If there was an engine to talk about, it wouldnt be source - it would be cryengine 3.
Spark has a lot in common with Cry3 (for me - but i dont really know ###### about engines etc, it just looks like it does) - lightning system, lua stuff (even more simple => flow graph), live sandbox, planned future features that are already done in cry3 etc... <a href="http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2" target="_blank">http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2</a>
I wonder how much a full source lincense of it costs for an indie studio like uwe...
There is UDK, Unity and soon Cry3 SDK (maybe even free for indies <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way" target="_blank">http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way)</a>
I dont really see a market for spark other than for their own projects - even if multiplatform etc.(the basic stuff) gets supported - there isnt a single feature that really stands out. (especially if crytek somehow manages to do a "light" version - with easier tools and a good learning platform)
Not that spark is bad(the quality looks dont have to hide behind ue3 or cry3) - they learned (and will learn) a lot - so it cant be a bad decision... but still.
But maybe im just hyped, 5:30h until i can play crysis 2. ;P
NS2 is a branch off of the ideological tree that gave birth to combat: Gun purchase menu, less team integration in RTS building, &c. These choices deemphasize NS1's interdependence which—though a frequent complaint of new players and a contributing factor to the fragile nature—ultimately forced normally solipsistic internet gamers to "get out of his shell", cooperate, and form friendships.
Combat should have been a dead end and a cautionary tale, not a source for NS2's direction. In catering to "new" and "casual" gamers you have lost what ensnared your cult followers and now you will have neither.
OP describes exactly what made NS a lasting success and why NS2 precluded success by neglecting the elements* which created the unique social environment that keeps people coming back.
* (dependency on commander for guns, dependency of commander on his team, crowed-sourced effect of multiple gorges vs singular alien commander)
The game isn't even finished yet, we have played one official map which is apparently one - if not the - smallest, and there are still things like the Onos, etc, to implement along with a load of polish.
Chill.
The only thing we need to do is play the game and report back on any issues regarding user interface, balance, etc..
Another issue about his direction and ideology that seems not to learn from NS1 -
In Charlie's conception of NS2, rather than the meat of the sandwich classic NS mode seems to be just a tomato or the bottom of the bun. Obsessing over modding capability & encouraging it & facilitating it may lead to many mini-modes, but history shows us that it leads to a fracturing of the players. Certain types of gamers playing certain game modes, entire servers dedicated to those alternate modes (e.g. siege), and these players habituate it to the point that they don't play any other mode of the game (e.g. they will leave the server if their preferred mode isn't voted on).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OP describes exactly what made NS a lasting success and why NS2 precluded success by neglecting the elements* which created the unique social environment that keeps people coming back.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is... I don't belive NS2 lacks any features that's needed for it to be a social experience much in the same way as NS1. Ok, it's unfinished, unpolished and even feature-incomplete, but it's nowhere near as "unplayable" as some people on the forum suggest. Right now I would say the biggest drawback is the UI. A lot of the gameplay works really well, it's just that it's kind of hard as a player to know whats going on. Once a nice, big, easy-to-read, toggle-able map is available for players I believe we will see way better games. The most important thing in order for a team to be able to work together is that they share the same information so they can make similar decisions and thus help each other out to achieve a common goal. And as stated, NS2 is still sort of lacking in the UI-department right now making it hard for players to make good decisions by themselves. It usually ends up in the form of "rambo-style-marines" we see a lot of today. But I also want to add that if people use their headsets to actually talk to each other, games in NS2 can be pretty advanced and interesting already. That's hands on what I meant with "making games more enjoyable" and "it's a game that becomes what the players make of it". It takes a little effort, but the rewards are well worth it.
I kind of got into specific details (maps, UI, teamspeak) more than I planned with this post. But I hope it illustrates my thoughts on the state of NS2 in general right now. The game being feature-incomplete IS a big deal. A few (quite simple) additions will make things feel much smoother in the future and i'm certain that it we'll see far more teamwork once players feel they get more control of whats going on in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Summer: Gah it's too hot, I wish it was winter Winter: Gah it's too cold, I wish it was summer<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMFAO! Truth to this! I live up in the North East. Upstate NY to be exact. Holy ###### there cannot be more truth to those statements. It's sad that people who have lived here there whole lives and still complain JUST LIKE THAT! I swear when the first snowflake falls people freak the hell out. I always go...
"Well what about Spring and fall?"
"Bleh Spring it rains all the time. Fall is depressing because the days are shorter."
You just can't win...you really can't.
Oh and I didn't stay on topic because to the OP your post is just stupid....
<!--quoteo(post=1838514:date=Mar 23 2011, 11:50 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Mar 23 2011, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838514"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If there was an engine to talk about, it wouldnt be source - it would be cryengine 3.
Spark has a lot in common with Cry3 (for me - but i dont really know ###### about engines etc, it just looks like it does) - lightning system, lua stuff (even more simple => flow graph), live sandbox, planned future features that are already done in cry3 etc... <a href="http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2" target="_blank">http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2</a>
I wonder how much a full source lincense of it costs for an indie studio like uwe...
There is UDK, Unity and soon Cry3 SDK (maybe even free for indies <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way" target="_blank">http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way)</a>
I dont really see a market for spark other than for their own projects - even if multiplatform etc.(the basic stuff) gets supported - there isnt a single feature that really stands out. (especially if crytek somehow manages to do a "light" version - with easier tools and a good learning platform)
Not that spark is bad(the quality looks dont have to hide behind ue3 or cry3) - they learned (and will learn) a lot - so it cant be a bad decision... but still.
But maybe im just hyped, 5:30h until i can play crysis 2. ;P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, what? The Cryengine? Nobody uses that. There's a reason nobody does. If anything they'd go with Unreal. Also, it's really cheap to start on the Unreal engine.
"According to the current EULA, game makers can sell their games by paying Epic the cost of $99 USD at the outset, and 25% of all revenue above $50000 USD."
