Personal res management

Yuuki · March 2012

There was many example of this problem during the beta already, lerks were very strong at some point, and whole team lerking was too good: lerk was nerfed. When mines were introduce the spam was terrible: mines were nerfed. Now we got whole team of shotguns, the research time was increased and shotgun will probably be nerfed. 5 fades after second hive.

All theses can be fixed somehow, mainly by nerfing the stuff, but the "everybody gets one" does participate in the different balance problems.

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Mar 5 2012, 10:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910252"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>There was many example of this problem during the beta already, lerks were very strong at some point, and whole team lerking was too good: lerk was nerfed. When mines were introduce the spam was terrible: mines were nerfed. Now we got whole team of shotguns, the research time was increased and shotgun will probably be nerfed. 5 fades after second hive.

All theses can be fixed somehow, mainly by nerfing the stuff, but the "everybody gets one" does participate in the different balance problems.</div>
Exactly!
So far, the symptoms have been treated, instead of the decease.
My suggestion adds strategical depth into buying weapons/lifeforms, and mildly adresses the "everybody gets one" (at the same time).

IronHorse · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>It forces the one side to expand, and the other side to try and prevent it. Both sides need map control.
I don't see why you would want the sides to be symmetrical at this point.</div>

<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=116809&view=findpost&p=1910230" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1910230</a>
(might as well read the whole thread, but mostly that post is my reply)

i know you "like the asymmetry" that is present in this model, but the model we're referring to is the "winning mechanic" model known as tech/lifeforms which in no way should be biased to either side?? liking fade vs FT or Onos Vs Exo is fine - we're talking about something else here. A balanced (by definition this means NOT asymmetrical) means in which to win a round between the two teams must be accomplished - evidenced by the equal opportunity of resource towers and Flayra's reason for including Alien comm, and RT/Harvester res income the same etc etc etc.
<u>Some things MUST be equal opportunity, (but not all) the mechanics most contributing to WINNING A ROUND must be, i.e. map control and tech.</u>

edit: also did the devs mean to do this? : "It forces the one side to expand, and the other side to try and prevent it."

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 5 2012, 11:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Some things MUST be equal opportunity, (<b>but not all</b>) the mechanics most contributing to WINNING A ROUND must be, i.e. map control and tech.</div>
Yes, some things must indeed give equal opportunity, but as you say yourself, not all.
Things like extractors/harvesters should give the same amount of resources for both sides.
But more specialized things, like aliens need a second hive to unlock some abilities, is greatly adding to the asymmetry.
And it still forces both teams to require their map control, cause no map control = lost game for both sides.

If marines tech was tied to expanding, like aliens, we would see alot more marine losses than we already do.
I don't know if you actually remember when it was implement, and how bad it played out.
It is not something the game needs for balance, it would most likely just put more favour on aliens.
Also, aliens have an easier time defending two positions compared to marines, due to their mobility.

If only lifeforms were untied, the aliens would be able to actually fight the GLs(instead of just getting steamrolled) with a fade when growing their hive.
It worked well in NS1, it would work well in NS2, because essentially, it's the same game, with a few changes.
But the new changes needs some work, ie. PRes - the very reason for this thread.

Grissi · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 05:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The problem is that instead of some units(how it was in ns1) getting a upgrade(weapon/lifeform), now every single unit on the team get it.
That creates some pretty damn unfair situations, as I have listed before.
Full teams of lerks, full teams of fades, full teams of shotguns. Are <b>easily</b> aquired.
In NS1 going a full team of lerks or a full team of shotguns, cut you down on your tech.
It doesn't in NS2, those trade-offs are non-existent. So we need another solution for NS2.
Sure, you should be able to get to a point where the whole team is equipped with a good weapon or lifeform.
The way it works now, it's just a spamfest, no strategical thought is needed. Buy weapon/evolve? Yes, do it <b>now</b>.
With the current system it never makes sense to wait or even think about it a second time.
Changing the prizes won't help, as the problem is that everyone on the team gets the lifeform/weapon <b>at the same point in the game</b>.
If you still can't see that problem, I don't know what to tell you. I'm pretty sure I made it obvious.

