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
With #1 I think the best way to alleviate the problem would be to emphasize on commander dropped weapons again but still having the ability to save up for your own weapons.
Level the armory pricing based on alien evolution purchases. Saving your resources for the good stuff. (Based on the 100 p.res max model) 10 Welder 15 Jetpack 20 Mine pack 30 Flamethrower 50 Shotgun 75 Grenade Launcher (Can be modified for whatever reason, any additional problem is due to res flow)
Have Commander dropped weapons and equipment cost t.res again. As the problem where someone on the team could run into the command station to waste all the resources for himself has been fixed with the removal of multiple commanders. With ns1 based item costs, the marine commander would provide for his team again improving team relations and having some control over the team's loadout again.
<!--quoteo(post=1894697:date=Jan 15 2012, 04:29 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Jan 15 2012, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894697"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->#1 Even though I prefer the NS1 way, I can live with players buying their own weapons. As far as I know it was introduced so that players didn't depend on the comm dropping weapons (although, I don't recall that being a problem in NS1). Of course, they still depend on the comm to actually research stuff. In competitive games it makes no difference. My biggest criticism here would be the implications for the resource system. You have to think much less about spending resources in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is there something I've missed big time with the NS2 UI that makes the marine equipment organisation easier than I think? I feel really confused when people say the individual system makes no difference for competetive play.
For example 5 marines at base and you want to push a hive through phasegate. Your decision is 2 shotguns, 2 packs of mines and a welder:
In NS1, comm hits R-S-S-A-A-Z and drops the equipment. Marines grab what they can run through phasegate. Time taken: 3 seconds.
In NS2, comm has to separately call 2 shotguns, 2 mine packs and a welder over the voice comm. Marines have to figure out who gets what, how they can afford all the stuff and so on. In the end you might have 3 shotguns, 1 pack of mines and no welder. Certainly you can work it out quickly if you've practised ahead for the specific situation and all the players have a prearranged set they get (and are able to afford it), but making things up while the game is going is really complicated and requires a lot of communication.
Also, all kinds of base defence and such get a lot more complicated if you have to make sure the next spawning marine can actually afford the necessary equipment. No more fending off the baserush with quick shotgun drop or so.
---
The res model is of course closely related to this. I'm not particularly looking forward to commanding a game where I have very little challenge or possibilities managing how I divide my res between equipment, tech and support spells or whatever. The challenges involved in that were one of the biggest reasons why NS1 commanding felt challenging and interesting in the first place.
---
This is mostly based on how I understand the NS2 in theory. My comm chair FPS isn't really where I'd like it to be, so I'm not really familiar how things go when the game is running smoothly. Please correct me whenever necessary.
<!--quoteo(post=1894699:date=Jan 15 2012, 04:45 PM:name=vizioNz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vizioNz @ Jan 15 2012, 04:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Veritas that doesn't sound like you??? Ohh how I've missed you on Mumble...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think anyone sounds like they should on mumble. Except Jiriki who sounds like a robot he actually seems to be when it comes to keeping the ENSL going ;)
Oh yeah, I only meant the comm can still order specific loadouts if the team is organized enough. You are right, communication wise it is more complicated.
Props on making a video, it makes your opinion sound like it should matter more. The forced profanity was enjoyable.
You're right on:
Performance / Graphics.
You've missed the point on:
Territory control. The power grid / infestation was implemented so that rooms and hallways have strategic value at certain parts of the game. Truthfully, I do not have extensive experience on how this mechanic actually unfolds in the game as the game's performance has prevented me logging enough hours. Your other complaint, static defense, ties back into this point as well. Static defense should deter/kill rambo opponents and stall small / mid sized groups of opponents so friendlies have time to respond to an attack. Again, I don't have enough experience to know if this is how static defenses work in NS2. Welders and the Onos/infestation will also play a critical role in territory control -- which as I assume you know -- can be a vital part in an RTS game.
I disagree with you on:
Marines not being able to buy their own weapons. This isn't a cater to "the call of duty crowd" (because we're so much better than them, right?). In my opinion, one of NS1's biggest downfalls was the fact that my level of fun was almost entirely dependent on the commander. If I really wanted a shotgun I had the option of sitting in base and begging or going without. In addition, this also contributed to the idea that the commander was merely a babysitter for the marines. Players should be able to play their game the way they want.
You're forgetting:
The improvements over NS1. Some quick examples: Commander controlled units (Drifters / MACS / Mobile Siege Tanks, etc) and commander abilities (alien chambers, etc). The addition of the alien commander which brought in a unified resource model, in theory, making the game easier to balance regardless of the number of players on a server.
Like I said, I don't have enough hours to know how everything works in the actual game but the ideas in NS2 are (mostly) solid.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1894708:date=Jan 15 2012, 06:58 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 15 2012, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, I don't have enough hours to know how everything works in the actual game but the ideas in NS2 are (mostly) solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that's pretty much the problem with your post right there. Theories don't always translate well into practice and many of the new features in NS2 are a prime example of that. Some of the ideas aren't very good to begin with either, like multiple commanders.
<!--quoteo(post=1894713:date=Jan 15 2012, 01:24 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jan 15 2012, 01:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some of the ideas aren't very good to begin with either, like multiple commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my opinion, multiple commanders is one of the worst, if not the worst, new feature that NS2 has. It doesn't promote a fundamental gameplay aspect and leaves massive room open for disorganization, trolls, and confusion.