I also believe a few games in development, okay not many, a handful that were using Cryengine 2 were given free upgrades to develop on Cryengine 3 by Crytek. It's becoming more popular with every edition and they are supporting all developers that want to go with them, fully.
It amazes me how some people can still use the "give it time" rebuttal. Now let's start with when I paid for the Alpha, I did this as a homage to NS1. I said to myself, even if NS2 is a failure, it's money well spent for something that took up a huge portion of my gaming life.
Now having said that, the development time and progression of NS2 has become a joke. I go months at a time, log on the forums and it's the same old position and topics. Sure there's are many constraints that most developers are not faced with, but then I say maybe they bit off more than they can chew? Everything about this game is already outdated from YEARS ago, let alone today or whenever ever it's even playable/released. I think it's been about 1/2 a year since I last played, I played again and it's still plagued with all the same issues.
At the end of the day, I am completely unbiased, my money was spent for donation reason but I know for a fact if the elements of NS1 are not present in NS2 when/if it's ever release it will not last long at all. If you are trying to compete in sales as an FPS game it will be impossible to keep intact the majority of NS1's essence. Today's gamers are too A.D.D. The patience of a horribly addicted NS1 gamer was lost a long time ago, and that's saying something.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1838437:date=Mar 22 2011, 10:06 PM:name=Good_Apollo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Good_Apollo @ Mar 22 2011, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838437"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tell that to Valve since they're the ones developing DotA 2.
<i>On the Source Engine.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because they have full access to the engine and can do anything they want with it. I suspect Valve will make some pretty significant changes to it to get it to work for DotA2. Note that this is the exact type of freedom UWE will have once they have the major issues of the spark engine worked out from making NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1839761:date=Apr 4 2011, 09:01 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Apr 4 2011, 09:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839761"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you feel like that, I suggest you stop playing or even bother replying to threads with such opinion.
It's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I had the same disregard in reading someone's post properly. It's a shared sentiment I am seeing among MANY people. Obviously you have not understood or read much of my previous post. I'll see you again in 2 months when you're discussing the same issue. I played NS1 since day 1 and still play it to this day, you must be new around here. Show a little foresight, if anyone was to be a closed-minded fanboy it would be me.
A chocolate teapot could satisfy a hunger, so please gift the "useless post" award to yourself.
This is my first time browsing these forums, and I am profoundly disappointed. A man makes a simple post suggesting that players with some experience get a little more involved with the community, help newer players along, and lay the foundation for a stable, successful, and helpful community...
And the post immediately devolves into troll food. Honestly? I think I counted all of one guy who had anything positive to say about the OP.
'###### about problems' totally does serve a very real purpose. But look, that's really beside the point.
This is never going to be a 'huge' game. This will be at best, a cult-classic, like the original. That means the future of this game is going to depend very heavily on the player community. If new players show up and see nothing but negativity and a bunch of butt-hurt squabbling over how broken everything is, they're going to either quit playing, or just assume that's how NS2 works. If you foster a negative and contentious culture, you're going to end up with a bunch of negative and contentious players. The sorts of people who generally decide to stick around in that kind of troll soup are the sort of ADD tea-bagging Halo addicts that everybody hates.
For the record, I've played a fair amount of Halo in my day. First thing I do every time I start a round of matchmaking? Make sure my voice chat settings are auto-muting everyone. Because those people are terrible to listen to. Playing Halo, you can afford to do that because nobody in the game uses teamwork or strategy anyway, so listening to them banter is consummately pointless. This is not Halo. Communication is important, and if that forum of communication becomes flooded with negative horsecrap, I'm not going to keep playing.
This is what the OP is getting at. If you show up with your game face on, help some newbs, exercise sportsmanship and etiquette, you'll foster the sort of community that will be enjoyable to play in. If you ###### about how everyone but you is terrible and how you'd be doing so much better if only the game wasn't terribly buggy, you undermine that culture.
<!--quoteo(post=1839764:date=Apr 4 2011, 09:53 AM:name=QuadLMGkill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (QuadLMGkill @ Apr 4 2011, 09:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wish I had the same disregard in reading someone's post properly. It's a shared sentiment I am seeing among MANY people. Obviously you have not understood or read much of my previous post. I'll see you again in 2 months when you're discussing the same issue. I played NS1 since day 1 and still play it to this day, you must be new around here. Show a little foresight, if anyone was to be a closed-minded fanboy it would be me.
A chocolate teapot could satisfy a hunger, so please gift the "useless post" award to yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I'm amazingly new, I registered in the past year and have made less than a post a every two days, oh wait, that's not me.
The game is currently being developed. I've been impatient in the past and that is true, I've said some things out of ignorance and haven't been on the ball. However I stand in line with the teams view of positivity and making the best of what you got. If you're going to moan about something, ###### about something, complain about something, it's not going to help, it's not constructive.
It's nice to see you play NS1, however NS1 is not NS2. A much differently brought on and more complex development is required to bring out an entirely new game from the same universe.
If you're as much of a fan as you say you are, you'd know any issues you are getting related to performance are being addressed, including the lua binder layer being upgraded to Max's own, which will speed up the LUA being processed compared to it's current state in LUA script. There are a lot more issues but this is one that has been stressed several times lately in forum posts, #ns2 twitter/facebook and I think I saw Max mention something about his LUA stuff on his own personal twitter not so long ago.
If you really care about an issue affecting your game experience I'd encourage you to engage in other games about how, why, when or what appears and discuss how to re-create the ins and outs or what not of bugs. Without good feedback, it's not going to be solved quickly, ###### and whining isn't good feedback. I'd also suggest you use getsatisfaction and the forum feedback tab in a constructive manner.
TL;DR. Get behind the team, not against them. Use all bug reporting tools to the fullest.
EDIT: I'd also like to see bit.ching not be ###'d out, it's something that has become started to become common place on these forums, I don't like it. Honesty first, people need to know when they're acting like teenagers and being all bit.chy.
