You can't do that because the engine doesn't use the same units, or have the same functions, or treat player physics the same.
So it would likely be nothing like the NS1 blink even if you did, you would have to recreate it, you can't really port something between what is quite literally, two different universes with different laws of physics.
<!--quoteo(post=1859574:date=Jul 11 2011, 12:59 AM:name=Raneman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raneman @ Jul 11 2011, 12:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"You can't find the length of the US border in meters because they use different units."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. but counting it in miles will give you different results.
So if your formula takes input numbers and does something to them to produce output numbers for velocity, if the input numbers and velocity numbers aren't at the same ratios as they are in NS1, you'll get an entirely different feel.
Say the input ranges from 1 to 10 in goldsrc, it might range from 1 to 8 in spark, and the velocity in goldsrc might be measured in hundreds, for example normal gravity in goldsrc is 800 as far as I know, in spark normal gravity might be 1, depending on how they represent it. You can't just port between two different games.
You can still port the <i>idea</i> like adding an accelerator vector on XY-plane. Of course you need to hand-tune it afterwards to make it feel the same. Last time I looked at the code, it was a teleport trying trace a fade model to the mouse target.
<!--quoteo(post=1859470:date=Jul 11 2011, 01:09 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 11 2011, 01:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859470"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only way an equal 1v1 marine vs fade could work is if the marine spent 50 res on his equipment. Currently the marine can't spend 50 res on equipment. The shotgun is only 15 res.
So its really 50 vs 15. The Fade should win most of the time.
The FT is 30, but the FT is not really designed for 1v1.
Lets say the Jumppack is 30, and a marine gets that plus a GL (20+30=50...just like the fade). In this scenario, a 1v1 with a marine and fade should be a closer fight (assuming the GL didn't suck right now). However, marines are suppose to stay in groups, and are not 1v1 specialists.
If a group marines encountered an equally sized group of aliens and both sides spent equal res, the fight should be pretty close (assuming both equally skilled). We shouldn't look at 1on1 scenarios as the litmus test for balance. The marines really need more higher tier stuff right now, if they want to compete with the fade on a more even footing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree.
Let's say, for instance, that you join a game halfway. In NS1, the marine commander could have given you a weapon, no problem. In NS2, you start with very little, while every alien is running around with a fade, and has 100 more res where that came from, and the best that you can muster, is a shotgun. Under your rule, you simply deserve to die.
That's just a very specific edge case, but it's indicative of the problem.
<b>You cannot balance NS2 units around resources anymore</b>, even though you could with NS1, exactly <b>because</b> the resources have changed. In NS1, if both teams earned the same amount of resources, you could field more shotguns than they could field fades, so it was fine that a fade is <b>worth</b> more than a shotgun. In NS2, if both teams earn the same amount of resources, you can only field the same number of shotguns as they can field fades, so it is <b>not okay</b> to say that 50 beats 15.
In fact, let's play a game, I just invented it right now. I get to choose between the numbers 0, 10, 30, and 50; and you get to choose between the numbers 0, 15, 20 and 30. The person who picks the highest number wins. Let's go. I choose 50. Your move. Okay, that's not very fair - I invented the game so I have a more innate understanding of it. Best of 3! I choose 50 again. Best 3 of 5? I choose 50 again. gg. I had fun.
Then you say "but you don't balance 1v1!" - in NS1, you're right, you didn't. Sorry, bro, but in NS2 you kinda have to. Why? Back to the resources.
For the sake of simplicity, let's ignore RFK. Let's say that both teams, in both games, earn the same amount of res: 25 every minute, 125 after 5 minutes. Let's pretend that in both games, a fade costs 25 and a shotgun costs 10 resources.
In NS1, your resources were effectively pooled - money went into the pool, and was re-allocated to you in the form of life-forms and equipment.
In NS2, your resources are not pooled, every one of you gains them each individually at the same rate. Let's say that in a <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, your total team income is 125 after 5 minutes (to match the NS1 situation), that means 25 per player after 5 minutes. So as a consequence of the NS2 system, total team resources scale with the number of players (25 for every new player).
<!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->It's pretty obvious that in NS1, with larger teams, you could field less fades for every shotgun they fielded, that's why you had to balance it by making each fade worth more than one shotgun. <!--coloro:#CCCCFF--><span style="color:#CCCCFF"><!--/coloro--><i>This is part of the reason that smaller games favoured the aliens and larger games favoured the marines, and thus NS1 had to be balanced around a single team size: 6v6.</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> It's pretty obvious that in NS2, irrespective of the size of the team, you can field the same number of fades for every shotgun they field, that's why you have to balance it on a closer to 1v1 basis.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF9999--><span style="color:#FF9999"><!--/coloro--><b>tl;dr:</b> In NS1, the number of fades or shotguns a team could put into play due to resources did not truly scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance was suitable for it; but in NS2, the number of fades and shotguns a team can put into play does scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance is not suitable for NS2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Idea, probably not a good one but hey, it's 5 AM here: a joining player gets an average of the amount of Pres each player has on that team.. you'd need it to save player data per round a little to keep that from being exploited though. It doesn't really fix everything but it fixes the late joiner being gimped when we start getting more expensive equipment, and the player data thing would be nice if you end up getting disconnected mid-game or something.
Edit: to clarify I could see the player data saving thing being just something stored on the server per round and wiped at the end, basically the steam_id with your resource amount attached to it, maybe k/d and score if you wanted too.
<!--quoteo(post=1859665:date=Jul 11 2011, 02:09 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 11 2011, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->'Porting the idea' means 'rebuilding it from scratch to create a similar effect in a new engine'.
Which isn't really a port at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you can argue about the definition, call it something else if it bothers you. That is my point though. When somebody ports the leap or lerk flight model, in the best case they might have very similar function calls just the variable scales are different. This might be a case in the movement code, I haven't checked yet.
<!--quoteo(post=1859667:date=Jul 11 2011, 12:47 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 11 2011, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you say "but you don't balance 1v1!" - in NS1, you're right, you didn't. Sorry, bro, but in NS2 you kinda have to. Why? Back to the resources.
For the sake of simplicity, let's ignore RFK. Let's say that both teams, in both games, earn the same amount of res: 25 every minute, 125 after 5 minutes. Let's pretend that in both games, a fade costs 25 and a shotgun costs 10 resources.
In NS1, your resources were effectively pooled - money went into the pool, and was re-allocated to you in the form of life-forms and equipment.