That said, I think on most aspects it's far too early to tell if 'theory' isn't translating well because the 'theory' itself sucks or if it's just implemented incorrectly. The playerbase is practically non-existent and performance issues plague the game (I heard the recent patch has really helped, but I've heard that about 8 times before). Once a lot of players actually log some time in the game people may realize the theory is okay but the implementation needs work. And of course I'm leaving out the option that it's actually fine in it's current state, which it may be.
For example:
The OP mentioned Starcraft a couple of times in his video. Ironically, one of his chief complaints was territory control (infestation/power nodes/static defense) in NS2. Spend any time in the starcraft community and you're bound to see SC1 vets complaining that SC2 <a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=302136" target="_blank">doesn't have enough territory control</a>. If NS2 really wants to push the RTS/FPS genre they should stick with this idea until it's clear it doesn't work/severely limits fun. Just because you logged 20 hours on a barely playable NS2 server with seven other people and you don't like the power grid because you can't ninja phase doesn't mean it's time to upload whiny videos.
Give it time. If it sucks now it can be changed to make it work. If it can't, it can be removed.
everyone point you listed, it have been repeated throughout this whole development and ignored. one of the highlights would be armory vs commander and simply ignoring core values ns1 already built. The die hard fanboys will ignore this video, and will make fun of it, no matter how many people keep pointing out the same problem, it will be ignored. Just like they refuse to adapt ns1 movement for current aliens.
so why did they really scrape everything ns1 was about to completely build ns2 from ground up, why really? you had good game, build things on top of that, don't ignore everything and build something completely new.
I doubt game will be coming out this year, I do not even want to go into when this game might be coming out. I just want them to follow through ns1 values which worked great for years..
<!--quoteo(post=1894713:date=Jan 15 2012, 08:24 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jan 15 2012, 08:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well that's pretty much the problem with your post right there. Theories don't always translate well into practice and many of the new features in NS2 are a prime example of that. Some of the ideas aren't very good to begin with either, like multiple commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you wish happened was a theory, like the tazer was communicated. The community said, "Yo brah, WTF you up to". Tazer was cancelled.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1894714:date=Jan 15 2012, 07:25 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 15 2012, 07:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894714"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give it time. If it sucks now it can be changed to make it work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've had a quite a lot of time now to evaluate a some of the features and while I agree that it's impossible to say for sure that this and that feature can't be salvaged, that doesn't mean we can't say that said features plain and simple are not working at the moment. I also think you're misinterpreting the performance complaints -- the problem isn't that it's impossible to get playable performance and therefore impossible to get an idea of how the new features are working, the problem is that the hardware demands to get said performance are ridiculously high. If you're able to clock your CPU to 4+ GHz and make sure to only play on the four servers that have good enough hardware to keep a stable tickrate, your performance will be adequate for that task.
As for the video itself, I personally think that he pointed out several important issues, but they've all been heavily debated on this forum before. The comparison between building units in SC2 and marines buying their weapons really hit the nail however and highlights the downsides of the current system. That's not to say that marines buying their own weapons doesn't have its advantages. I was even quite enthusiastic about it when they first started talking about doing it like that a few years ago. Having tried it out in action though, I can't say that it doesn't create more issues than it intends to solve. The question is really whether or not marines buying their own weapons is a net gain in terms of gameplay, not how pervasive the problem it is trying to solve was in NS1.
I should also note, and SentrySteve already very briefly touched upon it, that in the heydays of NS1 public servers tended be pretty ###### ###### (not so good). So in that sense I can understand why UWE attempted to move away from certain game-mechanics to make things more accessible to the general public (a sensible thing to do when you're putting out a commercial product). The competitive-scene and the current 1 or 2 high-level public-servers that remain now do not constitute how NS1 was experienced by many\most players. Whether they succeeded on those new mechanics is up for debate obviously.
<!--quoteo(post=1894714:date=Jan 15 2012, 07:25 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 15 2012, 07:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894714"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The OP mentioned Starcraft a couple of times in his video. Ironically, one of his chief complaints was territory control (infestation/power nodes/static defense) in NS2. Spend any time in the starcraft community and you're bound to see SC1 vets complaining that SC2 <a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=302136" target="_blank">doesn't have enough territory control</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also remember people complaining about creep (infestation) during the beta, adding so much emphasis on creep (+30% speed bonus) made zergs sit on it all day long instead of being the fast counter-attack pincer map control race. Adding too much bonus (regen) or debuff for marines (slow, visible, can't build, what else?) might cause the same problem in ns2.
#1: I like buying my own weapons. It's such a pain in the ass right now when you are waiting for a com to drop meds or ammo, I can just imagine how much of a greater annoyance it would be if you also had to wait for them to drop weapons. I just don't think relying on your commander for weapons would be good for public servers.
#2: I think it's a little unfair to criticize the alien commander at this point since it's clearly unfinished. They still need to add in more upgrades and abilities. Of course when you add in a commander role for the team then you also need to add in more abilities and things for that commander to do - those things aren't in the game yet. If it was finished then it would be completely fair to say that the gorge can fulfil the same role. At the moment the gorge and the alien com are both unfinished as I see it and they still need quite a bit of work to get to a point where they are useful for the team and fun to play. The game is still in beta though and there are still many months before the game will be released, plenty of time for things to change.