As for my solution, it is pretty simple.
Draw the % of team having the specific lifeform/weapon in buy menus.
Draw the extra cost from that.
Something like:
Shotgun - 20 res + 2 (10% of team owns a shotgun already)
That way it's intuitive, and easy for everyone to understand.</div>
I still don't see any reason to change the mechanics around the spam of weapons. The sacrifice for early shotguns is that you don't get upgrades/adv armory/phase gate as early. You could make it a bigger draw back by making the shotgun upgrade more expensive and allowing the commander to drop weapons without upgrading them. This would allow early shotguns with big pres sacrifice but would still require adv armory for gl's / flamers. Another way to solve that problem is to have the commander buy weapons, with team res and have players have to extend pres as well. That however will cause the same issue with ns1, public players didn't like how rare it was to get weapons. That's one of the good thing about the new system, you can buy whatever you want after its upgraded(without additional cost, if this was added you would see so many people rage about, it would be a hated mechanic). You need to consider new players as well as the competitive part of the game when you are thinking of adding these kind of mechanics. Your idea would work in the competitive scene(even though numbers need to be adjusted) but casual players won't like it(at least I think they won't).
Like I said earlier, these issues can be fixed with numbers and simple balance changes, no need for major changes in the mechanics.
Having said that, the game should simply reward mixed weapon choices more than a team filled with shotguns. It's the same with aliens, if lerks would be more viable later we would see more lerk/fade combos. Also by making the gorge more useful we would see more players use their res with the gorges creating a nice mix of lifeforms used for the alien team. There is always the issue with the hive locking the lifeforms(and onos won't really be part of the game) but It seems Charlie is going for that route(and we should respect that, it is his game after all). I would have preferred lifeforms the be unlocked(I think the game would have more possibilities that way) but its not my call.

I think the true issue here is that there is no simple solution to deal with early shotgun rushes since lerks can't deal with them. Adjusting the 1 hive lifeforms would be a better solution. You have to remember that aliens can have more adv lifeforms in ns2 than ns1.
Also with sprint and reduced marine spawn time, weapons lingering time should be decreased. That would make it easier for aliens to get rid of weapons(and make adv weapons more scarce). If its to easy for marines to buy weapons every time they spawn then the cost should be increased for all weapons to prevent that.

I do agree that ns2 is bit simpler than ns1. It still has enough strategic/tactical choice in it to make a powerful game. I would still like to see more early options available than shotguns/obs/pg/early adv armory every game.
But the best part of ns1 wasn't only the rts element, but it was how well game worked on the field. Somehow everything just worked perfectly together - all lifeforms/weapons had their uses.
Like lerks/fades(lerk using gas + umbra) keeping pressure on the marine team while gorges were bile bombing phase gates/sieges is a good example. While the marines struggled to get a siege up. Marines had to keep the lerk away to get rid of the gas(-hp -armor) and at the same time keep each other welded, deal with fades and build the siege. In ns2 you kinda only need to build a phase gate since the commander just brings arcs along and gl's are more viable.
Ns1 did have plenty of weapons dropped though, mainly shotguns and welders. You just didn't see that many shotguns on public because it was rare for commanders to drop them there. (it isn't unusual for ns1 matches to start with 1-2 shotguns to take down rt's).

My point is, we should be focused on making all upgrades/lifeforms viable and work better together rather than changing the mechanics behind them. The spamming weapon problem won't really exist if lerks are adjusted and if the game rewards mixed play. Rather than limiting the player choices we should make it less viable. Res flow will always be a big part of how many weapons are on the field and we need to take that into account when talking about these things.

I do agree with few points though, like aliens not having any way of attacking the marines' team res directly without destroying buildings. Also there is a issue with aliens having no real ability to take away marine armor later in the game. Making welders not as useful, which would take away pres from marines. But I don't agree with your idea to fix them.

I will admit I do have trouble writing my thoughts/ideas down in English so sometimes I can be easily misunderstood, I hope this is clear enough.