In NS2, your resources are not pooled, every one of you gains them each individually at the same rate. Let's say that in a <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, your total team income is 125 after 5 minutes (to match the NS1 situation), that means 25 per player after 5 minutes. So as a consequence of the NS2 system, total team resources scale with the number of players (25 for every new player).
<!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->It's pretty obvious that in NS1, with larger teams, you could field less fades for every shotgun they fielded, that's why you had to balance it by making each fade worth more than one shotgun. <!--coloro:#CCCCFF--><span style="color:#CCCCFF"><!--/coloro--><i>This is part of the reason that smaller games favoured the aliens and larger games favoured the marines, and thus NS1 had to be balanced around a single team size: 6v6.</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> It's pretty obvious that in NS2, irrespective of the size of the team, you can field the same number of fades for every shotgun they field, that's why you have to balance it on a closer to 1v1 basis.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF9999--><span style="color:#FF9999"><!--/coloro--><b>tl;dr:</b> In NS1, the number of fades or shotguns a team could put into play due to resources did not truly scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance was suitable for it; but in NS2, the number of fades and shotguns a team can put into play does scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance is not suitable for NS2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that writing and you don't consider that marines can reclaim weapons they die with thus losing nothing, a fade dies - he dies thats 50 res gone, a skulk can't stand over his corpse spamming drop weapon till he runs back and magically turns back into a fade ;D Also marines have medpacks which go a very long way to equalising the playing field if your comm is any good. And i'm pretty sure a marine with a sg and 35 medpacks beats a fade by your warped logic :)
And btw you simply cannot ignore RFK, it was such in important factor in the timings of fades, hives and other lifeforms and what marine upgrades/weapons/map presence they had to face.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you say "but you don't balance 1v1!" - in NS1, you're right, you didn't. Sorry, bro, but in NS2 you kinda have to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just no. I mean there's so much you're just glossing over; there's how marines get exponentially stronger the more of them there are in a group together, especially if they have SGs as that is a lot of instant dmg they can put out. But also play styles come into it, skulks do not beat lmg marines 1v1 yet they're both an equal unit in your eyes, but they have speed and manoeuvrability so can attack in groups easily so it balances out, so they're balanced as a team not 1v1. And it works the other way for marines vs fades, marines in tight groups decimate fades which is why its important to have lerks with fades to use spores to separate out the marines.
Let's say, for instance, that you join a game halfway. In NS1, the marine commander could have given you a weapon, no problem. In NS2, you start with very little, while every alien is running around with a fade, and has 100 more res where that came from, and the best that you can muster, is a shotgun. Under your rule, you simply deserve to die.
That's just a very specific edge case, but it's indicative of the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New players start with 25 res. Many players who started from the beginning might be sitting with less res and no upgrades due to just dying and losing it. New players have a decent start in comparison to all other player's res pools.
Ideally all players should be maximizing their res pool and not be sitting on hundreds of excess res....unless of course they are simply good players/team. However, there needs to be a much, much lower pres pool in order to minimize this slippery slope and allow comebacks.
The problem currently is that fades are at the top of the food chain and almost never die. This allows them to always have 100+ res to fall back on. They don't die because currently the SG/FT are the high end of the marine arsenal, which can't compete with fades on equal footing. There are no Jumppacks nor EXOs that could potentially weed out fades, and force them to use up their excess res.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot balance NS2 units around resources anymore, even though you could with NS1, exactly because the resources have changed. In NS1, if both teams earned the same amount of resources, you could field more shotguns than they could field fades, so it was fine that a fade is worth more than a shotgun. In NS2, if both teams earn the same amount of resources, you can only field the same number of shotguns as they can field fades, so it is not okay to say that 50 beats 15.
In fact, let's play a game, I just invented it right now. I get to choose between the numbers 0, 10, 30, and 50; and you get to choose between the numbers 0, 15, 20 and 30. The person who picks the highest number wins. Let's go. I choose 50. Your move. Okay, that's not very fair - I invented the game so I have a more innate understanding of it. Best of 3! I choose 50 again. Best 3 of 5? I choose 50 again. gg. I had fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But 50 shouldn't always beat 15. There are team tactics and counters to consider. I think this is what you are getting at, and I think we are both just emphasizing different sides of the same point. 50 shouldn't always beat 15. I agree. I didn't mean to make it sound like 50res should perfectly balance out to 30+20. I was just trying to point out that marines are lacking items to spend their res on, and so they can go face fades at a more equal footing.
50 shouldn't equal 15, we shouldn't expect a perfect 1v1. However the 50res player perhaps doesn't have the clear super unit as in NS1.
I'm really enjoying the fade. It's quite challenging to play but I think most people's complaints (especially the lack of energy) will be addressed when we have more active upgrades to select from.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.
<!--quoteo(post=1859720:date=Jul 11 2011, 04:06 PM:name=Cerebral)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cerebral @ Jul 11 2011, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859720"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm really enjoying the fade. It's quite challenging to play but I think most people's complaints (especially the lack of energy) will be addressed when we have more active upgrades to select from.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turrets kinda suck in general, they don't have any effects on either end, I can't tell if the turret is hitting things and the only real indicator of being hit by it is a steady health drain, they need effects on them, a laser sight to show where it's aiming and some tracers/hit effects to show when it's damaging stuff would be ideal.
<!--quoteo(post=1859720:date=Jul 11 2011, 04:06 PM:name=Cerebral)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cerebral @ Jul 11 2011, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859720"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm really enjoying the fade. It's quite challenging to play but I think most people's complaints (especially the lack of energy) will be addressed when we have more active upgrades to select from.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is very true and is why you tend to see Movement Chamber first in almost all NS1 games - I'm assuming we're going to get Movement and Sensory chambers in NS2?
And yeh the game currently lacks a hit sound as aliens, its a little disconcerting to watch your health plummet without hearing anything hit you.
<!--quoteo(post=1859708:date=Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM:name=Laggasaurus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Laggasaurus @ Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All that writing and you don't consider that marines can reclaim weapons they die with thus losing nothing, a fade dies - he dies thats 50 res gone, a skulk can't stand over his corpse spamming drop weapon till he runs back and magically turns back into a fade ;D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> At the same time, (for simplicity's sake) I didn't consider RFK either, which obviously swings the resource balance back in the fade's direction. And if the fade is winning 1v2 shotties each time, and then getting away?
I do think, however, that marines being able to reclaim their weapons when they die is <b>broken</b>, so that's an invalid argument. At best, the weapon should disappear upon the marine's respawn. I also think that PRFK should be removed entirely, but that's a different issue.
