Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1821034:date=Jan 3 2011, 02:36 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 3 2011, 02:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821034"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Uhm hello, where is whole Battliefield series?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> BF1942 and Vietnam didn't have RTS/commander mode, though you certainly make a good point! And come to think of it...
Real Time Strategy, does it really have to be from a topdown perspective? I mean I've used loads of Strategy with friends in Real Time while playing Forgotten Hope a BF1942 mod, which is FPS only <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Loads of other none generic shooters out there as well... Ah well never mind!
<!--quoteo(post=1821004:date=Jan 3 2011, 07:14 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 3 2011, 07:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821004"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You'd also have to repost it every week and put it at the top of every forum page and require a detailed quiz on the topic as part of the registration process.
People don't read.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unrealistically pessimistic. Make a FAQ post (maybe it is time for a FAQ session?), just rehashing the same things he's already said. Post it on the front page. Link to it on twitter and facebook.
<!--quoteo(post=1820804:date=Jan 1 2011, 06:14 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jan 1 2011, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1820804"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The biggest reasons people choose not to buy the game at this point are: <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->its not finished yet<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>, its not fully optimized yet, its not on the steam store yet, or <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->they simply aren't aware of the game<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think there are a lot of people in the "not finished yet" and "aren't aware" categories that will purchase the game once it's finished. I have a couple of friends who I've talked to about the game and I have piqued their interest in the game a little but I know if they played the beta they would be completely turned off because they had never even heard of NS1 and they're not interested in "testing" the game. I show them some teaser videos once in a while to keep them interested and to keep the game on their radar and they're anxious to try the game once it's done.
On that note I think the $35 2-for-1 sale was a great idea because it prompted me to buy two extra copies of the game to gift to them once the game is completed. Hopefully they'll like it and talk about it to other people they know (that I don't). I'm sure there are a lot of others who have done the same.
<!--quoteo(post=1821058:date=Jan 3 2011, 05:03 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 3 2011, 05:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unrealistically pessimistic. Make a FAQ post (maybe it is time for a FAQ session?), just rehashing the same things he's already said. Post it on the front page. Link to it on twitter and facebook.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And perhaps some people will read it, the people who do however won't make threads about how they read it, and you will still get threads from people who didn't.
Maybe you will get slightly fewer threads, but that just means each thread gets more posts.
People don't read. If they did we wouldn't have so much work into finding ways to tell them things without them having to.
<!--quoteo(post=1821030:date=Jan 3 2011, 02:15 AM:name=Avalon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Avalon @ Jan 3 2011, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821030"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I said within the past 5 years. That leaves us with...
NS2 (unreleased) Empires Nuclear Dawn (unreleased) Zombie Master (can't find the release date and it's a source mod, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) Iron Grip Rise and Fall Warsoup (unreleased) Refusion (I can't find anything on this?) Savage 2
Not counting unreleased games, because they are obviously not out yet, my point still stands. There are practically zero commercial FPS/RTS games out there, and the genre is hugely untapped.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might be that the idea itself is pretty bad.
On face value it would appear a natural mesh of genres, an RTS has lots of people fighting and you tell them what to do but don't control them precisely, an FPS has you being one of the people fighting, so surely the two have an obvious meshing point?
Unfortunately people usually neglect a few things.
1. An RTS is always constructed around expendability. You are expected to throw units away now and then to tie up enemies, bait them into traps, beat super units, lose them to enemy superweapons, lose them to enemy rock-paper-scissors mechanics etc. An FPS is about ensuring every player has a fighting chance at all times, so you can't throw 10 players against a super unit and expect half of them to die without killing anything, you can't throw players against a group designed to counter them so they have no realistic fighting chance, and you can't treat players like hitpoints, which is what units basically are in most RTS games. In an RTS game your units are your sword and shield, there is only one player on the field and his units are his body, if you lose some you lose health, and you build more to heal. in an FPS units are other players and cannot be treated so expendably. This creates problems when you try to stick the two together.
