning chances! Just another terrible strategy game! Buy now!"
Go ahead, find a counter argument. Oh, that's right, your idea was so retarded there is no possible way to defend it. Why did I even let you try? Oh, that's right, because I was playing nicely. And then you brought out the insults and stupidity.
Perhaps I should stop asking rhetorical questions and just talk bluntly. You are retarded. Your english is perfectly fine and I wouldn't know it was your second language unless you told me. You just don't actually say many correct things.
Just stop trying. Ad hominem attacks, dodging the discussion, running away multiple times.... none of these constitute a logical argument. You cannot defend your terrible idea, so just stop trying.
Or, hell, go ahead and try. If you're right, I'd like to know so I can switch over to your side.
You
a) dont play marines 80% of the time anyways
b) you dont care about movement as marine, or you are unable to do it properly - so this change doesnt affect you.
c) You think this gives more depth for marines, but you are not able to think it trough. - You say "marines aren't meant to be lone rambo's, move in a group and take turns at being at the front of the line, when you take damage swap out for someone with more health and let the commander medpack you." while thinking aliens are only rambos and not able to play in a group dont have lots of healing structures, infestation, escape machanics and a healer alien...
d) You where never good at fps games, commander is your role - you dont care either.
Ppl forget this is still an FPS game, and fps games cant be balanced like rts games -> if you restrict the players down to force a more rts style of movement it kills the fun of fps gamers. I dont want a Quake, but this is madness!
Backspeed 80% is the way to go. Not more not less.
I concur. ^^
The backwards strafing speed is too slow though IMO, it feels too jarring compared to normal strafing. Maybe it should be 60% strafing and 40% straight backwards?
In other words, 's' shouldn't be thought of as walking/running backwards, it should be thought of as running forwards while aiming backwards. So perhaps, if backwards movement needs to be nerfed, it would make more sense to nerf weapon spread to simulate the fact that it would be slightly harder to aim a rifle backwards over one's shoulder.
Skulks cant rely only on ambush and Marine stupidity for kills you know, there are times they have to just engage and hope or risk losing a vital position... like say west in rockdown ?
Backpedaling should be viewed as a means to retreat while firing, not a rapid escape from the hotzone ... if you want to flee , turn about and leggit, or try strafing about ... works for me most of the time, except with Fades ( but ironically I find rushing a Fade messes up thier attacks a lot ).
In other words, 's' shouldn't be thought of as walking/running backwards, it should be thought of as running forwards while aiming backwards. So perhaps, if backwards movement needs to be nerfed, it would make more sense to nerf weapon spread to simulate the fact that it would be slightly harder to aim a rifle backwards over one's shoulder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe in the movies but in real life that's absolutely impossible, at best you could spray bullets wildly. Even moving backwards while shooting accurately is very difficult and probably dangerous.
Incorrect, but either way I've explained the logic behind it. Due to the flexibility of the human spine, it IS possible to aim backwards and run forwards. Shooting while running is highly inaccurate, and quite possibly less accurate if you are aiming over the shoulder. Therefore like I said originally, it makes more sense to nerf aim while moving backwards than it does to nerf movement speed.
Anybody can point a gun wherever they want, but actually shooting it is another matter entirely. Besides, nerfed accuracy is even worse than moving slow IMO, then people wouldn't want to shoot while moving backwards at all.
not really, you just pull the little metal lever with your finger and it shoots.