What is it that all of you are failing to understand? NS1 - FINITE number of units that can be played with a certain number of resource towers held -> limited by the resources NS2 - INDETERMINATE (maximised) number of units that can be played with a certain number of resource towers held -> not limited by the resources -> number of higher tier units = number of lower tier units = a game of "I pick 50, you pick 15, you lose"
Look, maybe you all want your super-units because they're "cool", that's perfectly valid, but you can in no way argue that they're balanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1859708:date=Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM:name=Laggasaurus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Laggasaurus @ Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And i'm pretty sure a marine with a sg and 35 medpacks beats a fade by your warped logic :)
skulks do not beat lmg marines 1v1 yet they're both an equal unit in your eyes, but they have speed and manoeuvrability so can attack in groups easily so it balances out, so they're balanced as a team not 1v1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's obvious you're misrepresenting my view here, either because you didn't understand my post or you didn't read it. This is the exact view I'm <b>against</b>. If you pit a team of 7 fades versus 7 shotguns - which will happen very often in NS2, though it rarely happened outside of CO in NS1 - who's going to win? Don't dodge the issue by saying "but the marines can add a flamethrower, and medpack support" or "the aliens can add a gorge and a lerk". Whatever. It's impossible to balance the game for every single permutation (or player strategy* that might develop), so it's imperative that the game can be balanced at a foundational level. In my view, they <b>should</b> be similar. If both sides are equally-skilled, then both sides (fades or shotgun) should take a similar amount of damage.
*In fact if you did attempt to balance for every player strategy that might develop: well, first of all you're going to be changing the game a lot, all the time; secondly, you'll be pushing players to fit inside a "mould" - a few choice strategies - and not really allowing other strategies to develop; effectively, you're removing the number of meaningful choices, and therefore <b>depth</b>.
In NS2, unit availability is almost independent of map control, because personal resources scale (they're practically superficial). You might as well just have a DOD/TF2-style "pick class" screen.
<!--quoteo(post=1859716:date=Jul 11 2011, 10:49 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 11 2011, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859716"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->New players start with 25 res. Many players who started from the beginning might be sitting with less res and no upgrades due to just dying and losing it. New players have a decent start in comparison to all other player's res pools.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, and <b>as I said in the post</b>, the best you can muster is a shotgun. Going by your idea of balance, Shotgun < Fade because 15 < 50. New player loses automatically.
From the rest of your post, I can see that you've actually eased up on this view. I can tell that you're getting my point about how we can't stay with the mindset that x/y resources should determine the relative strength of two different units, because it turns this into a "50 vs 15" game, as it were.
But the biggest point I'm making here is that <b>because of the NS2 personal resource model, the number of any unit is almost always equal to the number of any other unit in NS2, so the game must be balanced accordingly</b>.
I'm not saying that a rifle should be exactly equal to an onos. If it helps you to understand what I'm getting at, let's imagine that for the purpose of balance (and I know this is going to be controversial), every single "life" is "worth" 100 "resources". So (if my costs are up to date) rifle, skulk: 100 gorge: 110 shotgun: 115 grenade launcher: 120 lerk, flamethrower: 130 fade: 150 onos: 170 A fade (150) should be equal to (150/115=) 1.3 shotguns. A rifle (100) and a skulk (100) should be equal (100/100) to one another. An onos (170), the most powerful unit in the game, should still only be equal to (170/100=) 1.7 rifles. Every person already has a base worth of 100 resources, so if they spend the same amount, they should have approximately equivalent strength. But if one spends less than another, their power ratio isn't exactly equivalent to their expenditure ratio. A 100-resource unit (200) is not worth ten 10-resource units (10x110); the ten 10-resource units are worth (1100/200=) 5.5 times the 100-resource unit. You might say that the cost isn't commensurate with the benefit then - but that can be balanced by making the class more effective in ways other than on a purely player-vs-player basis. For example, the onos is obviously a siege unit, the gorge is obviously a support unit.
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
It's not weapon drop that is broken, it's the fact that shotguns are so cheap that they can be possessed for the entire game once a commander researches them.
What you point out is true, Iept. But that's also a side-effect of the 2-resource model, not simply because they're "cheap". In NS1, shotguns were "cheap", but if you got a shotgun, that means someone else might not get a shotgun. In NS2, shotguns are "cheap", but if you get a shotgun, everyone else can still get a shotgun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right, and as I said in the post, the best you can muster is a shotgun. Going by your idea of balance, Shotgun < Fade because 15 < 50. New player loses automatically.
From the rest of your post, I can see that you've actually eased up on this view. I can tell that you're getting my point about how we can't stay with the mindset that x/y resources should determine the relative strength of two different units, because it turns this into a "50 vs 15" game, as it were.
But the biggest point I'm making here is that because of the NS2 personal resource model, the number of any unit is almost always equal to the number of any other unit in NS2, so the game must be balanced accordingly.
I'm not saying that a rifle should be exactly equal to an onos. If it helps you to understand what I'm getting at, let's imagine that for the purpose of balance (and I know this is going to be controversial), every single "life" is "worth" 100 "resources"...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets go back to the scenario where it takes 3 marine players to kill 1 alien fade. It's what caused this whole side discussion.
Whether it takes 3 shotguns or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade, its still takes more marine players to take on a lesser number of alien players. Whether its a new player joining mid game or not, the problem persists. You could mitigate the problem by lessening the gap as you are suggesting (which I don't object to), but you won't completely solve the current problem unless everything is made equivalent to everything else. Which goes back to my point that marines are currently lacking the rough equivalent of the fade..which Jetpacks are seen to eventually fill that role in NS2. Until then you won't see an equal 1v1... or rather an equivalent 1 marine player for every 1 alien player.
As for new players joining mid-game, you are assuming a new player will automatically face a fade all by his lonesome and nothing else. Its ignoring other teammates supporting the player in EXOs or jetpackss taking on fades...or other alien players who have died recently and are currently saving up by playing skulks...or are playing skulks for other tactical reasons. I don't think it is as bleak for a new player as you are making it out to be.