2. You can't do both at once. All modern game genres are sort of maxed out in terms of stuff you can do. There is a finite amount of stuff one person can do at once, really speaking an FPSRTS is impossible because you can't play both at once. You can make an RTS game and an FPS game and give the opportunity to switch between them at will, but you can either play a full FPS game or a full RTS game, at no point would you be playing an FPSRTS, you'd just be switching between the two a lot. You can of course go the middle route and make a limited FPS and a limited RTS, and have both in play at once. Games like quake wars enemy territory and section 8 with their building calling and vehicle requisitioning mechanics combined with a generally substandard FPS are examples of this, but they fall flat because what you are playing is two not vety good games. It doesn't appeal to FPS fans because the shooting is crap, and it doesn't appeal to RTS fans because the strategy element is superficial.
It's all very well saying you shouldn't ruin either side of the game, but the truth is that in order to make a full FPS and full RTS, they have to be largely separate games. Consider the previous builds of NS2. The marine commander could place buildings and manage resources, place structures to affect the world, and control AI units, which made his role a complete, if somewhat simple RTS game. The marines on the other hand could run around and shoot people, thus making it a full FPS game. The major complaint? "I feel disconnected from the commander, we're playing two separate games." Of course you are, because that's what FPS and RTS are. Consider the newer versions, where marines now have to build stuff themselves, if you play marine commander now the biggest thing you find is that your ability to perform strategy has been severely gimped by the fact that you have far less control over building things. Instead you have to hope marines will be inclined to do what you want. I suppose this makes marines feel more important, but it detracts from the RTS experience considerably. In an RTS you need to have control over your units, the idea that players are your units is directly opposed to this because it isn't fun for players to blindly follow orders, and it isn't fun for the commander to have unreliable units. You either make the games separate or you make both of them substandard.
The best results from an FPSRTS game come from when you approach it from one end or the other. Take an FPS, think about the mechanics involved, you have spawn points, you have weapon selection, you occasionally have an objective to accomplish like controlling a point or capping a flag, you have limited vehicle access. Now find new ways to make these work. What if you could move around your spawn and vehicle depot, what if you could move your flag or capture objective? What if you could design your base defence? It's still an FPS, but you can use let's say a commander interface to control some of the FPS elements, but of course you cannot rely on that because maybe you won't have a commander, so the game should still work without it.
Battlefield games do this to a degree. BF1942 had aircraft carriers you could drive around, the mechanic wasn't used very much but it did work very well, and on wake island could be quite influential on the outcome of the game. Battlefield 2 had commander direction and support powers, again not used overmuch, but the powers could be very useful in battle. And the best part is that they remain very good FPS games, they are simply enhanced in small ways by the addition of RTS style control elements. You could take the idea much further, but no game has as far as I know.
As for NS2, it's an interesting FPS, the aliens vs marines mechanic is uncommon, and potentially could solve a few issues I have with many FPS games nowadays. And the alien commander is a lot of fun, I can play a solid if simple RTS game while everyone else gets on with the chomping and the smashing and the spreading of the infestation across the galaxy and whatnot. The idea of two largely separate games in one is not a bad one. It isn't massively efficient but it's preferably to the both-sides-are-terrible alternative. Apply this example to the marines, it works better.
Unit's disobeying orders is a feature of some RTS games. Just saying. I think you are a little too fixated on the game mechanics of those genres in your post, while you're forgetting the underlaying event that they're portraying. A proper RTS/FPS hybrid with all the problems you listed is actually more immersive and acute than its individual components.
I know no one of importance will read this post but I think something very important has been forgotten. When times are rough the old adage (K.I.S) is very important. Keeping it simple can still release a very good product. What it means is cutting back on some ideas and releasing them as patches later or as down loadable content. The main thing they should focus on is balanced game play and polished maps. This will buy them all the time in the world because people will be too busy playing the final product to care about the small things. I would go as far to say that they could even cut alien commander, macs, and anything else that is causing extra delay. We didn't have those in the original natural-selection and the game was wonderful to play.