#3: I agree that the power grid system isn't a very good feature. I like the infestation spreading through the level although I don't like how marines slow down when walking on it.
#4: I agree completely that static defences are really frustrating and should be kept to an absolute minimum. The game should be encouraging players to engage in combat with each other as much as possible, not turtle up behind static defences and rake in easy kills.
#5: I believe performance will continue to improve. The biggest problem for me is the server tick rate dropping. They need to get it to the point where it never drops below 30. I also believe a large part of what makes the game feel laggy is the animations and general lack of responsiveness. The game just doesn't feel responsive even when playing at 60fps. Obviously lots of stuff is still missing, but I just hope the devs really have a big polish period where they get all the animations, sounds, particle effects etc all working in sync and feeling really fluid. The game looks great in static screenshots but once you see it in motion it's not half as impressive.
What I'd like to see is rather than old school ns1 players just asking for a remake that's exactly the same - offering suggestions about how to improve on the ns1 gameplay to make it better. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect game and there could have been many things added to that could make it better. It's obvious to me that the devs aren't going to just remake ns1, so rather than fighting with them and being angry that they are adding things you should try and help them make the best game possible.
hello everyone! thank you for your wonderful replies! i wanted to clarify on a few points i made that may have been confusing in the video:
<b>1. i don't really have an issue with marines buying their own weapons specifically, it's just how it impacts commanding that bothers me</b> - as a commander without the option of choosing which units spawn you're left with creating buildings and some minor unit support - this removes much of the strategy from the game, since you're unable to effectively have counter-style gameplay - leaves resources unbalanced, since you can't pump excess res into units and must use it on whatever you can (in this case sentries/macs)
<b>3. excellent point steve! it is true that in SC2 there's much less of a focus on territory control. although it's important to note that i've spent 200+ hours in NS2, so i feel pretty confident in the points i'm trying to make.</b> - reiterating what i said in the video, ns2 is fundamentally the same game as ns1, which is why we can go back and "look at" how the game would play if you were to take ns2 features and plug them into ns1 - the territorial gameplay that UWE is trying to achieve sounds fantastic on paper, but in actual practice it feels like an extra unnecessary step you have to take when building outside base - this could change once there are bigger maps and add more players (since summit is apparently tiny and the average games are no more than 8v8)
<!--quoteo(post=1894776:date=Jan 15 2012, 07:33 PM:name=TrueVeritas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrueVeritas @ Jan 15 2012, 07:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894776"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...a commander [is] left with creating buildings and some minor unit support, this removes much of the strategy from the game, since you're unable to effectively have counter-style gameplay<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like most RTS/FPS games it doesn't sound like there is much for the commander to do. I made a post a while ago about why <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=102260&view=findpost&p=1717224" target="_blank">commanding wasn't good in NS1</a> and I imagine you'd agree with most of it. I think this is more of a universal problem with all RTS/FPS's as opposed to a problem unique to NS. I was hoping the addition of NPCs and territory control would add more to the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1894738:date=Jan 15 2012, 05:12 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jan 15 2012, 05:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->#1: I like buying my own weapons. It's such a pain in the ass right now when you are waiting for a com to drop meds or ammo, I can just imagine how much of a greater annoyance it would be if you also had to wait for them to drop weapons. I just don't think relying on your commander for weapons would be good for public servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> worked fine in ns1 and made you actually listen to your com. most of the time now players just spawn, head for armory , buy a shotgun and run off and die.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'd like to see is rather than old school ns1 players just asking for a remake that's exactly the same - offering suggestions about how to improve on the ns1 gameplay to make it better. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect game and there could have been many things added to that could make it better. It's obvious to me that the devs aren't going to just remake ns1, so rather than fighting with them and being angry that they are adding things you should try and help them make the best game possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no you dont, any criticism is met with hostility. nobody is asking for the exact same game, but changing basic gameplay elements in ways that DONT WORK is the problem.
flamethrower in its current incarnation doesnt work purchasable weapons dont work for teamplay aliens are far too weak still static shield too op (should either cost more or lower the time its on for) marine /alien movement is terrible (slow aliens + terrible movement for aliens should be a no brainer)
It's impossible for anyone to make a constructive critique towards improving NS2 right now. Every improvement suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system that worked, such as bunnyhopping as skill based movement, commander having control over weapons, removing alien commander/giving the gorge the ultimate control, removing the power grid system, removing knockback (as you have an axe for melee for christ sake), making the GL independent of the assault rifle and so forth.. is automatically thrown out by the die hard fanboys and playtesters formulating support. In particular, it feels like the playtesters have been ordered not to challenge or disagree with design decisions in a public arena.. which means you can't, as a member of the general community, effectively challenge any design decisions as there seems to be an overwhelming playtester support for features, which means die hard fanboys do not question it and there is only ever one side of an argument.
As the game has taken forever and ever to develop, there are more outspoken public opinions. Although die hard fanboys are still in the same position and playtesters are still currently not challenging on a public arena. True they should not air their dirty linen in public, but equally, they should show support for those in the public community that want that change. It's only fair that we can all support each others decisions.