<!--quoteo(post=1859926:date=Jul 11 2011, 09:18 PM:name=IeptBarakat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IeptBarakat @ Jul 11 2011, 09:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not weapon drop that is broken, it's the fact that shotguns are so cheap that they can be possessed for the entire game once a commander researches them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1859929:date=Jul 11 2011, 09:42 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 11 2011, 09:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you point out is true, Iept. But that's also a side-effect of the 2-resource model, not simply because they're "cheap". In NS1, shotguns were "cheap", but if you got a shotgun, that means someone else might not get a shotgun. In NS2, shotguns are "cheap", but if you get a shotgun, everyone else can still get a shotgun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i think there should be a limit on ow many shotguns and flame throwers there are, like in a team of 6: 3 shoties, 1 flamer, 2 gls, lmg unlimited
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1860094:date=Jul 12 2011, 12:35 PM:name=Cyberwarrior00785)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cyberwarrior00785 @ Jul 12 2011, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think there should be a limit on ow many shotguns and flame throwers there are, like in a team of 6: 3 shoties, 1 flamer, 2 gls, lmg unlimited<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Limiting weapons isn't a fun way either. Goes against letting players buy weapons in the first place.
They need to balance out the weapons so each gun has a use in combat. So players might actually use a different gun for it's benefits rather than using the same gun all day.
As you note, if certain guns don't act as swiss army knives then you won't see that kind of problem. The problem is all guns, at the basest of its points, do only one thing, kill stuff dead, so people will always gravitate toward the gun that kills stuff in the most expedient fashion, since the battlefield is going to see a mix of enemies from skulks, lerks, fades, and onos(eventually), they won't be able to pick guns based on the enemy type they expect to face so much as on more constant features.
There should never be an arbitrary cap on how many weapons of type x should be allowed. Rather have the performance profiles and/or resource costs of the different weapons create the desired effect.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1859460:date=Jul 10 2011, 04:29 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ Jul 10 2011, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859460"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->to do this blink can work in two ways.
1.blink will work as it currently does, holding it fade would enter his eternal world 2.gently tapping blink, the fade would blink gently forward as ns1 fade did<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
This, and then an activation cost for going into his 'eternal world'. And a slower drain in 'eternal world'. Why? Because this should not be possible with the normal blink: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHZ03gaqvms" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHZ03gaqvms</a> His normal blink should not be spammed to avoid bullets, but to get in and out of combat. The double-tap movement key blink should be to avoid bullets. And then as luns says: tapping mouse2 once should give him forward momentum without blinking. To get around the map fast, and save your energy for battle. Coming out of the 'eternal world' should not slow the fade down like it do now. Momentum/speed gained in the blink state should not be lost when you come out of it. When you come out you should just feel gravity pulling you down, not slowing you down.
Harimau, you seem to be ignoring the fact that players die. If a fade is going to cost 50 res, and a shotgun costs 15, then all else being equal, a fade needs to survive 3x as long as a shotgun. If resources enter the system at the same rate (equal extractor count), they need to leave the system at the same rate as well to maintain balance. If fades cost 3x a much as a shotgun but each has even odds of winning an XvX fight, then aliens are losing resources at 3x the rate of the marine team and very quickly will be unable to compete.
<!--quoteo(post=1860522:date=Jul 14 2011, 09:40 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 14 2011, 09:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860522"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimau, you seem to be ignoring the fact that players die. If a fade is going to cost 50 res, and a shotgun costs 15, then all else being equal, a fade needs to survive 3x as long as a shotgun. If resources enter the system at the same rate (equal extractor count), they need to leave the system at the same rate as well to maintain balance. If fades cost 3x a much as a shotgun but each has even odds of winning an XvX fight, then aliens are losing resources at 3x the rate of the marine team and very quickly will be unable to compete.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, for all intents and purposes, every time a marine meets a fade, the "50 vs 15 game" is reset. It's not a chance game - higher simply wins - that's the idea of balance you're supporting. When a fade (50) kills a marine (15), the marine drops to 0 and the fade stays at 50. Neither do they mutually destroy one another so that the fade is now at 35 - because only an idiot fade would keep fighting on low health without going back to heal. With your idea of balance, the marine team will lose every encounter, so they will lose infinitely more resources. Fortunately, the manner of gathering resources, and the sheer volume of resources, is such that how much resources you have left is rather insignificant. But because resources are insignificant, you cannot just balance around the idea of resources. If UWE made every unit in the game <b>free</b> (but still require unlocking), it would probably not change the game much.
<!--quoteo(post=1860091:date=Jul 13 2011, 12:28 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 13 2011, 12:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets go back to the scenario where it takes 3 marine players to kill 1 alien fade. It's what caused this whole side discussion.
Whether it takes 3 shotguns or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade, its still takes more marine players to take on a lesser number of alien players. Whether its a new player joining mid game or not, the problem persists. You could mitigate the problem by lessening the gap as you are suggesting (which I don't object to), but you won't completely solve the current problem unless everything is made equivalent to everything else. Which goes back to my point that marines are currently lacking the rough equivalent of the fade..which Jetpacks are seen to eventually fill that role in NS2. Until then you won't see an equal 1v1... or rather an equivalent 1 marine player for every 1 alien player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't about taking 3.3 or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade. That's not the point. Nothing should ever be obsolete. If a fade is "worth" 1.3 shotguns, that doesn't mean it takes 1.3 shotguns to kill the fade, that means it takes "1.3" shotguns for the fade(s) and the marine player(s) to have an equal chance of winning. "Chance" is a bad word, because it's really up to player skill. If a marine is good enough, he should be able to take on a lone fade alone, because he's only 1.3 times as strong as you. A fade that is 3.3 times as strong as you is not so easy to overcome, however.
With great power comes great responsibility - but I prefer to call it risk. You get the marginal benefit, but you pay the cost; if the cost is higher, you're rewarded with a stronger weapon, but you also risk more (resources). If you are too strong, then really, you risk nothing. Just because you "saved up" doesn't mean you're a good player, or a smart player, it just means you saved up - what have you done that you should be rewarded with a superweapon?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for new players joining mid-game, you are assuming a new player will automatically face a fade all by his lonesome and nothing else. Its ignoring other teammates supporting the player in EXOs or jetpackss taking on fades...or other alien players who have died recently and are currently saving up by playing skulks...or are playing skulks for other tactical reasons. I don't think it is as bleak for a new player as you are making it out to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what? The fade will also have new upgrades. The fade will also have gorge and lerk support, and other fades, maybe some onoses.
I just wish I could destroy buildings with it as well. That's why we eventually lost that round. But I have to say we had very good gorges during that game, otherwise scores like these are difficult to obtain. It's a good thing teamplay is promoted.
<!--quoteo(post=1860602:date=Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It isn't about taking 3.3 or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade. That's not the point. Nothing should ever be obsolete. If a fade is "worth" 1.3 shotguns, that doesn't mean it takes 1.3 shotguns to kill the fade, that means it takes "1.3" shotguns for the fade(s) and the marine player(s) to have an equal chance of winning. "Chance" is a bad word, because it's really up to player skill. If a marine is good enough, he should be able to take on a lone fade alone, because he's only 1.3 times as strong as you. A fade that is 3.3 times as strong as you is not so easy to overcome, however.