I don't speak for everyone but I can say the reason I haven't already ordered this game is the direction its going. If we look at star-craft2 for example they didn't shift that far away from the original product, and people who used to love it love the new game just as much. These new additions make me weary to purchase because of how they affect the game play. Mainly because I don't feel like ns2 is going to feel like ns1 when I play it. So many changes that will radically alter how the game feels. The beauty of natural-selection 1 is it was complex yet extremely simple. You felt free to move around the map with your buddies exterminating the alien force. From what I have been reading with the tech junctures and such its a lot more stop and go action. Which then hinders that feeling of putting early pressure on the aliens. Instead I will have to sit around another resource node type object to make it so we can move up the tech tree. I played the ###### out of natural-selection 1 my forum presence wasn't felt very much but it was due to how much I was enjoying the game.
In a perfect world ns2 would basically be ns1 with cool unique maps, new weapons, maybe different types of game styles to spice up the variety, and an upgraded engine. Not messing much with the formula that was such a huge success the first time.
<!--quoteo(post=1821139:date=Jan 3 2011, 01:32 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 3 2011, 01:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821139"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unit's disobeying orders is a feature of some RTS games. Just saying. I think you are a little too fixated on the game mechanics of those genres in your post, while you're forgetting the underlaying event that they're portraying. A proper RTS/FPS hybrid with all the problems you listed is actually more immersive and acute than its individual components.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A game is entirely its mechanics. If units disobey orders in a good game they do it for a reason. In total war for example your units will break if you use them wrong, but they don't do it just at random. You can have them be more susceptable to breaking if they are poorly equipped and outnumbered and without leadership, which is just another way of having weak units, but it is a controllable factor.
No RTS game in existence (at least that I know of) has units which literally do not have to listen to you in the slightest, because unit control is the entire basis of RTS, you tell your units what to do and they do it, if they don't you don't have a game.
A game is entirely an artificial construct, you make the rules to produce fun, saying 'ignore the rules it's supposed to be war' ignores the fact that it's a game and the job of a designer is to pick, choose, and often fabricate rules and mechanics in order to produce a fun experience. RTS games are not war, they are not real, your units do not have their own ideas. They are often themed around war but you could make an almost identical game based around anything, tycoon games are often similar to RTS games but they have nothing to do with war. But the mechanics are similar and thus the games are similar.
the solution to units not under control is to give the commander AI units that provide advantages to nearby players i.e. like the siege cannon will probably be.
I can not believe the mods have allowed this thread to go this far.
<!--quoteo(post=1821148:date=Jan 3 2011, 03:18 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 3 2011, 03:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821148"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No RTS game in existence (at least that I know of) has units which literally do not have to listen to you in the slightest<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Majesty comes pretty close, though.
<!--quoteo(post=1821148:date=Jan 3 2011, 03:18 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 3 2011, 03:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821148"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A game is entirely its mechanics. If units disobey orders in a good game they do it for a reason. In total war for example your units will break if you use them wrong, but they don't do it just at random. You can have them be more susceptable to breaking if they are poorly equipped and outnumbered and without leadership, which is just another way of having weak units, but it is a controllable factor.
No RTS game in existence (at least that I know of) has units which literally do not have to listen to you in the slightest, because unit control is the entire basis of RTS, you tell your units what to do and they do it, if they don't you don't have a game.
A game is entirely an artificial construct, you make the rules to produce fun, saying 'ignore the rules it's supposed to be war' ignores the fact that it's a game and the job of a designer is to pick, choose, and often fabricate rules and mechanics in order to produce a fun experience. RTS games are not war, they are not real, your units do not have their own ideas. They are often themed around war but you could make an almost identical game based around anything, tycoon games are often similar to RTS games but they have nothing to do with war. But the mechanics are similar and thus the games are similar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People <i>are</i> random. That includes line infantry on the battle field. This dynamic in NS is a volitional part of the game mechanics. There is a reason NS is a multiplayer game. RTS games, especially those who aim for a certain level of accuracy, pride themselves with units that act more like real humans. Yet what you seem to want is real people should act more like AI that is trying to act like humans. Life imitating art imitating life.