IronHorse · March 2012

i don't think you are understanding what i have been saying..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, some things must indeed give equal opportunity, but as you say yourself, not all.
Things like extractors/harvesters should give the same amount of resources for both sides.
But more specialized things, like aliens need a second hive to unlock some abilities, is greatly adding to the asymmetry.
And it still forces both teams to require their map control, cause no map control = lost game for both sides.</div>
<ul><li>if you notice after i said "not all" i said map control<u> and life forms/tech</u>, this is not "some abilities" such as a crag, this is fade, this is onos. winning mechanics.</li><li>of course it still forces map control, <i>any change either of us are suggesting regarding tech tied to techpoints would still force map control</i>.. thats what gains resouces to BUILD on techpoints</li><li>you are correct in that alien's needing a 2nd hive to unlock tech is greatly adding to the asymmetry. Thats what i am saying - <u>much like the resource model needs to be symmetric, and of equal opportunity to both sides - so does their access to teching up! </u>
"AÂ·symÂ·meÂ·try n.
Lack of <b>balance </b>or symmetry."</li></ul>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If marines tech was tied to expanding, like aliens, we would see alot more marine losses than we already do.
I don't know if you actually remember when it was implement, and how bad it played out.
It is not something the game needs for balance, it would most likely just put more favour on aliens.
Also, aliens have an easier time defending two positions compared to marines, due to their mobility.</div>
<ul><li>it played out bad due to lack of mobility (were PGs in yet or not? cant find that info)</li><li> it played out bad due to lack of balancing issues scardybob listed here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=116809&view=findpost&p=1909583" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1909583</a></li><li>it would put more favor on aliens <b>initially </b>if no balance changes were made,<b><i> because the current implemented balance changes are having to account for this difference currently!</i></b> (low cc hp and bile bomb to counter turtling which comes from this DEFENSE ONLY playstyle)</li><li>your last point just supports the defense role marines are stuck in as a result of this asymmetry</li></ul>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>It worked well in NS1, it would work well in NS2, because essentially, it's the same game, with a few changes.</div>
i'm not going to even touch this one as its far too long of a rebuttal so i'll just say no, i respectfully disagree, the entire resource model has been changed. to include tying tech to hives.

All i have left to say is: <b>If Flayra intended on Marines always being in a state of defense and Aliens always on the offense, then every point I've made is moot and all that is needed is to balance around this.</b> But i swear i've seen a post from him stating the exact opposite of this. ::goes hunting::

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 01:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910295"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>wall of text</div>
So, by saying: "I still don't see any reason to change the mechanics around the spam of weapons" - you really think that this is not a problem?
Because then you're <b>very</b> wrong.
None of your suggestions adresses the problem in any way. That leads me to think you don't understand the problem at all.
As I have said before:
Simply changing the costs of things will only change the timing of when they are put on the field.
It will <b>not</b> make the team <i>graduately be able to afford it</i>, like my suggestion.
The spam of weapons do NEED to be adressed, it is one of the largest balance issues of NS2. Following the lead of the resmodel.
Imagine SC2, if all your zerglings became ultralisks as soon as you researched them.
That's kind of how NS2 plays out at the moment, due to PRes.
My suggestion keeps PRes in the game, while lowering the amount of weapons and lifeforms a <b>little</b>.

I honestly don't think casual players would mind this type of mechanic, as it is a relatively small cost increase per player buying the weapon.
It encourages them to play a class that the team is in need of, as you would see how many % of the players is what class at the buymenus.
But they can still just pay a few extra PRes if they desire something else.
You should keep in mind that with my suggestion, you would also see a bit more commander weapon drops, as he will be able to realisticly afford it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 6 2012, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>text</div>
I still don't see why you want the symmetry in tech paths, the sides are asymmetric and plays very differently.
I simply do not see why you would want to tie marines to tech points again, as it have already been proved to not work, at all.
I also don't see how the marines are the defense ones, they have to take down that hive, or they will most likely lose the game.
The HP of the CC and the bilebomb are (very bad) attempts at adressing public players not being able to end games(due to no teamwork).
Those changes don't have anything to do with the number of marine bases at all.
You think two marine bases would be easier to take down for the aliens?
Anyway, marine tech being tied to tech points is for another topic, let's not derail this one anymore.