Thaldarin you're just as obnoxious, disruptive, and and antagonistic as a troll, but you think you're actually helping because you're defending them game. You're stifling the conversation and you're derailing countless threads and ideas. It's really a complete joke and you and posters like you are why the outside world (i can name names if you want) considers UWE to be pointless fanboy infested waters not worth the time to read or write. I just read your above post and everything you said was obvious and didn't need your reiteration.
I also want to add that I have always considered my preoder to be a donation out of respect for NS1 and I don't care if the game never comes out at all nor do I feel entilted to anything on account of my "purchase." I'm happy to have supported Charlie's dream. But I, like others in this thread and throughout the community, am disappointed not just with the slow development but <b>with the direction he took the game</b>.
edit: my previous posts got lost in the ocean of fanboy-contrairian BS that is this thread, but I already specified my issues w/r/t the "direction" and why I feel he betrayed his original audience in favor of reaching a wider one. This is to do with ideology (for lack of a better word), *these complaints have nothing to do with engine or netcode debugging*
<!--QuoteBegin-quoting cause the post url doesn't work+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (quoting cause the post url doesn't work)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NS2 is a branch off of the ideological tree that gave birth to combat: Gun purchase menu, less team integration in RTS building, &c. These choices deemphasize NS1's interdependence which—though a frequent complaint of new players and a contributing factor to the fragile nature—ultimately forced normally solipsistic internet gamers to "get out of his shell", cooperate, and form friendships.
Combat should have been a dead end and a cautionary tale, not a source for NS2's direction. In catering to "new" and "casual" gamers you have lost what ensnared your cult followers and now you will have neither.
OP describes exactly what made NS a lasting success and why NS2 precluded success by neglecting the elements* which created the unique social environment that keeps people coming back.
* (dependency on commander for guns, dependency of commander on his team, crowed-sourced effect of multiple gorges vs singular alien commander)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1839323:date=Mar 30 2011, 11:33 AM:name=aleph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aleph @ Mar 30 2011, 11:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839323"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Charlie's conception of NS2, rather than the meat of the sandwich classic NS mode seems to be just a tomato or the bottom of the bun. Listen to Flayra directly state the NS2 modding philosophy here - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz3FyaOVYpY&t=4m34s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz3FyaOVYpY&t=4m34s</a>
Obsessing over modding capability & encouraging it & facilitating it may lead to many mini-modes, but history shows us that it leads to a fracturing of the players. Certain types of gamers playing certain game modes, entire servers dedicated to those alternate modes (e.g. siege), and these players habituate it to the point that they don't play any other mode of the game (e.g. they will leave the server if their preferred mode isn't voted on).
And don't forget that NS1 had the advantage of being part of a massively popular engine which programmers were already familiar with. Due to its discrete population NS2 will not have access to a comparably sized pool of potentially creative and computer literate modders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The staunchest supporters for NS2 are the nerds who loved the strategic complexity of NS1. They aren't the people who got bored by the lack of gun choices and slow resource-tied pace of the game. Those types of people never bothered to learn to play NS. In NS2's design those are the types of people, the ADD casuals, Flayra is aiming towards pleasing in order to broaden the game's potential market.
I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->my previous posts got lost in the ocean of fanboy-contrairian BS that is this thread, but I already specified my issues w/r/t the "direction" and why I feel he betrayed his original audience in favor of reaching a wider one. This is to do with ideology (for lack of a better word), *these complaints have nothing to do with engine or netcode debugging<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This kind of elitist bull###### is what's undermining this community. You claim to have some sort of mandate to speak for NS1-fans and without second thought you express that anyone who doesn't agree with you (i.e. feels that NS2 is actually having some promise) are "fanboys" - not part of the oh-so-important and all knowing "original audience". Guess what? I've played NS1 for more hours than anyone should spend with a game and I believe NS2 IS heading in a good direction. You can't speak for me.
And in all honesty... If I where Charlie I would have no interest in keeping my loyalties to those self-proclaimed experts who does nothing but complain and crap their pants in panic when they hear things like "wider audience" and "more casual". I don't feel betrayed at all, I feel blessed that the guys who made a fantastic games years back decided to make a sequel and explore the genre further. Why don't you lock yourself up in your room, put on a beret and watch some Hungarian movies if you feel such an urge for complexity and difficulty? I mean seriously, being able to choose your own weapons doesn't make NS2 become Modern Warfare. It's still turning out to be a very complex and strategically demanding game. As I stated somewhere before, the game still being in beta is a big deal. It's hard to figure out how to play chess with a bunch of pieces missing. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how strategical games work should know this.
EDIT Sorry for the harsh tone in this post, I know it's not very constructive. I don't mean to specifically flame you aleph (and I just noticed you edited your own post). I guess i'm just a little too frustrated with how this community turned out...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think more and more people will be angry like you are in your original post BitPon because of a perceived lack of social communication that they remember from NS1. I admit it, I think i'm more insightful than you are and I have an idea as to why the game lacks the same cooperative, team oriented, social atmosphere that endowed NS1 with such replay value. Whereas you have no idea at all other than the vague inarticulate sensation that it's just not as friendly which you wrongfully attribute to bad attitudes when really it's a consequence of game design. These social elements you describe in you original post are "emergent" qualities that came out of NS1's interconnected nature. Just one example of many, many more of how NS2 dissociates this interconnected nature
* marine res node building in NS1 may seem tedious, but the necessity of human players to push across dangerous territory forced people to cover one another & built a relationship with the commander if they went alone which would possibly be rewarded in the future - now a mac does this "tedious" work while marines rambo. The main goal for the marine on the field now is mainly to dominate, like in Combat mode, to get himself more resources so he can buy himself a gun quicker. Everyone knows the social dynamic in Combat is vastly different than in Classic mode, the same thing is happening in NS2.