<!--quoteo(post=1821142:date=Jan 3 2011, 09:45 AM:name=lego)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lego @ Jan 3 2011, 09:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821142"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know no one of importance will read this post but I think something very important has been forgotten. When times are rough the old adage (K.I.S) is very important. Keeping it simple can still release a very good product. What it means is cutting back on some ideas and releasing them as patches later or as down loadable content. The main thing they should focus on is balanced game play and polished maps. This will buy them all the time in the world because people will be too busy playing the final product to care about the small things. I would go as far to say that they could even cut alien commander, macs, and anything else that is causing extra delay. We didn't have those in the original natural-selection and the game was wonderful to play.
I don't speak for everyone but I can say the reason I haven't already ordered this game is the direction its going. If we look at star-craft2 for example they didn't shift that far away from the original product, and people who used to love it love the new game just as much. These new additions make me weary to purchase because of how they affect the game play. Mainly because I don't feel like ns2 is going to feel like ns1 when I play it. So many changes that will radically alter how the game feels. The beauty of natural-selection 1 is it was complex yet extremely simple. You felt free to move around the map with your buddies exterminating the alien force. From what I have been reading with the tech junctures and such its a lot more stop and go action. Which then hinders that feeling of putting early pressure on the aliens. Instead I will have to sit around another resource node type object to make it so we can move up the tech tree. I played the ###### out of natural-selection 1 my forum presence wasn't felt very much but it was due to how much I was enjoying the game.
In a perfect world ns2 would basically be ns1 with cool unique maps, new weapons, maybe different types of game styles to spice up the variety, and an upgraded engine. Not messing much with the formula that was such a huge success the first time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh, starcraft 2 is a lot more different from starcraft 1 than ns2 is to ns1. ns2 has all the same units as ns1 (marines, jetpacks, exosuit/heavy armor, skulk, gorge, lerk, fade, onos). starcraft 2 has 50-75% new units.
Oh ye of little faith. Do you not comprehend the humor of Monty Python? The unbelievers shall hide their faces in shame when the brilliant light of NS2 “gamma†is shone upon them. Will they then admit their lack of faith? No, they will continue to b!tch and complain about perceived bugs and unimportant things. Much to the amusement and scorn of the true believers.
McGlaspiewww.team156.comJoin Date: 2010-07-26Member: 73044Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Gold, Subnautica Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1821290:date=Jan 3 2011, 06:30 PM:name=1stToast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1stToast @ Jan 3 2011, 06:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh ye of little faith. Do you not comprehend the humor of Monty Python? The unbelievers shall hide their faces in shame when the brilliant light of NS2 “gamma†is shone upon them. Will they then admit their lack of faith? No, they will continue to b!tch and complain about perceived bugs and unimportant things. Much to the amusement and scorn of the true believers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen Brother Toast! =P
<!--quoteo(post=1821244:date=Jan 3 2011, 08:56 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 3 2011, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People <i>are</i> random. That includes line infantry on the battle field.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This couldn't be more wrong. Soldiers are programmed to follow orders without question, because that is the only way the chain of command will function. This is why disobeying orders is such a serious crime in the military. In wartime, deserters are often put to death. Ns2 can't simulate the months of basic training where following orders is drilled into soldiers, but it can provide incentives for correct behavior.
<!--quoteo(post=1821301:date=Jan 4 2011, 12:54 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jan 4 2011, 12:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This couldn't be more wrong. Soldiers are programmed to follow orders without question, because that is the only way the chain of command will function. This is why disobeying orders is such a serious crime in the military. In wartime, deserters are often put to death. Ns2 can't simulate the months of basic training where following orders is drilled into soldiers, but it can provide incentives for correct behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about 10 points for going to a marker put by the Commander?