<!--quoteo(post=1894785:date=Jan 15 2012, 09:04 PM:name=konata)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (konata @ Jan 15 2012, 09:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's impossible for anyone to make a constructive critique towards improving NS2 right now. Every improvement suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system that worked, such as bunnyhopping as skill based movement, commander having control over weapons, removing alien commander/giving the gorge the ultimate control, removing the power grid system, removing knockback (as you have an axe for melee for christ sake), making the GL independent of the assault rifle and so forth.. is automatically thrown out by the die hard fanboys and playtesters formulating support. In particular, it feels like the playtesters have been ordered not to challenge or disagree with design decisions in a public arena.. which means you can't, as a member of the general community, effectively challenge any design decisions as there seems to be an overwhelming playtester support for features, which means die hard fanboys do not question it and there is only ever one side of an argument.
As the game has taken forever and ever to develop, there are more outspoken public opinions. Although die hard fanboys are still in the same position and playtesters are still currently not challenging on a public arena. True they should not air their dirty linen in public, but equally, they should show support for those in the public community that want that change. It's only fair that we can all support each others decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Konata, you have every right to feel this way and I share your same thoughts and feelings on this. Just know that, as easy as it is to blame UWE for everything, they are not guilty for everything wrong. If anything, I blame the systematic workflow that is going on behind scenes in the play test program and the unfortunate feature creep that is occurring with the NS2 development. There is a reason some of the most respectable play testers from NS1 that led the NS2 play tester program stepped down. Let's just hope more positive will come out of it than negative. As of right now, the negative outweighs the positive and I feel this may be the reason why you feel this way.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1894780:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 16 2012, 01:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894780"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like most RTS/FPS games it doesn't sound like there is much for the commander to do. I made a post a while ago about why <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=102260&view=findpost&p=1717224" target="_blank">commanding wasn't good in NS1</a> and I imagine you'd agree with most of it. I think this is more of a universal problem with all RTS/FPS's as opposed to a problem unique to NS. I was hoping the addition of NPCs and territory control would add more to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're right that the RTS/FPS blend puts a lot of limitations on what you can do with the commanding role. You do gain something through the blend too though, in the sense that you're now communicating with your units rather than just clicking buttons to move them around. I feel that that alone actually made commanding in NS1 enjoyable, as it was more about being an actual leader -- telling the marines what was going on around the map, telling them what, when and how to do things, and so on.
None of your ideas are ignored. UWE has their own ability to view every one of these posts and every one of these threads. However, if your idea of getting the community involved in changing NS2 involves making YouTube videos in the form they just were, you're going about it the completely wrong way. You're bringing the discussion to YouTube, and out of the NS2 community.
Everyone has the ability to email UWE their ideas and suggestions -- <u>EVERYONE</u>, so if you feel strongly about your complaints, you need to send an email to UWE. If you feel your ideas are getting overlooked, I will speak with UWE to get an email set up where everyone can send their ideas.
Also, "There is a reason some of the most respectable play testers from NS1 that led the NS2 play tester program stepped down. " There is, when you start telling UWE how to make the game, you stop becoming a playtester. You become an advisor. UWE didn't ask for advisors, they asked for players who could report and test bugs.
Uh oh, his video has some naughty words and he doesn't offer detailed, well thought-out solutions supported by mathematical models and charts, better disregard everything he says. Apparently not liking his style is an excuse to ignore all the substance.
Say what you will about the failings of the Commander system, but at least in NS1 the Comm could strongarm/bribe his team into something resembling cooperation on a pub with equipment drops. Without the power to control what players get, it's more like playing the Sims than a RTS. Having one side with a Commander and another without also provided an interesting dynamic (top-down vs peer-to-peer), I'm sad to see the developers felt the need to get rid of that.
For the people who think the game shouldn't be judged based on an incomplete beta, guess what the ###### the purpose of beta testing is? Good products aren't just magiced into existence, it takes testing and feedback to get there. By deliberately suppressing any dissatisfaction voiced by players, you are hurting the future of the game. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently the primary job of an NS2PT is to be a public relations mook instead of actually offering feedback from playing the game.
The primary goal of the NS2PT's is to find, report and test bugs as they are found and fixed. We offer subtle feedback on non-game-changing issues. A good example of this is the lerk's glide movement. Initially, it was a lot, and playtesters began feeling the effects of motion-sickness while playing the lerk. We suggested it be toned down a little. We do not interfere with UWE's decisions to add or remove something from the game. That is not our job. If we have personal recommendations, we take it to the forums in a civilized manner, or we send an email with our suggestions just as every community member has the ability to do.
<!--quoteo(post=1894708:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 16 2012, 01:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Props on making a video, it makes your opinion sound like it should matter more. The forced profanity was enjoyable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He'd be able to pull it off if he were Australian.
<!--quoteo(post=1894708:date=Jan 15 2012, 05:58 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 15 2012, 05:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players should be able to play their game the way they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think games always have to assume the player to play according to some rules. NS1 ended up dictacting a bit more how the game goes, but I think it also had potential to give huge deals of satisfying gameplay in return. Something TF2 on the other hand dictates less, but then again I feel it doesn't have similar kind of huge peaks of enjoyable gameplay.
Different sides of the same coin, I guess. The TF2 way of doing things is probably way more commercially appealing though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, I don't have enough hours to know how everything works in the actual game but the ideas in NS2 are (mostly) solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The way I see game design these days is that coming up with cool ideas is the easy part. Creating meaningful gameplay around the ideas often seems more difficult. Big deal of what I feel NS2 is now struggling with is that the ideas don't always connect well to overall themes and gameplay.