You don't feel betrayed and you claim to like the direction, but the changes in game design (or chess pieces and arrangement) will have a nebulous effect on gameplay and teamwork whether you notice it or not. I noticed how you conveniently omitted the specific NS2 changes that I pointed out when you gave a lengthy reply to my first post. Gun buying is just one of many changes that disintegrates what in NS1 used to require cooperation -- and it was from this FORCED cooperation that the teamwork comes from - internet gamers just won't work together unless they're forced to by game design, to think they will work together out of the good of their heart is naive, and to blame it on people's bad attitudes is stupid and naive.
What does beret wearing and Hungairan movie watching have to do with complexity and difficulty? LOL. Maybe that reference makes some sense where you're from in Sweden, but to my American sensibilities Ingmar Bergman's movies are plenty complex (I'm a big fan of him in fact).
i'm really annoyed that I can't post a link to the specific post (the links return a forum error) so here's a quoted text that I just stumbled upon from an articulate player who has a similar observation and take on the flaw of NS2's game design that I do
<!--quoteo(post=1839739:date=Apr 3 2011, 06:17 PM:name=Varathar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Varathar @ Apr 3 2011, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839739"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well.. Back in NS1 players usually understood the importance of commander's orders and building RTs and another stuff to manage to get a good game. There was also another group that (as marine) rushed right at start straight to alien hive for spawn camp (or as we called it in Finland: "Hivelle ja päähän", which roughly translates to "to the hive and headshot".) If those rushers formed 2/3 of your marine team and the rest of them were new in game or just thinking: "I don't build that thing", then commander's last hope to save the game would be to relocate the base near alien hive. (If he wants to keep pressure on and doesn't wait until they spawn at marine start one by one which would be pointless.)
In NS2 game mechanics call people to be more solo type players. They have their own resources and they don't need to take care of anything else than get kills. You only need to get one resource tower up because you get your resources from frags and RTs.
In NS2 commander can't locate him self near hive because he had to get that mac there in alive what seems to be impossible. until that tactic is just rushing.
So everything is good if IP and armory are still up in their point of view. And a skillful commander can defend the base on his own like in NS1 (yes, without turrets!).
So if you want people to really play together and play as a good team the game mechanics should be more like in NS1 just because its teamplay or lose. NS2 it's just some solo guys and blames another people to why they sucks so hard and their EGO don't let them understand that it needs a little teamwork too.
<b>Problem is game mechanics. Not that people don't give enough orders or that the Shotgun is OP.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited April 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1839787:date=Apr 4 2011, 06:21 PM:name=aleph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aleph @ Apr 4 2011, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i'm really annoyed that I can't post a link to the specific post (the links return a forum error) so here's a quoted text that I just stumbled upon from an articulate player who has a similar observation and take on the flaw of NS2's game design that I do<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A workaround for that is to quote the post you want to link, then preview that one and copypaste the link location from the little red left-pointing arrow icon at the top of the quotebox. That is the link to the post (the one at the forum post number is bugged (old version of IPB?))
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I admit it, I think i'm more insightful than you are<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main goal for the marine on the field now is mainly to dominate, like in Combat mode, to get himself more resources so he can buy himself a gun quicker<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No res for frags - so how do you do this without the "rt minigame of attack and defend"? How do you stay at a tier-lvl that doesnt get instagipd by a full alien team of fades/onos whatever?
Values must be adjusted and features added (maybe even changed) - its not a finished product, but its definitely going into a good direction.
I've already stated why I believe NS2 BETA currently lacks the cooperative atmosphere it's predecessor had. I explained this in an earlier post so telling me that I "have no idea at all other than the vague inarticulate sensation that it's just not as friendly" is unfair. The post where I explained my thoughts on that subject was even a direct answer to what you posted earlier. I specifically blamed the lack of information and the general confusion for the troubles with cooperation. So yes, game design is to be blamed, but the game is still a work in progress - and that's my point. Don't make final judgement on a game that is obviously far from complete. If UWE would've decided that build 170 was from now on was to be considered the final version of the game, I would gladly be the first to agree with you and everything you've said so far.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1839771:date=Apr 4 2011, 07:35 AM:name=aleph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aleph @ Apr 4 2011, 07:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The staunchest supporters for NS2 are the nerds who loved the strategic complexity of NS1. They aren't the people who got bored by the lack of gun choices and slow resource-tied pace of the game. Those types of people never bothered to learn to play NS. In NS2's design those are the types of people, the ADD casuals, Flayra is aiming towards pleasing in order to broaden the game's potential market.
I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I don't understand why you think mods and alternate game modes have a zero-sum effect on the playerbase? I suspect that a lot of people who wouldn't have even tried NS1 did so because they played combat mode first. You just can't assume that everyone who only played combat would have played proper NS1 had there been no combat mode.
The concept is to entice people who wouldn't have played a fps/rts hybrid like NS1 by appealing to them with something familiar like a fps-version of NS1 (e.g. combat). Making spark mod friendly just builds on this idea.
Also, NS1 the social vibe/community teamwork/high coordination will come once the game is fully released. I think you put too much emphasis on the gameplay aspects. This is mostly a feature of every competitive multiplayer to encourage online communities, coordinated gameplay, and competitive matches via scrims or tournaments. NS1 certainly helped this process along with many of its forced teamwork elements, but I think you'll find the same things happen when NS2 is fully released.
<!--quoteo(post=1839797:date=Apr 4 2011, 08:13 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Apr 4 2011, 08:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No res for frags -<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the case, but everybody is thrown off by the +5 and such for kills and building. The obvious solution is to remove that, but keeping track of score is usually desirable in competitive multiplayer games. Maybe if the reward for finishing buildings and such were much larger than those of kills, since the former happens much more rarely...
How about adding extra score for killing enemies/structures in a certain radius from attack/defend markers to reward teamplay a bit more?