With great power comes great responsibility - but I prefer to call it risk. You get the marginal benefit, but you pay the cost; if the cost is higher, you're rewarded with a stronger weapon, but you also risk more (resources). If you are too strong, then really, you risk nothing. Just because you "saved up" doesn't mean you're a good player, or a smart player, it just means you saved up - what have you done that you should be rewarded with a superweapon?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well like I said I don't object to lowering the gap, nor do I object to having a yield-curve type relationship between res cost and effectiveness in order to promote better risk/reward gameplay. I think they are solid ideas.
However the current environment is skewed by marines not having the "equivalent" of the fade, which is what makes the current 3v1 fade vs marines scenarios so evident. We would see far less outcry on this if the EXO and Jumppacks were in the game, which would inject the needed risk for fades. This is not to say your points are invalid, but even so, an environment with your ideas implemented would still suffer from not having these equivalents (albeit it would be less evident).
<!--quoteo(post=1860602:date=Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what? The fade will also have new upgrades. The fade will also have gorge and lerk support, and other fades, maybe some onoses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A new player with 25 res would fit fine here. Its not a new player versus that fade player. Its team versus team, and marine side will be better off having him there than not. With 25 res he could potentially have more pres than other players that started form the beginning. Its not a pressing issue imo. Of course a lowered effectiveness gap, a "yield curve" for effectiveness/pres and lowered pres pool max wouldn't hurt.
Comments
So it would likely be nothing like the NS1 blink even if you did, you would have to recreate it, you can't really port something between what is quite literally, two different universes with different laws of physics.
No. but counting it in miles will give you different results.
So if your formula takes input numbers and does something to them to produce output numbers for velocity, if the input numbers and velocity numbers aren't at the same ratios as they are in NS1, you'll get an entirely different feel.
Say the input ranges from 1 to 10 in goldsrc, it might range from 1 to 8 in spark, and the velocity in goldsrc might be measured in hundreds, for example normal gravity in goldsrc is 800 as far as I know, in spark normal gravity might be 1, depending on how they represent it. You can't just port between two different games.
Which isn't really a port at all.
So its really 50 vs 15. The Fade should win most of the time.
The FT is 30, but the FT is not really designed for 1v1.
Lets say the Jumppack is 30, and a marine gets that plus a GL (20+30=50...just like the fade). In this scenario, a 1v1 with a marine and fade should be a closer fight (assuming the GL didn't suck right now). However, marines are suppose to stay in groups, and are not 1v1 specialists.
If a group marines encountered an equally sized group of aliens and both sides spent equal res, the fight should be pretty close (assuming both equally skilled). We shouldn't look at 1on1 scenarios as the litmus test for balance. The marines really need more higher tier stuff right now, if they want to compete with the fade on a more even footing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree.
Let's say, for instance, that you join a game halfway.
In NS1, the marine commander could have given you a weapon, no problem.
In NS2, you start with very little, while every alien is running around with a fade, and has 100 more res where that came from, and the best that you can muster, is a shotgun. Under your rule, you simply deserve to die.
That's just a very specific edge case, but it's indicative of the problem.
<b>You cannot balance NS2 units around resources anymore</b>, even though you could with NS1, exactly <b>because</b> the resources have changed. In NS1, if both teams earned the same amount of resources, you could field more shotguns than they could field fades, so it was fine that a fade is <b>worth</b> more than a shotgun. In NS2, if both teams earn the same amount of resources, you can only field the same number of shotguns as they can field fades, so it is <b>not okay</b> to say that 50 beats 15.
In fact, let's play a game, I just invented it right now. I get to choose between the numbers 0, 10, 30, and 50; and you get to choose between the numbers 0, 15, 20 and 30. The person who picks the highest number wins.
Let's go. I choose 50. Your move.
Okay, that's not very fair - I invented the game so I have a more innate understanding of it. Best of 3! I choose 50 again.
Best 3 of 5? I choose 50 again. gg. I had fun.
Why? Back to the resources.
For the sake of simplicity, let's ignore RFK. Let's say that both teams, in both games, earn the same amount of res: 25 every minute, 125 after 5 minutes. Let's pretend that in both games, a fade costs 25 and a shotgun costs 10 resources.
In NS1, your resources were effectively pooled - money went into the pool, and was re-allocated to you in the form of life-forms and equipment.
In NS2, your resources are not pooled, every one of you gains them each individually at the same rate. Let's say that in a <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, your total team income is 125 after 5 minutes (to match the NS1 situation), that means 25 per player after 5 minutes. So as a consequence of the NS2 system, total team resources scale with the number of players (25 for every new player).
3v3:
NS1: 125/25 = 3 fades (5 fades, 2 unused), 125/10 = 3 shotguns (12 shotguns, 9 unused).
NS2: 75/25 = 3 fades (0 deficit), 75/10 = 3 shotguns (7 shotguns, 4 unused).
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (0 deficit), 125/10 = 5 shotguns (12 shotguns, 7 unused).
NS2: 125/25 = 5 fades (0 deficit), 125/10 = 5 shotguns (12 shotguns, 7 unused).<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
7v7:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (2 deficit), 125/10 = 7 shotguns (12 shotguns, 5 unused).
NS2: 175/25 = 7 fades (0 deficit), 175/10 = 7 shotguns (17 shotguns, 10 unused).
9v9:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (4 deficit), 125/10 = 9 shotguns (12 shotguns, 3 unused).
NS2: 225/25 = 9 fades (0 deficit), 225/10 = 9 shotguns (22 shotguns, 13 unused).
11v11:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (6 deficit), 125/10 = 11 shotguns (12 shotguns, 1 unused).
NS2: 275/25 = 11 fades (0 deficit), 275/10 = 11 shotguns (27 shotguns, 16 unused).
13v13:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (8 deficit), 125/10 = 12 shotguns (1 deficit).
NS2: 325/25 = 13 fades (0 deficit), 325/10 = 13 shotguns (32 shotguns, 19 unused).