Take the alien commander for example. On paper it feels like it could help with a lot of issues NS1 had. It balances the game for different playercounts, it brings organization to the alien team, it gives them some more flexibility on RTS level. However, it's not very compatible with the skulk and gorge models they brought over from NS1. Now the alien commander kind of steals the economic value of gorge and skulk and a lot of things in the overall res model go a bit weird and crazy.
I agree with everything brought up in Veritas' video. The game is clunky, slow, and just isn't well optimized. But, I'm dismissing most of that seeing as this is supposed to be a "pre-build" (honestly more of an excuse than anything). I feel like a better way to approach this game would be to getting the game to be as close to Natural Selection 1 as possible and THEN going from there with new content and changes. They had a winning formula and a game that just worked really well to begin with, who says that all this stuff has to be changed right from the get-go? That just feels like a very inefficient use of resources and time.
Moving on to the content that is in the game right now. I don't really like the personal resources. It takes a part of planning away from the commander. I understand that people got frustrated not getting shotguns and the like in NS1, since the better weapons always went to people who are better shots. I also understand how handy it is to go up to the armory and pick the weapon that you want. I just feel like this isn't the best way to solve the issue. If I had a better idea for this system, I'd suggest it. But, at the moment, I do not.
Gorges got stripped from most of their duty. Their role feels silly and redundant besides being a mobile healing station who can drop stationary defenses. The alien commander robbed everything a gorge from NS1 stood for and left its chubby, fairly worthless corpse rotting in a corner somewhere. Just because the marines had a commander doesn't mean that the aliens needed one as well. The idea of a hivemind is fine, but it just makes one of the original alien units obsolete. Either make a new alien in the gorges place (incoming angry people) or remove the alien commander. You can't have both and be satisfied.
Everything felt so slow. I miss the twitch shooting and rapid pace that came with NS1. I suppose that's more of a personal preference, but I see that I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Another problem I have with the direction of development stems from one word - "reality." Since when does everything have to be so realistic with games these days? I swear, the more and more games shift towards realism, the less I enjoy playing them. The reason I liked NS1 so much was because of how absurdly unrealistic it was at times. I liked being able to jump like crazy everywhere as a marine. I liked how there was so little recoil, that wherever you pointed is where your bullets went. I liked being able to unload a pistol in half a second.
A lot of personal preferences, sure, but I don't care about super-immersion and ultra-realism. I want a game that's fun to play and takes a good bit of skill to play well.
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=1894816:date=Jan 16 2012, 12:53 AM:name=Primal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Primal @ Jan 16 2012, 12:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894816"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Moving on to the content that is in the game right now. I don't really like the personal resources. It takes a part of planning away from the commander. I understand that people got frustrated not getting shotguns and the like in NS1, since the better weapons always went to people who are better shots. I also understand how handy it is to go up to the armory and pick the weapon that you want. I just feel like this isn't the best way to solve the issue. If I had a better idea for this system, I'd suggest it. But, at the moment, I do not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I spent a couple of hours and made a topic based around the problems expressed in #1. With the intention of trying to have the best of both worlds instead of wanting to remove one or the other.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
I never knew so many people who played NS1 were game designers too... i think konata said it best when he said people that are upset only have a "suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system" good thing this is <i>NS2 </i> :) and venem: i read every post and see no evidence of hostility from those against the criticism, only those who don't believe the rude / crass approach is necessary and really doesn't encourage anyone to consider their point further - in fact it just comes off as someone having a fit
its good to know people are at least passionate about the game i suppose
Comments
Level the armory pricing based on alien evolution purchases. Saving your resources for the good stuff. (Based on the 100 p.res max model)
10 Welder
15 Jetpack
20 Mine pack
30 Flamethrower
50 Shotgun
75 Grenade Launcher
(Can be modified for whatever reason, any additional problem is due to res flow)
Have Commander dropped weapons and equipment cost t.res again. As the problem where someone on the team could run into the command station to waste all the resources for himself has been fixed with the removal of multiple commanders. With ns1 based item costs, the marine commander would provide for his team again improving team relations and having some control over the team's loadout again.
Even though I prefer the NS1 way, I can live with players buying their own weapons. As far as I know it was introduced so that players didn't depend on the comm dropping weapons (although, I don't recall that being a problem in NS1). Of course, they still depend on the comm to actually research stuff. In competitive games it makes no difference. My biggest criticism here would be the implications for the resource system. You have to think much less about spending resources in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there something I've missed big time with the NS2 UI that makes the marine equipment organisation easier than I think? I feel really confused when people say the individual system makes no difference for competetive play.
For example 5 marines at base and you want to push a hive through phasegate. Your decision is 2 shotguns, 2 packs of mines and a welder:
In NS1, comm hits R-S-S-A-A-Z and drops the equipment. Marines grab what they can run through phasegate. Time taken: 3 seconds.
In NS2, comm has to separately call 2 shotguns, 2 mine packs and a welder over the voice comm. Marines have to figure out who gets what, how they can afford all the stuff and so on. In the end you might have 3 shotguns, 1 pack of mines and no welder. Certainly you can work it out quickly if you've practised ahead for the specific situation and all the players have a prearranged set they get (and are able to afford it), but making things up while the game is going is really complicated and requires a lot of communication.