As far as the community goes, I've seen very harsh reactions to new commanders, few ever bothering to actually explain them what they should have done instead before I did. Even if I like to think of myself as a reasonably experienced commander, I get called a noob every now and then when I try a new build order or get the occasional early sentry in base. Add to that the fact that Europeans seldom ever use voice comms, myself included (not specific to NS2, it's the same in all games, probably because most of them aren't native speakers) and pretty much expect some things to happen (telepathically?) instead of communicating about them and you get a very unwelcoming environment.
I find degrading the "forced" teamplay elements dissappointing for various reasons.
First it is really frustrating to play a game where the path is already laid for you. As a commander you are no longer required to scout for information it is much more effievicent to go straight up the weapon ladder. Fast buildtimes option for multiple chambers lack of counterabilities further dissappeates meaning of information crucial part of RTS-gaming
Secondly forced teamwork is forced because without teamwork your team will lose if I may borrow Varathars example where players rush to the hive. If whole team rushes to hive they will lose due lack of resources possibly even ip due lerkspore this is one awesome aspect to the original NS. Forcing teamplay by some randombuff is also very questionable (something like bonus score is viable ) because it could add unwanted properties (for example marinearmor/damageboosts would make a skulk die just because random guy was on the otherside of the wall). Calling teamwork exists just because it happened due random circumstances is not what I would want it to be. It should be processed mentally awarely that way it is much more fulfilling.
Certainly it is annoying to lose a game due some grainhead but do you want to play a game that is so simple that you can play it only with your LongJoe, frustration is part of good games if the game is "too easy" all the time you get bored straightaway.
Everyone has an opinion on something however it is important to tell yourself aswell as others why you think so, if you cant come up with anything chances are your opinion is unfounded, based on nothing relevant.
I agree with the comments on personal weapons and building bots, with marine side going more toward a combat style.
An other aspect to take into account is the time to implement a feature. By adding the building bots, the devs had to code a AI to go with it, which is a significant cost (we already saw some bugs). In a game were humans do everything you don't need an IA. Significant cost for disputable gameplay addition, is it worth it? I don't know, and I'm still curious about where NS2 will go, wait and see.
<!--quoteo(post=1839828:date=Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly forced teamwork is forced because without teamwork your team will lose if I may borrow Varathars example where players rush to the hive. If whole team rushes to hive they will lose due lack of resources possibly even ip due lerkspore this is one awesome aspect to the original NS. Forcing teamplay by some randombuff is also very questionable (something like bonus score is viable ) because it could add unwanted properties (for example marinearmor/damageboosts would make a skulk die just because random guy was on the otherside of the wall). Calling teamwork exists just because it happened due random circumstances is not what I would want it to be. It should be processed mentally awarely that way it is much more fulfilling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is my example. (I know people won't read it or find it after one week.) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=113095&view=findpost&p=1839739" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1839739</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1839828:date=Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone has an opinion on something however it is important to tell yourself aswell as others why you think so, if you cant come up with anything chances are your opinion is unfounded, based on nothing relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. <i>(my opinion you can find under that link)</i>
Comments
Spark has a lot in common with Cry3 (for me - but i dont really know ###### about engines etc, it just looks like it does) - lightning system, lua stuff (even more simple => flow graph), live sandbox, planned future features that are already done in cry3 etc... <a href="http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2" target="_blank">http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2</a>
I wonder how much a full source lincense of it costs for an indie studio like uwe...
There is UDK, Unity and soon Cry3 SDK (maybe even free for indies <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way" target="_blank">http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way)</a>
I dont really see a market for spark other than for their own projects - even if multiplatform etc.(the basic stuff) gets supported - there isnt a single feature that really stands out. (especially if crytek somehow manages to do a "light" version - with easier tools and a good learning platform)
Not that spark is bad(the quality looks dont have to hide behind ue3 or cry3) - they learned (and will learn) a lot - so it cant be a bad decision... but still.
But maybe im just hyped, 5:30h until i can play crysis 2. ;P
Combat should have been a dead end and a cautionary tale, not a source for NS2's direction. In catering to "new" and "casual" gamers you have lost what ensnared your cult followers and now you will have neither.
OP describes exactly what made NS a lasting success and why NS2 precluded success by neglecting the elements* which created the unique social environment that keeps people coming back.
* (dependency on commander for guns, dependency of commander on his team, crowed-sourced effect of multiple gorges vs singular alien commander)
Chill.
The only thing we need to do is play the game and report back on any issues regarding user interface, balance, etc..
In Charlie's conception of NS2, rather than the meat of the sandwich classic NS mode seems to be just a tomato or the bottom of the bun. Obsessing over modding capability & encouraging it & facilitating it may lead to many mini-modes, but history shows us that it leads to a fracturing of the players. Certain types of gamers playing certain game modes, entire servers dedicated to those alternate modes (e.g. siege), and these players habituate it to the point that they don't play any other mode of the game (e.g. they will leave the server if their preferred mode isn't voted on).
+1 for chilling... :-)
Thing is... I don't belive NS2 lacks any features that's needed for it to be a social experience much in the same way as NS1. Ok, it's unfinished, unpolished and even feature-incomplete, but it's nowhere near as "unplayable" as some people on the forum suggest. Right now I would say the biggest drawback is the UI. A lot of the gameplay works really well, it's just that it's kind of hard as a player to know whats going on. Once a nice, big, easy-to-read, toggle-able map is available for players I believe we will see way better games. The most important thing in order for a team to be able to work together is that they share the same information so they can make similar decisions and thus help each other out to achieve a common goal. And as stated, NS2 is still sort of lacking in the UI-department right now making it hard for players to make good decisions by themselves. It usually ends up in the form of "rambo-style-marines" we see a lot of today. But I also want to add that if people use their headsets to actually talk to each other, games in NS2 can be pretty advanced and interesting already. That's hands on what I meant with "making games more enjoyable" and "it's a game that becomes what the players make of it". It takes a little effort, but the rewards are well worth it.