<!--quoteo(post=1821301:date=Jan 4 2011, 12:54 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jan 4 2011, 12:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This couldn't be more wrong. Soldiers are programmed to follow orders without question, because that is the only way the chain of command will function. This is why disobeying orders is such a serious crime in the military. In wartime, deserters are often put to death. Ns2 can't simulate the months of basic training where following orders is drilled into soldiers, but it can provide incentives for correct behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As nice as that fantasy of yours would be for the chain of command, but this is not how it always works. Which coincidentally is also irrelevant. As a matter of fact Natural Selection builds upon the interaction between actual humans, flawed as they might be, and being a pure multiplayer game this interaction is a core game play element.
<!--quoteo(post=1821304:date=Jan 4 2011, 07:56 AM:name=Mkilbride)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mkilbride @ Jan 4 2011, 07:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about 10 points for going to a marker put by the Commander?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As points don't actually affect the flow of the game, just the scoreboard, this is a good idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1821313:date=Jan 4 2011, 12:11 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 4 2011, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As nice as that fantasy of yours would be for the chain of command<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL at you calling military units following orders down the chain of command a "fantasy"
<a href="http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/blunt-prevented-world-war-iii-with-army-order-refusal_1184180" target="_blank">James Blunt - Blunt 'Prevented World War III' With Army Order Refusal</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1821347:date=Jan 4 2011, 04:03 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jan 4 2011, 04:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As points don't actually affect the flow of the game, just the scoreboard, this is a good idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, and if gaming history has taught us anything, people are ######S for points, achievements, kill ratios, ect. So it'd be more incentive to follow the Commanders orders.
I like NS' people soldiers. It means commanders have to keep up morale and be charismatic to be effective... something which is just a number in other RTS games.
<!--quoteo(post=1821244:date=Jan 3 2011, 08:56 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 3 2011, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People <i>are</i> random. That includes line infantry on the battle field. This dynamic in NS is a volitional part of the game mechanics. There is a reason NS is a multiplayer game. RTS games, especially those who aim for a certain level of accuracy, pride themselves with units that act more like real humans. Yet what you seem to want is real people should act more like AI that is trying to act like humans. Life imitating art imitating life.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again however, in RTS GAMES your units do as they are told. Because that is what makes it a good RTS. It's about your ability to use your units to win the game, if your units don't listen to you it detracts from that.
For the third time, an RTS GAME requires you to be able to control your units, one in which you cannot is a poor RTS game.
<!--quoteo(post=1821366:date=Jan 4 2011, 04:01 AM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jan 4 2011, 04:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like NS' people soldiers. It means commanders have to keep up morale and be charismatic to be effective... something which is just a number in other RTS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No amount of charisma will make people follow instructions. Some people will, some won't, but either way your units in NS are very unreliable. Their performance in combat is not predictable or consistent, their actions are not consistent with your orders, they are not good RTS units, therefore if the game has to rely on them it is not a good RTS game. If you want a good RTS experience in NS you need to give the commander things they have absolute control over.
<!--quoteo(post=1821366:date=Jan 4 2011, 05:01 AM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jan 4 2011, 05:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like NS' people soldiers. It means commanders have to keep up morale and be charismatic to be effective... something which is just a number in other RTS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Leading your troops in NS means more than doing a few mouse clicks.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1821429:date=Jan 4 2011, 02:57 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jan 4 2011, 02:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. Leading your troops in NS means more than doing a few mouse clicks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The main reason why Dungeon Keeper mode should be included!
Comments
BF1942 and Vietnam didn't have RTS/commander mode, though you certainly make a good point! And come to think of it...
Real Time Strategy, does it really have to be from a topdown perspective? I mean I've used loads of Strategy with friends in Real Time while playing Forgotten Hope a BF1942 mod, which is FPS only <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Loads of other none generic shooters out there as well... Ah well never mind!
People don't read.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unrealistically pessimistic. Make a FAQ post (maybe it is time for a FAQ session?), just rehashing the same things he's already said. Post it on the front page. Link to it on twitter and facebook.