<!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->It's pretty obvious that in NS1, with larger teams, you could field less fades for every shotgun they fielded, that's why you had to balance it by making each fade worth more than one shotgun. <!--coloro:#CCCCFF--><span style="color:#CCCCFF"><!--/coloro--><i>This is part of the reason that smaller games favoured the aliens and larger games favoured the marines, and thus NS1 had to be balanced around a single team size: 6v6.</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
It's pretty obvious that in NS2, irrespective of the size of the team, you can field the same number of fades for every shotgun they field, that's why you have to balance it on a closer to 1v1 basis.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF9999--><span style="color:#FF9999"><!--/coloro--><b>tl;dr:</b> In NS1, the number of fades or shotguns a team could put into play due to resources did not truly scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance was suitable for it; but in NS2, the number of fades and shotguns a team can put into play does scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance is not suitable for NS2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Edit: to clarify I could see the player data saving thing being just something stored on the server per round and wiped at the end, basically the steam_id with your resource amount attached to it, maybe k/d and score if you wanted too.
Which isn't really a port at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you can argue about the definition, call it something else if it bothers you. That is my point though. When somebody ports the leap or lerk flight model, in the best case they might have very similar function calls just the variable scales are different. This might be a case in the movement code, I haven't checked yet.
Why? Back to the resources.
For the sake of simplicity, let's ignore RFK. Let's say that both teams, in both games, earn the same amount of res: 25 every minute, 125 after 5 minutes. Let's pretend that in both games, a fade costs 25 and a shotgun costs 10 resources.
In NS1, your resources were effectively pooled - money went into the pool, and was re-allocated to you in the form of life-forms and equipment.
In NS2, your resources are not pooled, every one of you gains them each individually at the same rate. Let's say that in a <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, your total team income is 125 after 5 minutes (to match the NS1 situation), that means 25 per player after 5 minutes. So as a consequence of the NS2 system, total team resources scale with the number of players (25 for every new player).
3v3:
NS1: 125/25 = 3 fades (5 fades, 2 unused), 125/10 = 3 shotguns (12 shotguns, 9 unused).
NS2: 75/25 = 3 fades (0 deficit), 75/10 = 3 shotguns (7 shotguns, 4 unused).
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->5v5:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (0 deficit), 125/10 = 5 shotguns (12 shotguns, 7 unused).
NS2: 125/25 = 5 fades (0 deficit), 125/10 = 5 shotguns (12 shotguns, 7 unused).<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
7v7:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (2 deficit), 125/10 = 7 shotguns (12 shotguns, 5 unused).
NS2: 175/25 = 7 fades (0 deficit), 175/10 = 7 shotguns (17 shotguns, 10 unused).
9v9:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (4 deficit), 125/10 = 9 shotguns (12 shotguns, 3 unused).
NS2: 225/25 = 9 fades (0 deficit), 225/10 = 9 shotguns (22 shotguns, 13 unused).
11v11:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (6 deficit), 125/10 = 11 shotguns (12 shotguns, 1 unused).
NS2: 275/25 = 11 fades (0 deficit), 275/10 = 11 shotguns (27 shotguns, 16 unused).
13v13:
NS1: 125/25 = 5 fades (8 deficit), 125/10 = 12 shotguns (1 deficit).
NS2: 325/25 = 13 fades (0 deficit), 325/10 = 13 shotguns (32 shotguns, 19 unused).
<!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->It's pretty obvious that in NS1, with larger teams, you could field less fades for every shotgun they fielded, that's why you had to balance it by making each fade worth more than one shotgun. <!--coloro:#CCCCFF--><span style="color:#CCCCFF"><!--/coloro--><i>This is part of the reason that smaller games favoured the aliens and larger games favoured the marines, and thus NS1 had to be balanced around a single team size: 6v6.</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
It's pretty obvious that in NS2, irrespective of the size of the team, you can field the same number of fades for every shotgun they field, that's why you have to balance it on a closer to 1v1 basis.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF9999--><span style="color:#FF9999"><!--/coloro--><b>tl;dr:</b> In NS1, the number of fades or shotguns a team could put into play due to resources did not truly scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance was suitable for it; but in NS2, the number of fades and shotguns a team can put into play does scale with player-count, so using resources as the basis for balance is not suitable for NS2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that writing and you don't consider that marines can reclaim weapons they die with thus losing nothing, a fade dies - he dies thats 50 res gone, a skulk can't stand over his corpse spamming drop weapon till he runs back and magically turns back into a fade ;D Also marines have medpacks which go a very long way to equalising the playing field if your comm is any good. And i'm pretty sure a marine with a sg and 35 medpacks beats a fade by your warped logic :)
And btw you simply cannot ignore RFK, it was such in important factor in the timings of fades, hives and other lifeforms and what marine upgrades/weapons/map presence they had to face.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you say "but you don't balance 1v1!" - in NS1, you're right, you didn't. Sorry, bro, but in NS2 you kinda have to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just no. I mean there's so much you're just glossing over; there's how marines get exponentially stronger the more of them there are in a group together, especially if they have SGs as that is a lot of instant dmg they can put out. But also play styles come into it, skulks do not beat lmg marines 1v1 yet they're both an equal unit in your eyes, but they have speed and manoeuvrability so can attack in groups easily so it balances out, so they're balanced as a team not 1v1. And it works the other way for marines vs fades, marines in tight groups decimate fades which is why its important to have lerks with fades to use spores to separate out the marines.
Let's say, for instance, that you join a game halfway.
In NS1, the marine commander could have given you a weapon, no problem.
In NS2, you start with very little, while every alien is running around with a fade, and has 100 more res where that came from, and the best that you can muster, is a shotgun. Under your rule, you simply deserve to die.
That's just a very specific edge case, but it's indicative of the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New players start with 25 res. Many players who started from the beginning might be sitting with less res and no upgrades due to just dying and losing it. New players have a decent start in comparison to all other player's res pools.
Ideally all players should be maximizing their res pool and not be sitting on hundreds of excess res....unless of course they are simply good players/team. However, there needs to be a much, much lower pres pool in order to minimize this slippery slope and allow comebacks.
The problem currently is that fades are at the top of the food chain and almost never die. This allows them to always have 100+ res to fall back on. They don't die because currently the SG/FT are the high end of the marine arsenal, which can't compete with fades on equal footing. There are no Jumppacks nor EXOs that could potentially weed out fades, and force them to use up their excess res.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot balance NS2 units around resources anymore, even though you could with NS1, exactly because the resources have changed. In NS1, if both teams earned the same amount of resources, you could field more shotguns than they could field fades, so it was fine that a fade is worth more than a shotgun. In NS2, if both teams earn the same amount of resources, you can only field the same number of shotguns as they can field fades, so it is not okay to say that 50 beats 15.
In fact, let's play a game, I just invented it right now. I get to choose between the numbers 0, 10, 30, and 50; and you get to choose between the numbers 0, 15, 20 and 30. The person who picks the highest number wins.