I kind of got into specific details (maps, UI, teamspeak) more than I planned with this post. But I hope it illustrates my thoughts on the state of NS2 in general right now. The game being feature-incomplete IS a big deal. A few (quite simple) additions will make things feel much smoother in the future and i'm certain that it we'll see far more teamwork once players feel they get more control of whats going on in the game.
Winter: Gah it's too cold, I wish it was summer<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LMFAO! Truth to this! I live up in the North East. Upstate NY to be exact. Holy ###### there cannot be more truth to those statements. It's sad that people who have lived here there whole lives and still complain JUST LIKE THAT! I swear when the first snowflake falls people freak the hell out. I always go...
"Well what about Spring and fall?"
"Bleh Spring it rains all the time. Fall is depressing because the days are shorter."
You just can't win...you really can't.
Oh and I didn't stay on topic because to the OP your post is just stupid....
Spark has a lot in common with Cry3 (for me - but i dont really know ###### about engines etc, it just looks like it does) - lightning system, lua stuff (even more simple => flow graph), live sandbox, planned future features that are already done in cry3 etc... <a href="http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2" target="_blank">http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2</a>
I wonder how much a full source lincense of it costs for an indie studio like uwe...
There is UDK, Unity and soon Cry3 SDK (maybe even free for indies <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way" target="_blank">http://www.develop-online.net/features/1152/The-Crytek-way)</a>
I dont really see a market for spark other than for their own projects - even if multiplatform etc.(the basic stuff) gets supported - there isnt a single feature that really stands out. (especially if crytek somehow manages to do a "light" version - with easier tools and a good learning platform)
Not that spark is bad(the quality looks dont have to hide behind ue3 or cry3) - they learned (and will learn) a lot - so it cant be a bad decision... but still.
But maybe im just hyped, 5:30h until i can play crysis 2. ;P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, what? The Cryengine? Nobody uses that. There's a reason nobody does. If anything they'd go with Unreal. Also, it's really cheap to start on the Unreal engine.
"According to the current EULA, game makers can sell their games by paying Epic the cost of $99 USD at the outset, and 25% of all revenue above $50000 USD."
Aion.
I also believe a few games in development, okay not many, a handful that were using Cryengine 2 were given free upgrades to develop on Cryengine 3 by Crytek. It's becoming more popular with every edition and they are supporting all developers that want to go with them, fully.
Now having said that, the development time and progression of NS2 has become a joke. I go months at a time, log on the forums and it's the same old position and topics. Sure there's are many constraints that most developers are not faced with, but then I say maybe they bit off more than they can chew? Everything about this game is already outdated from YEARS ago, let alone today or whenever ever it's even playable/released. I think it's been about 1/2 a year since I last played, I played again and it's still plagued with all the same issues.
At the end of the day, I am completely unbiased, my money was spent for donation reason but I know for a fact if the elements of NS1 are not present in NS2 when/if it's ever release it will not last long at all. If you are trying to compete in sales as an FPS game it will be impossible to keep intact the majority of NS1's essence. Today's gamers are too A.D.D. The patience of a horribly addicted NS1 gamer was lost a long time ago, and that's saying something.
It's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
<i>On the Source Engine.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because they have full access to the engine and can do anything they want with it. I suspect Valve will make some pretty significant changes to it to get it to work for DotA2. Note that this is the exact type of freedom UWE will have once they have the major issues of the spark engine worked out from making NS2.
It's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I had the same disregard in reading someone's post properly. It's a shared sentiment I am seeing among MANY people. Obviously you have not understood or read much of my previous post. I'll see you again in 2 months when you're discussing the same issue. I played NS1 since day 1 and still play it to this day, you must be new around here. Show a little foresight, if anyone was to be a closed-minded fanboy it would be me.
A chocolate teapot could satisfy a hunger, so please gift the "useless post" award to yourself.
And the post immediately devolves into troll food. Honestly? I think I counted all of one guy who had anything positive to say about the OP.
'###### about problems' totally does serve a very real purpose. But look, that's really beside the point.
This is never going to be a 'huge' game. This will be at best, a cult-classic, like the original. That means the future of this game is going to depend very heavily on the player community. If new players show up and see nothing but negativity and a bunch of butt-hurt squabbling over how broken everything is, they're going to either quit playing, or just assume that's how NS2 works. If you foster a negative and contentious culture, you're going to end up with a bunch of negative and contentious players. The sorts of people who generally decide to stick around in that kind of troll soup are the sort of ADD tea-bagging Halo addicts that everybody hates.
For the record, I've played a fair amount of Halo in my day. First thing I do every time I start a round of matchmaking? Make sure my voice chat settings are auto-muting everyone. Because those people are terrible to listen to. Playing Halo, you can afford to do that because nobody in the game uses teamwork or strategy anyway, so listening to them banter is consummately pointless. This is not Halo. Communication is important, and if that forum of communication becomes flooded with negative horsecrap, I'm not
going to keep playing.
This is what the OP is getting at. If you show up with your game face on, help some newbs, exercise sportsmanship and etiquette, you'll foster the sort of community that will be enjoyable to play in. If you ###### about how everyone but you is terrible and how you'd be doing so much better if only the game wasn't terribly buggy, you undermine that culture.
A chocolate teapot could satisfy a hunger, so please gift the "useless post" award to yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I'm amazingly new, I registered in the past year and have made less than a post a every two days, oh wait, that's not me.
The game is currently being developed. I've been impatient in the past and that is true, I've said some things out of ignorance and haven't been on the ball. However I stand in line with the teams view of positivity and making the best of what you got. If you're going to moan about something, ###### about something, complain about something, it's not going to help, it's not constructive.
It's nice to see you play NS1, however NS1 is not NS2. A much differently brought on and more complex development is required to bring out an entirely new game from the same universe.
If you're as much of a fan as you say you are, you'd know any issues you are getting related to performance are being addressed, including the lua binder layer being upgraded to Max's own, which will speed up the LUA being processed compared to it's current state in LUA script. There are a lot more issues but this is one that has been stressed several times lately in forum posts, #ns2 twitter/facebook and I think I saw Max mention something about his LUA stuff on his own personal twitter not so long ago.