I think there are a lot of people in the "not finished yet" and "aren't aware" categories that will purchase the game once it's finished. I have a couple of friends who I've talked to about the game and I have piqued their interest in the game a little but I know if they played the beta they would be completely turned off because they had never even heard of NS1 and they're not interested in "testing" the game. I show them some teaser videos once in a while to keep them interested and to keep the game on their radar and they're anxious to try the game once it's done.
On that note I think the $35 2-for-1 sale was a great idea because it prompted me to buy two extra copies of the game to gift to them once the game is completed. Hopefully they'll like it and talk about it to other people they know (that I don't). I'm sure there are a lot of others who have done the same.
And perhaps some people will read it, the people who do however won't make threads about how they read it, and you will still get threads from people who didn't.
Maybe you will get slightly fewer threads, but that just means each thread gets more posts.
People don't read. If they did we wouldn't have so much work into finding ways to tell them things without them having to.
<!--quoteo(post=1821030:date=Jan 3 2011, 02:15 AM:name=Avalon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Avalon @ Jan 3 2011, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821030"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I said within the past 5 years. That leaves us with...
NS2 (unreleased)
Empires
Nuclear Dawn (unreleased)
Zombie Master (can't find the release date and it's a source mod, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)
Iron Grip
Rise and Fall
Warsoup (unreleased)
Refusion (I can't find anything on this?)
Savage 2
Not counting unreleased games, because they are obviously not out yet, my point still stands. There are practically zero commercial FPS/RTS games out there, and the genre is hugely untapped.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might be that the idea itself is pretty bad.
On face value it would appear a natural mesh of genres, an RTS has lots of people fighting and you tell them what to do but don't control them precisely, an FPS has you being one of the people fighting, so surely the two have an obvious meshing point?
Unfortunately people usually neglect a few things.
1. An RTS is always constructed around expendability. You are expected to throw units away now and then to tie up enemies, bait them into traps, beat super units, lose them to enemy superweapons, lose them to enemy rock-paper-scissors mechanics etc. An FPS is about ensuring every player has a fighting chance at all times, so you can't throw 10 players against a super unit and expect half of them to die without killing anything, you can't throw players against a group designed to counter them so they have no realistic fighting chance, and you can't treat players like hitpoints, which is what units basically are in most RTS games. In an RTS game your units are your sword and shield, there is only one player on the field and his units are his body, if you lose some you lose health, and you build more to heal. in an FPS units are other players and cannot be treated so expendably. This creates problems when you try to stick the two together.
2. You can't do both at once. All modern game genres are sort of maxed out in terms of stuff you can do. There is a finite amount of stuff one person can do at once, really speaking an FPSRTS is impossible because you can't play both at once. You can make an RTS game and an FPS game and give the opportunity to switch between them at will, but you can either play a full FPS game or a full RTS game, at no point would you be playing an FPSRTS, you'd just be switching between the two a lot. You can of course go the middle route and make a limited FPS and a limited RTS, and have both in play at once. Games like quake wars enemy territory and section 8 with their building calling and vehicle requisitioning mechanics combined with a generally substandard FPS are examples of this, but they fall flat because what you are playing is two not vety good games. It doesn't appeal to FPS fans because the shooting is crap, and it doesn't appeal to RTS fans because the strategy element is superficial.
It's all very well saying you shouldn't ruin either side of the game, but the truth is that in order to make a full FPS and full RTS, they have to be largely separate games. Consider the previous builds of NS2. The marine commander could place buildings and manage resources, place structures to affect the world, and control AI units, which made his role a complete, if somewhat simple RTS game. The marines on the other hand could run around and shoot people, thus making it a full FPS game. The major complaint? "I feel disconnected from the commander, we're playing two separate games." Of course you are, because that's what FPS and RTS are. Consider the newer versions, where marines now have to build stuff themselves, if you play marine commander now the biggest thing you find is that your ability to perform strategy has been severely gimped by the fact that you have far less control over building things. Instead you have to hope marines will be inclined to do what you want. I suppose this makes marines feel more important, but it detracts from the RTS experience considerably. In an RTS you need to have control over your units, the idea that players are your units is directly opposed to this because it isn't fun for players to blindly follow orders, and it isn't fun for the commander to have unreliable units. You either make the games separate or you make both of them substandard.