Sewlek · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 5 2012, 08:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>[*]it played out bad due to lack of mobility (were PGs in yet or not? cant find that info)</div>

we had no PGs as far as i remember. maybe im wrong, that was before i started working for uwe. also the performance was lower at that time, which caused huge problems for marines being unable to hold positions since you could not properly aim.

Koruyo · March 2012

I totally agree on this topic.

Another option could be to connect it with tres, so the more of weapon X or lifeform Y(and or weapon or lifeform combinations for each side?) are on the field the less tres income there is for this team.

E.g. if the sum of this weapons or lifeforms in a team goes over a number or % of X (dynamic, depending on teamsize) the commander enters upkeep lvl 1 (-15%tres per tick)
So you could have like 3 upkeep lvls (eg. 15, 30, 45%) that could be easily visible for everybody by simple red arrows pointing down next to your tres or an extra counter for overall team strenght(so you get an easier overview when you might enter upkeeps?) counter.(like >>> just pointing down)

This system might be easier to understand for everybody without the bad taste of having to pay more pres just because you didnt click gestate fast enough, and assuming we have a good amount of viable tech ingame - it will affect player choices enough.

Also it will make ppl think a bit more about the commander and your tres, and why this is a rts/fps mix game?!

edit: might be better to just give every weapon and lifeform a number, and if the sum of this number goes above a certain level you enter upkeeps... the upkeep level numbers would only need to increase or decrease depending on how many players a team has. (so you could show players how high this number currently is and which lifeform weapon or equipment costs how much unit points)

Maybe you could make it even simpler than showing numbers, - just need to think about it a bit more... im sure its possible.

PPS: you could also make commander upkeep locks, so that your team is not able to go over a value that would make you enter upkeep 1, 2 or 3 for some time.

Grissi · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>So, by saying: "I still don't see any reason to change the mechanics around the spam of weapons" - you really think that this is not a problem?
Because then you're <b>very</b> wrong.</div>

I do understand your point and I would agree with you if the game was going in a different direction(Like with no alien commander / unlocked lifeforms etc) but as the game is right now I don't think this is a problem.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>None of your suggestions addresses the problem in any way. That leads me to think you don't understand the problem at all.</div>

It's not surprising since I'm not really trying to come with up with ideas because I don't think there is a problem at all. I think the problem with the game is elsewhere.
I'm no expert of course, but even if there was a issue with spamming weapons I don't think your idea is the right way to go. Sorry ,I know you put alot of thought into it but I simply don't agree.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>As I have said before:
Simply changing the costs of things will only change the timing of when they are put on the field.
It will <b>not</b> make the team <i>graduately be able to afford it</i>, like my suggestion.
The spam of weapons do NEED to be addressed, it is one of the largest balance issues of NS2. Following the lead of the resmodel.</div>

If you want shotguns to be more of a strategic choice the simplest solution would be increasing the team res cost for the commander, making him have to sacrifice tech for shotguns. I don't like that idea however.

If you want to limit the amount of weapons on the field we could have commanders buy 1 shotgun license each time he upgrades shotguns. So he would need to upgrade it 4 times to have 4 shotguns on the field at the same time. Again with player res massing up with other players this is probably a bad solution, even if shotguns would cost more player res.

Now there is your idea, might be the best idea possible to prevent weapon massing but I don't agree with that mechanic. Like I said earlier I don't think this is the current problem with the game.

--

If there is a issue with weapon massing in ns2 then I think the problem simply lies in the resources system. Now I think your solution is a bad mechanic to put into the game, if it is the best idea to prevent weapon massing then we need to fix the core issue which is the resources system. I'm pretty sure the res system is not going to change any time soon and that's why I don't see any issue with weapon massing. The ability for marines to buy allot of shotguns at the same time is made into the core mechanics right now. So we should expect marines to have the ability to buy alot of shotguns when it researched and balance the game around it.
If Charlie changes his mind and decides to change the core mechanics my option would probably change. If I was making this game I would go a completely different route, but since its not my game I simply respect the designers wishes and try to make suggestions with their wishes in mind. Does not mean that I'm always right - like I said earlier, I'm no expert. Who knows, this might turn out much better that we initially thought.
So that's why I see no issues with the weapon massing right now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Imagine SC2, if all your zerglings became ultralisks as soon as you researched them.
That's kind of how NS2 plays out at the moment, due to PRes.
My suggestion keeps PRes in the game, while lowering the amount of weapons and lifeforms a <b>little</b>.</div>