Let's go. I choose 50. Your move.
Okay, that's not very fair - I invented the game so I have a more innate understanding of it. Best of 3! I choose 50 again.
Best 3 of 5? I choose 50 again. gg. I had fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But 50 shouldn't always beat 15. There are team tactics and counters to consider. I think this is what you are getting at, and I think we are both just emphasizing different sides of the same point.
50 shouldn't always beat 15. I agree. I didn't mean to make it sound like 50res should perfectly balance out to 30+20. I was just trying to point out that marines are lacking items to spend their res on, and so they can go face fades at a more equal footing.
50 shouldn't equal 15, we shouldn't expect a perfect 1v1. However the 50res player perhaps doesn't have the clear super unit as in NS1.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turrets kinda suck in general, they don't have any effects on either end, I can't tell if the turret is hitting things and the only real indicator of being hit by it is a steady health drain, they need effects on them, a laser sight to show where it's aiming and some tracers/hit effects to show when it's damaging stuff would be ideal.
My only real complaint is the lack of noticeable feedback when you are being hit. This isn't just with the fade though. I feel like I can be getting lit up by a turret without even realizing it and before I know it I'm dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very true and is why you tend to see Movement Chamber first in almost all NS1 games - I'm assuming we're going to get Movement and Sensory chambers in NS2?
And yeh the game currently lacks a hit sound as aliens, its a little disconcerting to watch your health plummet without hearing anything hit you.
At the same time, (for simplicity's sake) I didn't consider RFK either, which obviously swings the resource balance back in the fade's direction. And if the fade is winning 1v2 shotties each time, and then getting away?
I do think, however, that marines being able to reclaim their weapons when they die is <b>broken</b>, so that's an invalid argument. At best, the weapon should disappear upon the marine's respawn.
I also think that PRFK should be removed entirely, but that's a different issue.
What is it that all of you are failing to understand?
NS1 - FINITE number of units that can be played with a certain number of resource towers held -> limited by the resources
NS2 - INDETERMINATE (maximised) number of units that can be played with a certain number of resource towers held -> not limited by the resources -> number of higher tier units = number of lower tier units = a game of "I pick 50, you pick 15, you lose"
Look, maybe you all want your super-units because they're "cool", that's perfectly valid, but you can in no way argue that they're balanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1859708:date=Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM:name=Laggasaurus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Laggasaurus @ Jul 11 2011, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And i'm pretty sure a marine with a sg and 35 medpacks beats a fade by your warped logic :)
skulks do not beat lmg marines 1v1 yet they're both an equal unit in your eyes, but they have speed and manoeuvrability so can attack in groups easily so it balances out, so they're balanced as a team not 1v1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's obvious you're misrepresenting my view here, either because you didn't understand my post or you didn't read it. This is the exact view I'm <b>against</b>.
If you pit a team of 7 fades versus 7 shotguns - which will happen very often in NS2, though it rarely happened outside of CO in NS1 - who's going to win? Don't dodge the issue by saying "but the marines can add a flamethrower, and medpack support" or "the aliens can add a gorge and a lerk". Whatever. It's impossible to balance the game for every single permutation (or player strategy* that might develop), so it's imperative that the game can be balanced at a foundational level.
In my view, they <b>should</b> be similar. If both sides are equally-skilled, then both sides (fades or shotgun) should take a similar amount of damage.
*In fact if you did attempt to balance for every player strategy that might develop: well, first of all you're going to be changing the game a lot, all the time; secondly, you'll be pushing players to fit inside a "mould" - a few choice strategies - and not really allowing other strategies to develop; effectively, you're removing the number of meaningful choices, and therefore <b>depth</b>.
In NS2, unit availability is almost independent of map control, because personal resources scale (they're practically superficial). You might as well just have a DOD/TF2-style "pick class" screen.
<!--quoteo(post=1859716:date=Jul 11 2011, 10:49 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 11 2011, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859716"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->New players start with 25 res. Many players who started from the beginning might be sitting with less res and no upgrades due to just dying and losing it. New players have a decent start in comparison to all other player's res pools.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and <b>as I said in the post</b>, the best you can muster is a shotgun.
Going by your idea of balance, Shotgun < Fade because 15 < 50. New player loses automatically.
From the rest of your post, I can see that you've actually eased up on this view. I can tell that you're getting my point about how we can't stay with the mindset that x/y resources should determine the relative strength of two different units, because it turns this into a "50 vs 15" game, as it were.
But the biggest point I'm making here is that <b>because of the NS2 personal resource model, the number of any unit is almost always equal to the number of any other unit in NS2, so the game must be balanced accordingly</b>.
I'm not saying that a rifle should be exactly equal to an onos. If it helps you to understand what I'm getting at, let's imagine that for the purpose of balance (and I know this is going to be controversial), every single "life" is "worth" 100 "resources".
So (if my costs are up to date)
rifle, skulk: 100
gorge: 110
shotgun: 115
grenade launcher: 120
lerk, flamethrower: 130
fade: 150
onos: 170
A fade (150) should be equal to (150/115=) 1.3 shotguns. A rifle (100) and a skulk (100) should be equal (100/100) to one another. An onos (170), the most powerful unit in the game, should still only be equal to (170/100=) 1.7 rifles.
Every person already has a base worth of 100 resources, so if they spend the same amount, they should have approximately equivalent strength. But if one spends less than another, their power ratio isn't exactly equivalent to their expenditure ratio. A 100-resource unit (200) is not worth ten 10-resource units (10x110); the ten 10-resource units are worth (1100/200=) 5.5 times the 100-resource unit.
You might say that the cost isn't commensurate with the benefit then - but that can be balanced by making the class more effective in ways other than on a purely player-vs-player basis. For example, the onos is obviously a siege unit, the gorge is obviously a support unit.
Going by your idea of balance, Shotgun < Fade because 15 < 50. New player loses automatically.
From the rest of your post, I can see that you've actually eased up on this view. I can tell that you're getting my point about how we can't stay with the mindset that x/y resources should determine the relative strength of two different units, because it turns this into a "50 vs 15" game, as it were.
But the biggest point I'm making here is that because of the NS2 personal resource model, the number of any unit is almost always equal to the number of any other unit in NS2, so the game must be balanced accordingly.
I'm not saying that a rifle should be exactly equal to an onos. If it helps you to understand what I'm getting at, let's imagine that for the purpose of balance (and I know this is going to be controversial), every single "life" is "worth" 100 "resources"...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets go back to the scenario where it takes 3 marine players to kill 1 alien fade. It's what caused this whole side discussion.