The best results from an FPSRTS game come from when you approach it from one end or the other. Take an FPS, think about the mechanics involved, you have spawn points, you have weapon selection, you occasionally have an objective to accomplish like controlling a point or capping a flag, you have limited vehicle access. Now find new ways to make these work. What if you could move around your spawn and vehicle depot, what if you could move your flag or capture objective? What if you could design your base defence? It's still an FPS, but you can use let's say a commander interface to control some of the FPS elements, but of course you cannot rely on that because maybe you won't have a commander, so the game should still work without it.
Battlefield games do this to a degree. BF1942 had aircraft carriers you could drive around, the mechanic wasn't used very much but it did work very well, and on wake island could be quite influential on the outcome of the game. Battlefield 2 had commander direction and support powers, again not used overmuch, but the powers could be very useful in battle. And the best part is that they remain very good FPS games, they are simply enhanced in small ways by the addition of RTS style control elements. You could take the idea much further, but no game has as far as I know.
As for NS2, it's an interesting FPS, the aliens vs marines mechanic is uncommon, and potentially could solve a few issues I have with many FPS games nowadays. And the alien commander is a lot of fun, I can play a solid if simple RTS game while everyone else gets on with the chomping and the smashing and the spreading of the infestation across the galaxy and whatnot. The idea of two largely separate games in one is not a bad one. It isn't massively efficient but it's preferably to the both-sides-are-terrible alternative. Apply this example to the marines, it works better.
I don't speak for everyone but I can say the reason I haven't already ordered this game is the direction its going. If we look at star-craft2 for example they didn't shift that far away from the original product, and people who used to love it love the new game just as much. These new additions make me weary to purchase because of how they affect the game play. Mainly because I don't feel like ns2 is going to feel like ns1 when I play it. So many changes that will radically alter how the game feels. The beauty of natural-selection 1 is it was complex yet extremely simple. You felt free to move around the map with your buddies exterminating the alien force. From what I have been reading with the tech junctures and such its a lot more stop and go action. Which then hinders that feeling of putting early pressure on the aliens. Instead I will have to sit around another resource node type object to make it so we can move up the tech tree. I played the ###### out of natural-selection 1 my forum presence wasn't felt very much but it was due to how much I was enjoying the game.
In a perfect world ns2 would basically be ns1 with cool unique maps, new weapons, maybe different types of game styles to spice up the variety, and an upgraded engine. Not messing much with the formula that was such a huge success the first time.
A game is entirely its mechanics. If units disobey orders in a good game they do it for a reason. In total war for example your units will break if you use them wrong, but they don't do it just at random. You can have them be more susceptable to breaking if they are poorly equipped and outnumbered and without leadership, which is just another way of having weak units, but it is a controllable factor.
No RTS game in existence (at least that I know of) has units which literally do not have to listen to you in the slightest, because unit control is the entire basis of RTS, you tell your units what to do and they do it, if they don't you don't have a game.
A game is entirely an artificial construct, you make the rules to produce fun, saying 'ignore the rules it's supposed to be war' ignores the fact that it's a game and the job of a designer is to pick, choose, and often fabricate rules and mechanics in order to produce a fun experience. RTS games are not war, they are not real, your units do not have their own ideas. They are often themed around war but you could make an almost identical game based around anything, tycoon games are often similar to RTS games but they have nothing to do with war. But the mechanics are similar and thus the games are similar.
I can not believe the mods have allowed this thread to go this far.
Majesty comes pretty close, though.
No RTS game in existence (at least that I know of) has units which literally do not have to listen to you in the slightest, because unit control is the entire basis of RTS, you tell your units what to do and they do it, if they don't you don't have a game.