Also, all kinds of base defence and such get a lot more complicated if you have to make sure the next spawning marine can actually afford the necessary equipment. No more fending off the baserush with quick shotgun drop or so.
---
The res model is of course closely related to this. I'm not particularly looking forward to commanding a game where I have very little challenge or possibilities managing how I divide my res between equipment, tech and support spells or whatever. The challenges involved in that were one of the biggest reasons why NS1 commanding felt challenging and interesting in the first place.
---
This is mostly based on how I understand the NS2 in theory. My comm chair FPS isn't really where I'd like it to be, so I'm not really familiar how things go when the game is running smoothly. Please correct me whenever necessary.
<!--quoteo(post=1894699:date=Jan 15 2012, 04:45 PM:name=vizioNz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vizioNz @ Jan 15 2012, 04:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Veritas that doesn't sound like you??? Ohh how I've missed you on Mumble...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think anyone sounds like they should on mumble. Except Jiriki who sounds like a robot he actually seems to be when it comes to keeping the ENSL going ;)
You're right on:
Performance / Graphics.
You've missed the point on:
Territory control. The power grid / infestation was implemented so that rooms and hallways have strategic value at certain parts of the game. Truthfully, I do not have extensive experience on how this mechanic actually unfolds in the game as the game's performance has prevented me logging enough hours. Your other complaint, static defense, ties back into this point as well. Static defense should deter/kill rambo opponents and stall small / mid sized groups of opponents so friendlies have time to respond to an attack. Again, I don't have enough experience to know if this is how static defenses work in NS2. Welders and the Onos/infestation will also play a critical role in territory control -- which as I assume you know -- can be a vital part in an RTS game.
I disagree with you on:
Marines not being able to buy their own weapons. This isn't a cater to "the call of duty crowd" (because we're so much better than them, right?). In my opinion, one of NS1's biggest downfalls was the fact that my level of fun was almost entirely dependent on the commander. If I really wanted a shotgun I had the option of sitting in base and begging or going without. In addition, this also contributed to the idea that the commander was merely a babysitter for the marines. Players should be able to play their game the way they want.
You're forgetting:
The improvements over NS1. Some quick examples: Commander controlled units (Drifters / MACS / Mobile Siege Tanks, etc) and commander abilities (alien chambers, etc). The addition of the alien commander which brought in a unified resource model, in theory, making the game easier to balance regardless of the number of players on a server.
Like I said, I don't have enough hours to know how everything works in the actual game but the ideas in NS2 are (mostly) solid.
Well that's pretty much the problem with your post right there. Theories don't always translate well into practice and many of the new features in NS2 are a prime example of that. Some of the ideas aren't very good to begin with either, like multiple commanders.
In my opinion, multiple commanders is one of the worst, if not the worst, new feature that NS2 has. It doesn't promote a fundamental gameplay aspect and leaves massive room open for disorganization, trolls, and confusion.
That said, I think on most aspects it's far too early to tell if 'theory' isn't translating well because the 'theory' itself sucks or if it's just implemented incorrectly. The playerbase is practically non-existent and performance issues plague the game (I heard the recent patch has really helped, but I've heard that about 8 times before). Once a lot of players actually log some time in the game people may realize the theory is okay but the implementation needs work. And of course I'm leaving out the option that it's actually fine in it's current state, which it may be.
For example:
The OP mentioned Starcraft a couple of times in his video. Ironically, one of his chief complaints was territory control (infestation/power nodes/static defense) in NS2. Spend any time in the starcraft community and you're bound to see SC1 vets complaining that SC2 <a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=302136" target="_blank">doesn't have enough territory control</a>. If NS2 really wants to push the RTS/FPS genre they should stick with this idea until it's clear it doesn't work/severely limits fun. Just because you logged 20 hours on a barely playable NS2 server with seven other people and you don't like the power grid because you can't ninja phase doesn't mean it's time to upload whiny videos.
Give it time. If it sucks now it can be changed to make it work. If it can't, it can be removed.
everyone point you listed, it have been repeated throughout this whole development and ignored. one of the highlights would be armory vs commander and simply ignoring core values ns1 already built.
The die hard fanboys will ignore this video, and will make fun of it, no matter how many people keep pointing out the same problem, it will be ignored. Just like they refuse to adapt ns1 movement for current aliens.
so why did they really scrape everything ns1 was about to completely build ns2 from ground up, why really? you had good game, build things on top of that, don't ignore everything and build something completely new.
I doubt game will be coming out this year, I do not even want to go into when this game might be coming out. I just want them to follow through ns1 values which worked great for years..
What you wish happened was a theory, like the tazer was communicated. The community said, "Yo brah, WTF you up to". Tazer was cancelled.
We've had a quite a lot of time now to evaluate a some of the features and while I agree that it's impossible to say for sure that this and that feature can't be salvaged, that doesn't mean we can't say that said features plain and simple are not working at the moment. I also think you're misinterpreting the performance complaints -- the problem isn't that it's impossible to get playable performance and therefore impossible to get an idea of how the new features are working, the problem is that the hardware demands to get said performance are ridiculously high. If you're able to clock your CPU to 4+ GHz and make sure to only play on the four servers that have good enough hardware to keep a stable tickrate, your performance will be adequate for that task.