If you really care about an issue affecting your game experience I'd encourage you to engage in other games about how, why, when or what appears and discuss how to re-create the ins and outs or what not of bugs. Without good feedback, it's not going to be solved quickly, ###### and whining isn't good feedback. I'd also suggest you use getsatisfaction and the forum feedback tab in a constructive manner.
TL;DR. Get behind the team, not against them. Use all bug reporting tools to the fullest.
EDIT: I'd also like to see bit.ching not be ###'d out, it's something that has become started to become common place on these forums, I don't like it. Honesty first, people need to know when they're acting like teenagers and being all bit.chy.
I also want to add that I have always considered my preoder to be a donation out of respect for NS1 and I don't care if the game never comes out at all nor do I feel entilted to anything on account of my "purchase." I'm happy to have supported Charlie's dream. But I, like others in this thread and throughout the community, am disappointed not just with the slow development but <b>with the direction he took the game</b>.
edit: my previous posts got lost in the ocean of fanboy-contrairian BS that is this thread, but I already specified my issues w/r/t the "direction" and why I feel he betrayed his original audience in favor of reaching a wider one. This is to do with ideology (for lack of a better word), *these complaints have nothing to do with engine or netcode debugging*
<!--QuoteBegin-quoting cause the post url doesn't work+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (quoting cause the post url doesn't work)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NS2 is a branch off of the ideological tree that gave birth to combat: Gun purchase menu, less team integration in RTS building, &c. These choices deemphasize NS1's interdependence which—though a frequent complaint of new players and a contributing factor to the fragile nature—ultimately forced normally solipsistic internet gamers to "get out of his shell", cooperate, and form friendships.
Combat should have been a dead end and a cautionary tale, not a source for NS2's direction. In catering to "new" and "casual" gamers you have lost what ensnared your cult followers and now you will have neither.
OP describes exactly what made NS a lasting success and why NS2 precluded success by neglecting the elements* which created the unique social environment that keeps people coming back.
* (dependency on commander for guns, dependency of commander on his team, crowed-sourced effect of multiple gorges vs singular alien commander)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1839323:date=Mar 30 2011, 11:33 AM:name=aleph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aleph @ Mar 30 2011, 11:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839323"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Charlie's conception of NS2, rather than the meat of the sandwich classic NS mode seems to be just a tomato or the bottom of the bun. Listen to Flayra directly state the NS2 modding philosophy here - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz3FyaOVYpY&t=4m34s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz3FyaOVYpY&t=4m34s</a>
Obsessing over modding capability & encouraging it & facilitating it may lead to many mini-modes, but history shows us that it leads to a fracturing of the players. Certain types of gamers playing certain game modes, entire servers dedicated to those alternate modes (e.g. siege), and these players habituate it to the point that they don't play any other mode of the game (e.g. they will leave the server if their preferred mode isn't voted on).
And don't forget that NS1 had the advantage of being part of a massively popular engine which programmers were already familiar with. Due to its discrete population NS2 will not have access to a comparably sized pool of potentially creative and computer literate modders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The staunchest supporters for NS2 are the nerds who loved the strategic complexity of NS1. They aren't the people who got bored by the lack of gun choices and slow resource-tied pace of the game. Those types of people never bothered to learn to play NS. In NS2's design those are the types of people, the ADD casuals, Flayra is aiming towards pleasing in order to broaden the game's potential market.
I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...
This kind of elitist bull###### is what's undermining this community. You claim to have some sort of mandate to speak for NS1-fans and without second thought you express that anyone who doesn't agree with you (i.e. feels that NS2 is actually having some promise) are "fanboys" - not part of the oh-so-important and all knowing "original audience". Guess what? I've played NS1 for more hours than anyone should spend with a game and I believe NS2 IS heading in a good direction. You can't speak for me.
And in all honesty... If I where Charlie I would have no interest in keeping my loyalties to those self-proclaimed experts who does nothing but complain and crap their pants in panic when they hear things like "wider audience" and "more casual". I don't feel betrayed at all, I feel blessed that the guys who made a fantastic games years back decided to make a sequel and explore the genre further. Why don't you lock yourself up in your room, put on a beret and watch some Hungarian movies if you feel such an urge for complexity and difficulty? I mean seriously, being able to choose your own weapons doesn't make NS2 become Modern Warfare. It's still turning out to be a very complex and strategically demanding game. As I stated somewhere before, the game still being in beta is a big deal. It's hard to figure out how to play chess with a bunch of pieces missing. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how strategical games work should know this.
EDIT
Sorry for the harsh tone in this post, I know it's not very constructive. I don't mean to specifically flame you aleph (and I just noticed you edited your own post). I guess i'm just a little too frustrated with how this community turned out...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why I'm making chess-references.
* marine res node building in NS1 may seem tedious, but the necessity of human players to push across dangerous territory forced people to cover one another & built a relationship with the commander if they went alone which would possibly be rewarded in the future - now a mac does this "tedious" work while marines rambo. The main goal for the marine on the field now is mainly to dominate, like in Combat mode, to get himself more resources so he can buy himself a gun quicker. Everyone knows the social dynamic in Combat is vastly different than in Classic mode, the same thing is happening in NS2.
You don't feel betrayed and you claim to like the direction, but the changes in game design (or chess pieces and arrangement) will have a nebulous effect on gameplay and teamwork whether you notice it or not. I noticed how you conveniently omitted the specific NS2 changes that I pointed out when you gave a lengthy reply to my first post. Gun buying is just one of many changes that disintegrates what in NS1 used to require cooperation -- and it was from this FORCED cooperation that the teamwork comes from - internet gamers just won't work together unless they're forced to by game design, to think they will work together out of the good of their heart is naive, and to blame it on people's bad attitudes is stupid and naive.