Mixing sc2 into this discussion is not a good idea, the game has completely differently mechanics and plays way differently. I get your point though but I'm not going into more discussion through sc2 terms.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think your idea is a bad one. If it is true that there is a issue and we keep this res system this might be the best course of action but I don't think this mechanic will be very good for the game, so I would like to find another solution if its needed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I honestly don't think casual players would mind this type of mechanic, as it is a relatively small cost increase per player buying the weapon.
It encourages them to play a class that the team is in need of, as you would see how many % of the players is what class at the buymenus.
But they can still just pay a few extra PRes if they desire something else.
You should keep in mind that with my suggestion, you would also see a bit more commander weapon drops, as he will be able to realisticly afford it.</div>

You might be correct here, I'm simply guessing how public/casual players would like the game so maybe they don't care if your mechanic is added. But I still think this is a mechanic that will be disliked.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910334"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I still don't see why you want the symmetry in tech paths, the sides are asymmetric and plays very differently.
I simply do not see why you would want to tie marines to tech points again, as it have already been proved to not work, at all.
I also don't see how the marines are the defense ones, they have to take down that hive, or they will most likely lose the game.
The HP of the CC and the bilebomb are (very bad) attempts at adressing public players not being able to end games(due to no teamwork).
Those changes don't have anything to do with the number of marine bases at all.
You think two marine bases would be easier to take down for the aliens?
Anyway, marine tech being tied to tech points is for another topic, let's not derail this one anymore.</div>

Completely agree with this part. A game is not balanced for a small group of people, the game is either balanced or not balanced. I'm pretty sure the current bile bomb and CC hp is temporary.

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Mar 6 2012, 04:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I totally agree on this topic.

Another option could be to connect it with tres, so the more of weapon X or lifeform Y(and or weapon or lifeform combinations for each side?) are on the field the less tres income there is for this team.

E.g. if the sum of this weapons or lifeforms in a team goes over a number or % of X (dynamic, depending on teamsize) the commander enters upkeep lvl 1 (-15%tres per tick)
So you could have like 3 upkeep lvls (eg. 15, 30, 45%) that could be easily visible for everybody by simple red arrows pointing down next to your tres or an extra counter for overall team strenght(so you get an easier overview when you might enter upkeeps?) counter.(like >>> just pointing down)

This system might be easier to understand for everybody without the bad taste of having to pay more pres just because you didnt click gestate fast enough, and assuming we have a good amount of viable tech ingame - it will affect player choices enough.

Also it will make ppl think a bit more about the commander and your tres, and why this is a rts/fps mix game?!

edit: might be better to just give every weapon and lifeform a number, and if the sum of this number goes above a certain level you enter upkeeps... the upkeep level numbers would only need to increase or decrease depending on how many players a team has. (so you could show players how high this number currently is and which lifeform weapon or equipment costs how much unit points)

Maybe you could make it even simpler than showing numbers, - just need to think about it a bit more... im sure its possible.

PPS: you could also make commander upkeep locks, so that your team is not able to go over a value that would make you enter upkeep 1, 2 or 3 for some time.</div>
Interesting approach. First other suggestion I've seen that tries to adress the same problem as me in this topic.
Your approach doesn't directly affect the players though.
I dislike that the commander gets punished for his troops buying too much. He is not able to control it anyway. Don't work well with pubs.
I would rather see the commander be able to drop weapons/upgrade eggs with team res when he sees that his troops are out of PRes(mid-endgame).