As for the video itself, I personally think that he pointed out several important issues, but they've all been heavily debated on this forum before. The comparison between building units in SC2 and marines buying their weapons really hit the nail however and highlights the downsides of the current system. That's not to say that marines buying their own weapons doesn't have its advantages. I was even quite enthusiastic about it when they first started talking about doing it like that a few years ago. Having tried it out in action though, I can't say that it doesn't create more issues than it intends to solve. The question is really whether or not marines buying their own weapons is a net gain in terms of gameplay, not how pervasive the problem it is trying to solve was in NS1.
This game is supposed to sell.
I also remember people complaining about creep (infestation) during the beta, adding so much emphasis on creep (+30% speed bonus) made zergs sit on it all day long instead of being the fast counter-attack pincer map control race. Adding too much bonus (regen) or debuff for marines (slow, visible, can't build, what else?) might cause the same problem in ns2.
#2: I think it's a little unfair to criticize the alien commander at this point since it's clearly unfinished. They still need to add in more upgrades and abilities. Of course when you add in a commander role for the team then you also need to add in more abilities and things for that commander to do - those things aren't in the game yet. If it was finished then it would be completely fair to say that the gorge can fulfil the same role. At the moment the gorge and the alien com are both unfinished as I see it and they still need quite a bit of work to get to a point where they are useful for the team and fun to play. The game is still in beta though and there are still many months before the game will be released, plenty of time for things to change.
#3: I agree that the power grid system isn't a very good feature. I like the infestation spreading through the level although I don't like how marines slow down when walking on it.
#4: I agree completely that static defences are really frustrating and should be kept to an absolute minimum. The game should be encouraging players to engage in combat with each other as much as possible, not turtle up behind static defences and rake in easy kills.
#5: I believe performance will continue to improve. The biggest problem for me is the server tick rate dropping. They need to get it to the point where it never drops below 30. I also believe a large part of what makes the game feel laggy is the animations and general lack of responsiveness. The game just doesn't feel responsive even when playing at 60fps. Obviously lots of stuff is still missing, but I just hope the devs really have a big polish period where they get all the animations, sounds, particle effects etc all working in sync and feeling really fluid. The game looks great in static screenshots but once you see it in motion it's not half as impressive.
What I'd like to see is rather than old school ns1 players just asking for a remake that's exactly the same - offering suggestions about how to improve on the ns1 gameplay to make it better. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect game and there could have been many things added to that could make it better. It's obvious to me that the devs aren't going to just remake ns1, so rather than fighting with them and being angry that they are adding things you should try and help them make the best game possible.
<b>1. i don't really have an issue with marines buying their own weapons specifically, it's just how it impacts commanding that bothers me</b>
- as a commander without the option of choosing which units spawn you're left with creating buildings and some minor unit support
- this removes much of the strategy from the game, since you're unable to effectively have counter-style gameplay
- leaves resources unbalanced, since you can't pump excess res into units and must use it on whatever you can (in this case sentries/macs)
<b>3. excellent point steve! it is true that in SC2 there's much less of a focus on territory control. although it's important to note that i've spent 200+ hours in NS2, so i feel pretty confident in the points i'm trying to make.</b>
- reiterating what i said in the video, ns2 is fundamentally the same game as ns1, which is why we can go back and "look at" how the game would play if you were to take ns2 features and plug them into ns1
- the territorial gameplay that UWE is trying to achieve sounds fantastic on paper, but in actual practice it feels like an extra unnecessary step you have to take when building outside base
- this could change once there are bigger maps and add more players (since summit is apparently tiny and the average games are no more than 8v8)
Like most RTS/FPS games it doesn't sound like there is much for the commander to do. I made a post a while ago about why <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=102260&view=findpost&p=1717224" target="_blank">commanding wasn't good in NS1</a> and I imagine you'd agree with most of it. I think this is more of a universal problem with all RTS/FPS's as opposed to a problem unique to NS. I was hoping the addition of NPCs and territory control would add more to the game.
worked fine in ns1 and made you actually listen to your com. most of the time now players just spawn, head for armory , buy a shotgun and run off and die.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'd like to see is rather than old school ns1 players just asking for a remake that's exactly the same - offering suggestions about how to improve on the ns1 gameplay to make it better. I'm sure it wasn't a perfect game and there could have been many things added to that could make it better. It's obvious to me that the devs aren't going to just remake ns1, so rather than fighting with them and being angry that they are adding things you should try and help them make the best game possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no you dont, any criticism is met with hostility. nobody is asking for the exact same game, but changing basic gameplay elements in ways that DONT WORK is the problem.
flamethrower in its current incarnation doesnt work
purchasable weapons dont work for teamplay
aliens are far too weak still
static shield too op (should either cost more or lower the time its on for)
marine /alien movement is terrible (slow aliens + terrible movement for aliens should be a no brainer)
As the game has taken forever and ever to develop, there are more outspoken public opinions. Although die hard fanboys are still in the same position and playtesters are still currently not challenging on a public arena. True they should not air their dirty linen in public, but equally, they should show support for those in the public community that want that change. It's only fair that we can all support each others decisions.
As the game has taken forever and ever to develop, there are more outspoken public opinions. Although die hard fanboys are still in the same position and playtesters are still currently not challenging on a public arena. True they should not air their dirty linen in public, but equally, they should show support for those in the public community that want that change. It's only fair that we can all support each others decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Konata, you have every right to feel this way and I share your same thoughts and feelings on this. Just know that, as easy as it is to blame UWE for everything, they are not guilty for everything wrong. If anything, I blame the systematic workflow that is going on behind scenes in the play test program and the unfortunate feature creep that is occurring with the NS2 development. There is a reason some of the most respectable play testers from NS1 that led the NS2 play tester program stepped down. Let's just hope more positive will come out of it than negative. As of right now, the negative outweighs the positive and I feel this may be the reason why you feel this way.