What does beret wearing and Hungairan movie watching have to do with complexity and difficulty? LOL. Maybe that reference makes some sense where you're from in Sweden, but to my American sensibilities Ingmar Bergman's movies are plenty complex (I'm a big fan of him in fact).
<!--quoteo(post=1839739:date=Apr 3 2011, 06:17 PM:name=Varathar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Varathar @ Apr 3 2011, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839739"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well.. Back in NS1 players usually understood the importance of commander's orders and building RTs and another stuff to manage to get a good game.
There was also another group that (as marine) rushed right at start straight to alien hive for spawn camp (or as we called it in Finland: "Hivelle ja päähän", which roughly translates to "to the hive and headshot".) If those rushers formed 2/3 of your marine team and the rest of them were new in game or just thinking: "I don't build that thing", then commander's last hope to save the game would be to relocate the base near alien hive. (If he wants to keep pressure on and doesn't wait until they spawn at marine start one by one which would be pointless.)
In NS2 game mechanics call people to be more solo type players. They have their own resources and they don't need to take care of anything else than get kills. You only need to get one resource tower up because you get your resources from frags and RTs.
In NS2 commander can't locate him self near hive because he had to get that mac there in alive what seems to be impossible. until that tactic is just rushing.
So everything is good if IP and armory are still up in their point of view. And a skillful commander can defend the base on his own like in NS1 (yes, without turrets!).
So if you want people to really play together and play as a good team the game mechanics should be more like in NS1 just because its teamplay or lose. NS2 it's just some solo guys and blames another people to why they sucks so hard and their EGO don't let them understand that it needs a little teamwork too.
<b>Problem is game mechanics. Not that people don't give enough orders or that the Shotgun is OP.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A workaround for that is to quote the post you want to link, then preview that one and copypaste the link location from the little red left-pointing arrow icon at the top of the quotebox. That is the link to the post (the one at the forum post number is bugged (old version of IPB?))
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main goal for the marine on the field now is mainly to dominate, like in Combat mode, to get himself more resources so he can buy himself a gun quicker<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No res for frags - so how do you do this without the "rt minigame of attack and defend"?
How do you stay at a tier-lvl that doesnt get instagipd by a full alien team of fades/onos whatever?
Values must be adjusted and features added (maybe even changed) - its not a finished product, but its definitely going into a good direction.
I'm agreeing with BitPon but I'm taking it a step further and trying to point out why the game doesn't have the same social vibes as its predecessor. I don't believe it to be a lack of coordination and willingness among players but a more fundamental problem with the way they set up the game. That's what I'm trying to articulate above...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I don't understand why you think mods and alternate game modes have a zero-sum effect on the playerbase? I suspect that a lot of people who wouldn't have even tried NS1 did so because they played combat mode first. You just can't assume that everyone who only played combat would have played proper NS1 had there been no combat mode.
The concept is to entice people who wouldn't have played a fps/rts hybrid like NS1 by appealing to them with something familiar like a fps-version of NS1 (e.g. combat). Making spark mod friendly just builds on this idea.
Also, NS1 the social vibe/community teamwork/high coordination will come once the game is fully released. I think you put too much emphasis on the gameplay aspects. This is mostly a feature of every competitive multiplayer to encourage online communities, coordinated gameplay, and competitive matches via scrims or tournaments. NS1 certainly helped this process along with many of its forced teamwork elements, but I think you'll find the same things happen when NS2 is fully released.
This is the case, but everybody is thrown off by the +5 and such for kills and building.
The obvious solution is to remove that, but keeping track of score is usually desirable in competitive multiplayer games. Maybe if the reward for finishing buildings and such were much larger than those of kills, since the former happens much more rarely...
As far as the community goes, I've seen very harsh reactions to new commanders, few ever bothering to actually explain them what they should have done instead before I did. Even if I like to think of myself as a reasonably experienced commander, I get called a noob every now and then when I try a new build order or get the occasional early sentry in base. Add to that the fact that Europeans seldom ever use voice comms, myself included (not specific to NS2, it's the same in all games, probably because most of them aren't native speakers) and pretty much expect some things to happen (telepathically?) instead of communicating about them and you get a very unwelcoming environment.
First it is really frustrating to play a game where the path is already laid for you. As a commander you are no longer required to scout for information it is much more effievicent to go straight up the weapon ladder. Fast buildtimes option for multiple chambers lack of counterabilities further dissappeates meaning of information crucial part of RTS-gaming
Secondly forced teamwork is forced because without teamwork your team will lose if I may borrow Varathars example where players rush to the hive. If whole team rushes to hive they will lose due lack of resources possibly even ip due lerkspore this is one awesome aspect to the original NS. Forcing teamplay by some randombuff is also very questionable (something like bonus score is viable ) because it could add unwanted properties (for example marinearmor/damageboosts would make a skulk die just because random guy was on the otherside of the wall). Calling teamwork exists just because it happened due random circumstances is not what I would want it to be. It should be processed mentally awarely that way it is much more fulfilling.
Certainly it is annoying to lose a game due some grainhead but do you want to play a game that is so simple that you can play it only with your LongJoe, frustration is part of good games if the game is "too easy" all the time you get bored straightaway.
Everyone has an opinion on something however it is important to tell yourself aswell as others why you think so, if you cant come up with anything chances are your opinion is unfounded, based on nothing relevant.
An other aspect to take into account is the time to implement a feature. By adding the building bots, the devs had to code a AI to go with it, which is a significant cost (we already saw some bugs). In a game were humans do everything you don't need an IA. Significant cost for disputable gameplay addition, is it worth it? I don't know, and I'm still curious about where NS2 will go, wait and see.
There is my example. (I know people won't read it or find it after one week.)
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=113095&view=findpost&p=1839739" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1839739</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1839828:date=Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Apr 4 2011, 11:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone has an opinion on something however it is important to tell yourself aswell as others why you think so, if you cant come up with anything chances are your opinion is unfounded, based on nothing relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. <i>(my opinion you can find under that link)</i>