A game is entirely an artificial construct, you make the rules to produce fun, saying 'ignore the rules it's supposed to be war' ignores the fact that it's a game and the job of a designer is to pick, choose, and often fabricate rules and mechanics in order to produce a fun experience. RTS games are not war, they are not real, your units do not have their own ideas. They are often themed around war but you could make an almost identical game based around anything, tycoon games are often similar to RTS games but they have nothing to do with war. But the mechanics are similar and thus the games are similar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People <i>are</i> random. That includes line infantry on the battle field. This dynamic in NS is a volitional part of the game mechanics. There is a reason NS is a multiplayer game. RTS games, especially those who aim for a certain level of accuracy, pride themselves with units that act more like real humans. Yet what you seem to want is real people should act more like AI that is trying to act like humans. Life imitating art imitating life.
Why don't you include "Zen of zudoku" into the next indie humble bundle ? ^^
I don't speak for everyone but I can say the reason I haven't already ordered this game is the direction its going. If we look at star-craft2 for example they didn't shift that far away from the original product, and people who used to love it love the new game just as much. These new additions make me weary to purchase because of how they affect the game play. Mainly because I don't feel like ns2 is going to feel like ns1 when I play it. So many changes that will radically alter how the game feels. The beauty of natural-selection 1 is it was complex yet extremely simple. You felt free to move around the map with your buddies exterminating the alien force. From what I have been reading with the tech junctures and such its a lot more stop and go action. Which then hinders that feeling of putting early pressure on the aliens. Instead I will have to sit around another resource node type object to make it so we can move up the tech tree. I played the ###### out of natural-selection 1 my forum presence wasn't felt very much but it was due to how much I was enjoying the game.
In a perfect world ns2 would basically be ns1 with cool unique maps, new weapons, maybe different types of game styles to spice up the variety, and an upgraded engine. Not messing much with the formula that was such a huge success the first time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh, starcraft 2 is a lot more different from starcraft 1 than ns2 is to ns1. ns2 has all the same units as ns1 (marines, jetpacks, exosuit/heavy armor, skulk, gorge, lerk, fade, onos). starcraft 2 has 50-75% new units.
Amen Brother Toast! =P
This couldn't be more wrong. Soldiers are programmed to follow orders without question, because that is the only way the chain of command will function. This is why disobeying orders is such a serious crime in the military. In wartime, deserters are often put to death. Ns2 can't simulate the months of basic training where following orders is drilled into soldiers, but it can provide incentives for correct behavior.
How about 10 points for going to a marker put by the Commander?
As nice as that fantasy of yours would be for the chain of command, but this is not how it always works. Which coincidentally is also irrelevant. As a matter of fact Natural Selection builds upon the interaction between actual humans, flawed as they might be, and being a pure multiplayer game this interaction is a core game play element.
As points don't actually affect the flow of the game, just the scoreboard, this is a good idea.
LOL at you calling military units following orders down the chain of command a "fantasy"
Exactly, and if gaming history has taught us anything, people are ######S for points, achievements, kill ratios, ect. So it'd be more incentive to follow the Commanders orders.
Once again however, in RTS GAMES your units do as they are told. Because that is what makes it a good RTS. It's about your ability to use your units to win the game, if your units don't listen to you it detracts from that.
For the third time, an RTS GAME requires you to be able to control your units, one in which you cannot is a poor RTS game.
<!--quoteo(post=1821366:date=Jan 4 2011, 04:01 AM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jan 4 2011, 04:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1821366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like NS' people soldiers. It means commanders have to keep up morale and be charismatic to be effective... something which is just a number in other RTS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No amount of charisma will make people follow instructions. Some people will, some won't, but either way your units in NS are very unreliable. Their performance in combat is not predictable or consistent, their actions are not consistent with your orders, they are not good RTS units, therefore if the game has to rely on them it is not a good RTS game. If you want a good RTS experience in NS you need to give the commander things they have absolute control over.
If you want to play a similarly styled RTS game, I suggest you go and hang around Starcraft 2.
Exactly. Leading your troops in NS means more than doing a few mouse clicks.
The main reason why Dungeon Keeper mode should be included!
Slapping minions makes them work harder :P