Fixed.
To be fair, pretty much anyone who enjoyed rather than endured the FPS aspects of NS1 is thinking that.
I think you're right that the RTS/FPS blend puts a lot of limitations on what you can do with the commanding role. You do gain something through the blend too though, in the sense that you're now communicating with your units rather than just clicking buttons to move them around. I feel that that alone actually made commanding in NS1 enjoyable, as it was more about being an actual leader -- telling the marines what was going on around the map, telling them what, when and how to do things, and so on.
Everyone has the ability to email UWE their ideas and suggestions -- <u>EVERYONE</u>, so if you feel strongly about your complaints, you need to send an email to UWE. If you feel your ideas are getting overlooked, I will speak with UWE to get an email set up where everyone can send their ideas.
Also, "There is a reason some of the most respectable play testers from NS1 that led the NS2 play tester program stepped down. "
There is, when you start telling UWE how to make the game, you stop becoming a playtester. You become an advisor. UWE didn't ask for advisors, they asked for players who could report and test bugs.
Say what you will about the failings of the Commander system, but at least in NS1 the Comm could strongarm/bribe his team into something resembling cooperation on a pub with equipment drops. Without the power to control what players get, it's more like playing the Sims than a RTS. Having one side with a Commander and another without also provided an interesting dynamic (top-down vs peer-to-peer), I'm sad to see the developers felt the need to get rid of that.
For the people who think the game shouldn't be judged based on an incomplete beta, guess what the ###### the purpose of beta testing is? Good products aren't just magiced into existence, it takes testing and feedback to get there. By deliberately suppressing any dissatisfaction voiced by players, you are hurting the future of the game. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently the primary job of an NS2PT is to be a public relations mook instead of actually offering feedback from playing the game.
He'd be able to pull it off if he were Australian.
I think games always have to assume the player to play according to some rules. NS1 ended up dictacting a bit more how the game goes, but I think it also had potential to give huge deals of satisfying gameplay in return. Something TF2 on the other hand dictates less, but then again I feel it doesn't have similar kind of huge peaks of enjoyable gameplay.
Different sides of the same coin, I guess. The TF2 way of doing things is probably way more commercially appealing though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, I don't have enough hours to know how everything works in the actual game but the ideas in NS2 are (mostly) solid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way I see game design these days is that coming up with cool ideas is the easy part. Creating meaningful gameplay around the ideas often seems more difficult. Big deal of what I feel NS2 is now struggling with is that the ideas don't always connect well to overall themes and gameplay.
Take the alien commander for example. On paper it feels like it could help with a lot of issues NS1 had. It balances the game for different playercounts, it brings organization to the alien team, it gives them some more flexibility on RTS level. However, it's not very compatible with the skulk and gorge models they brought over from NS1. Now the alien commander kind of steals the economic value of gorge and skulk and a lot of things in the overall res model go a bit weird and crazy.
Moving on to the content that is in the game right now. I don't really like the personal resources. It takes a part of planning away from the commander. I understand that people got frustrated not getting shotguns and the like in NS1, since the better weapons always went to people who are better shots. I also understand how handy it is to go up to the armory and pick the weapon that you want. I just feel like this isn't the best way to solve the issue. If I had a better idea for this system, I'd suggest it. But, at the moment, I do not.
Gorges got stripped from most of their duty. Their role feels silly and redundant besides being a mobile healing station who can drop stationary defenses. The alien commander robbed everything a gorge from NS1 stood for and left its chubby, fairly worthless corpse rotting in a corner somewhere. Just because the marines had a commander doesn't mean that the aliens needed one as well. The idea of a hivemind is fine, but it just makes one of the original alien units obsolete. Either make a new alien in the gorges place (incoming angry people) or remove the alien commander. You can't have both and be satisfied.
Everything felt so slow. I miss the twitch shooting and rapid pace that came with NS1. I suppose that's more of a personal preference, but I see that I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Another problem I have with the direction of development stems from one word - "reality." Since when does everything have to be so realistic with games these days? I swear, the more and more games shift towards realism, the less I enjoy playing them. The reason I liked NS1 so much was because of how absurdly unrealistic it was at times. I liked being able to jump like crazy everywhere as a marine. I liked how there was so little recoil, that wherever you pointed is where your bullets went. I liked being able to unload a pistol in half a second.
A lot of personal preferences, sure, but I don't care about super-immersion and ultra-realism. I want a game that's fun to play and takes a good bit of skill to play well.
Well I spent a couple of hours and made a topic based around the problems expressed in #1. With the intention of trying to have the best of both worlds instead of wanting to remove one or the other.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115913" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=115913</a>
It may not be the answer, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
i think konata said it best when he said people that are upset only have a "suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system" good thing this is <i>NS2
</i> :)
and venem: i read every post and see no evidence of hostility from those against the criticism, only those who don't believe the rude / crass approach is necessary and really doesn't encourage anyone to consider their point further - in fact it just comes off as someone having a fit
its good to know people are at least passionate about the game i suppose