Whether it takes 3 shotguns or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade, its still takes more marine players to take on a lesser number of alien players. Whether its a new player joining mid game or not, the problem persists. You could mitigate the problem by lessening the gap as you are suggesting (which I don't object to), but you won't completely solve the current problem unless everything is made equivalent to everything else. Which goes back to my point that marines are currently lacking the rough equivalent of the fade..which Jetpacks are seen to eventually fill that role in NS2. Until then you won't see an equal 1v1... or rather an equivalent 1 marine player for every 1 alien player.
As for new players joining mid-game, you are assuming a new player will automatically face a fade all by his lonesome and nothing else. Its ignoring other teammates supporting the player in EXOs or jetpackss taking on fades...or other alien players who have died recently and are currently saving up by playing skulks...or are playing skulks for other tactical reasons. I don't think it is as bleak for a new player as you are making it out to be.
i think there should be a limit on ow many shotguns and flame throwers there are, like in a team of 6: 3 shoties, 1 flamer, 2 gls, lmg unlimited
Limiting weapons isn't a fun way either. Goes against letting players buy weapons in the first place.
They need to balance out the weapons so each gun has a use in combat. So players might actually use a different gun for it's benefits rather than using the same gun all day.
1.blink will work as it currently does, holding it fade would enter his eternal world
2.gently tapping blink, the fade would blink gently forward as ns1 fade did<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
This, and then an activation cost for going into his 'eternal world'. And a slower drain in 'eternal world'.
Why? Because this should not be possible with the normal blink:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHZ03gaqvms" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHZ03gaqvms</a>
His normal blink should not be spammed to avoid bullets, but to get in and out of combat. The double-tap movement key blink should be to avoid bullets.
And then as luns says: tapping mouse2 once should give him forward momentum without blinking. To get around the map fast, and save your energy for battle.
Coming out of the 'eternal world' should not slow the fade down like it do now. Momentum/speed gained in the blink state should not be lost when you come out of it. When you come out you should just feel gravity pulling you down, not slowing you down.
now slowly over the next 8 patches itll go back to the way it was anyway.
No, for all intents and purposes, every time a marine meets a fade, the "50 vs 15 game" is reset. It's not a chance game - higher simply wins - that's the idea of balance you're supporting.
When a fade (50) kills a marine (15), the marine drops to 0 and the fade stays at 50.
Neither do they mutually destroy one another so that the fade is now at 35 - because only an idiot fade would keep fighting on low health without going back to heal.
With your idea of balance, the marine team will lose every encounter, so they will lose infinitely more resources.
Fortunately, the manner of gathering resources, and the sheer volume of resources, is such that how much resources you have left is rather insignificant.
But because resources are insignificant, you cannot just balance around the idea of resources.
If UWE made every unit in the game <b>free</b> (but still require unlocking), it would probably not change the game much.
<!--quoteo(post=1860091:date=Jul 13 2011, 12:28 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 13 2011, 12:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets go back to the scenario where it takes 3 marine players to kill 1 alien fade. It's what caused this whole side discussion.
Whether it takes 3 shotguns or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade, its still takes more marine players to take on a lesser number of alien players. Whether its a new player joining mid game or not, the problem persists. You could mitigate the problem by lessening the gap as you are suggesting (which I don't object to), but you won't completely solve the current problem unless everything is made equivalent to everything else. Which goes back to my point that marines are currently lacking the rough equivalent of the fade..which Jetpacks are seen to eventually fill that role in NS2. Until then you won't see an equal 1v1... or rather an equivalent 1 marine player for every 1 alien player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't about taking 3.3 or 1.3 shotguns to kill a fade. That's not the point. Nothing should ever be obsolete. If a fade is "worth" 1.3 shotguns, that doesn't mean it takes 1.3 shotguns to kill the fade, that means it takes "1.3" shotguns for the fade(s) and the marine player(s) to have an equal chance of winning. "Chance" is a bad word, because it's really up to player skill. If a marine is good enough, he should be able to take on a lone fade alone, because he's only 1.3 times as strong as you. A fade that is 3.3 times as strong as you is not so easy to overcome, however.
With great power comes great responsibility - but I prefer to call it risk. You get the marginal benefit, but you pay the cost; if the cost is higher, you're rewarded with a stronger weapon, but you also risk more (resources). If you are too strong, then really, you risk nothing.
Just because you "saved up" doesn't mean you're a good player, or a smart player, it just means you saved up - what have you done that you should be rewarded with a superweapon?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for new players joining mid-game, you are assuming a new player will automatically face a fade all by his lonesome and nothing else. Its ignoring other teammates supporting the player in EXOs or jetpackss taking on fades...or other alien players who have died recently and are currently saving up by playing skulks...or are playing skulks for other tactical reasons. I don't think it is as bleak for a new player as you are making it out to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what? The fade will also have new upgrades. The fade will also have gorge and lerk support, and other fades, maybe some onoses.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/UM2rW.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I just wish I could destroy buildings with it as well. That's why we eventually lost that round.
But I have to say we had very good gorges during that game, otherwise scores like these are difficult to obtain. It's a good thing teamplay is promoted.
With great power comes great responsibility - but I prefer to call it risk. You get the marginal benefit, but you pay the cost; if the cost is higher, you're rewarded with a stronger weapon, but you also risk more (resources). If you are too strong, then really, you risk nothing.
Just because you "saved up" doesn't mean you're a good player, or a smart player, it just means you saved up - what have you done that you should be rewarded with a superweapon?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well like I said I don't object to lowering the gap, nor do I object to having a yield-curve type relationship between res cost and effectiveness in order to promote better risk/reward gameplay. I think they are solid ideas.
However the current environment is skewed by marines not having the "equivalent" of the fade, which is what makes the current 3v1 fade vs marines scenarios so evident. We would see far less outcry on this if the EXO and Jumppacks were in the game, which would inject the needed risk for fades. This is not to say your points are invalid, but even so, an environment with your ideas implemented would still suffer from not having these equivalents (albeit it would be less evident).
<!--quoteo(post=1860602:date=Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 07:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what? The fade will also have new upgrades. The fade will also have gorge and lerk support, and other fades, maybe some onoses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A new player with 25 res would fit fine here. Its not a new player versus that fade player. Its team versus team, and marine side will be better off having him there than not. With 25 res he could potentially have more pres than other players that started form the beginning. Its not a pressing issue imo. Of course a lowered effectiveness gap, a "yield curve" for effectiveness/pres and lowered pres pool max wouldn't hurt.