My approach would work well with both publics and competetive, as it would be obvious, after a glimpse at the buymenus, that the lifeform/weapon costs are increased by % of team already wielding the weapon/lifeform.
And instead of punishing the commander, you punish the players res(which is the problem to begin with) for buying the extra weapons.
If you wanna go all-in shotguns, you let some buy for PRes, and then let the commander drop the rest for teamres.

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I do understand your point and I would agree with you if the game was going in a different direction(Like with no alien commander / unlocked lifeforms etc) but as the game is right now I don't think this is a problem.</div>
The very reason this problem with weapon massing is evident, which you seem to doubt, is the introduction of PRes.
It doesn't really have anything to do with alien commander or lifeforms being tied to hives.
Lifeforms being untied to hives was simply something extra I wanted to add to the suggestion, to help 1 hive aliens(they need fades to help defend the second hive against GLs).
The current NS2 encourages mass weaponry/lifeforms, which I do not like at all.
It causes some very hard knockbacks on both sides.
BAM! Shotguns researched, every marine now has a shotgun.
BAM! The aliens hit 30 res, every alien is now a lerk(they don't HAVE to spend res on anything else than lifeforms)
BAM! The second hive is up, every alien is now a fade.
If you still don't see the problems that create, balance-wise, then you need to play the game some more.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If you want shotguns to be more of a strategic choice the simplest solution would be increasing the team res cost for the commander, making him have to sacrifice tech for shotguns. I don't like that idea however.</div>
You suggest this again? Read my previous awnser.
It would only delay the timing of when shotguns are available.
Not adress that everyone gets a shotgun right away.
It would not adress the mass of weapons we see ingame, at all.
Making the cost more PRes is not the solution either, as it would do the same as a TRes cost increase.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If you want to limit the amount of weapons on the field we could have commanders buy 1 shotgun license each time he upgrades shotguns. So he would need to upgrade it 4 times to have 4 shotguns on the field at the same time. Again with player res massing up with other players this is probably a bad solution, even if shotguns would cost more player res.</div>
Don't think that's a good solution either, as both commander and players will both have to buy each and every shotgun.
And it would probably just result in PRes stacking up to 100 without players being able to use PRes.
That's a hard limit, compared to my soft limitation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If there is a issue with weapon massing in ns2 then I think the problem simply lies in the resources system. Now I think your solution is a bad mechanic to put into the game, if it is the best idea to prevent weapon massing then we need to fix the core issue which is the resources system. I'm pretty sure the res system is not going to change any time soon and that's why I don't see any issue with weapon massing. The ability for marines to buy allot of shotguns at the same time is made into the core mechanics right now. So we should expect marines to have the ability to buy alot of shotguns when it researched and balance the game around it.</div>
You don't seem to understand, massing of weapons <b>is</b> a large balance issue.
Just because the PRes system have been working the way it has up until now, doesn't mean that it's just a good working part of the game, and is not in need of limitations or tweaks.
The res system is not planned to change as far as I know, and there are very few things left for marines to use PRes on in v1.0.
So in that sense, we can easily go ahead and predict how marine PRes will play out in v1.0; <i>it will play just like now</i>.
Weapon massing is a problem now. And with no changes, weapon massing will be a problem in v1.0.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 6 2012, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If Charlie changes his mind and decides to change the core mechanics my option would probably change. If I was making this game I would go a completely different route, but since its not my game I simply respect the designers wishes and try to make suggestions with their wishes in mind. Does not mean that I'm always right - like I said earlier, I'm no expert. Who knows, this might turn out much better that we initially thought.
So that's why I see no issues with the weapon massing right now.</div>
Sure, we should respect the designers wishes, but not all game mechanics plays well on the first try.
That is why I am not suggesting to remove PRes, simply change the mechanics of it.
And that is also why our feedback is important.
Simply ignoring gameplay problems, just because it was the wishes of the developers, is not a good thing.
PRes is one of those mechanics that doesn't work very well, due to easy weapon/lifeform massing.
My suggestion would adress it very well.
And it would scale with playernumbers, I know charlie likes when stuff scales with playernumbers ;)

Sewlek · March 2012

i see that the current mechanic works not optimal and some changes a required, but i don't like this solution. there has to be another way

a completely different approach could be the opposite of RFK: lose 1 res when you die. that would ensure that the better team earns their advantage, and prevents turtling. could have also some interesting effects on gameplay: on one side you don't want to risk too much and rambo less, on the other hand you want to prevent the enemy from expanding too much and get free RTs. now before you critize me for that idea: this is just an <b>example</b> for a completely different approach than what swalk suggested

edit: and it scales also with player number :D

Koruyo · March 2012

Its not about turtling its about keeping "strong" lifeforms or weapons, by introducing some "rarity" - so we dont have to end up nerfing everything to a point were its not really that much asymmetry left.
Rarity in this example by making it less attractive to have too many strong units on the field. (while you can still do it, there will be some impact for doing this)

E.g You could have a bit better lerks, keep op fadeblink or pewpew shotgun range/dmg

There are no hardcounters nor is the game for 1v1 balanced(a single marine at equivalent tech(armor2 weapon1, shotguns) to aliens after 2nd hive cant solo a fade, if its not a very bad move by the fade - even if the marine had a jetpack(which would increase his pres cost to 45)) - the problem is you cant really increase the pres cost of lifeforms too much since you wont be able to play other lifeforms anymore, and just saving res for the one gets even more important.

But maybe its just that some other stuff and tech is not interessting enough yet(missing, wrong tech costs or requirements whatever) - and there are no alternatives than go for the cookiecutter stuff.

(like full team lerk rush, 80% of the team insta fading after hive 2 etc., Marines stacking only shotguns or only gls...)

IronHorse · March 2012

schimmel:
that idea of yours also helps dissuade early skulk rushes!
if your team failed, it would have major consequences besides eggs.

i like it! +1

@koruyo
there were two different talks going on here, grissi and swalk talking about mass lifeforms /tech and swalk and I were discussing why i disagree with untying tech from the hive. (both were mentioned in the OP)

edit: contributing to that other topic,<b> i suggest Pres come only from teamwork related tasks that you personally assisted in, not from map control. map control contributes only to TECH.</b>
Flayra once talked about something similar in the design log that got me thinking, on 8/29/2011 in concern to stalemates (turtling) "Give points incrementally when damaging structures, instead of only when itâ€™s destroyed (encourages teamwork, but this is soft)."
i think that building items and destroying items in the game that help the team along should go to the player, so that not everyone is able to purchase that shotgun - only those contributing to the teamwork the most. this could be simple buffs like being in a group of 3 or more for x time, or welding, or simply <i>hurting </i>the hive. the idea is not RFK its ResourcesForTeamwork, RFT. These things are already being pooled and recorded mostly anyhow, like when you see that +5 for building something.

Oh and it obviously not only helps stalemates, but also solves Mass Tech, increases teamwork significantly and scales with players!

MisterNubs · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Mar 6 2012, 12:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>i see that the current mechanic works not optimal and some changes a required, but i don't like this solution. there has to be another way

a completely different approach could be the opposite of RFK: lose 1 res when you die. that would ensure that the better team earns their advantage, and prevents turtling. could have also some interesting effects on gameplay: on one side you don't want to risk too much and rambo less, on the other hand you want to prevent the enemy from expanding too much and get free RTs. now before you critize me for that idea: this is just an <b>example</b> for a completely different approach than what swalk suggested

edit: and it scales also with player number :D</div>

I know you're just saying that it is just an example, but it is an interesting idea that would cause quite a bit of change in the mentality of players. Only problem is that it would be just too punishing for <i>new</i> (keyword "new") players to the game and cause them to give up early. Possibly make some veterans rage quit too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>BAM! The aliens hit 30 res, every alien is now a lerk(they don't HAVE to spend res on anything else than lifeforms)</div>

Sure they don't HAVE to, but they are seriously gimping themselves by NOT spending res on upgrades. Marines don't even need to spend pres on upgrades, they get theirs added directly to them by the commander, no pres necessary. All they have to worry about is weapons.

Also, parroting around that "Softcap idea will create teamwork!!!1!" doesn't make it true. A player that can't purchase a shotgun right away because someone else got it before them will just cause the player to wait a minute or two for the res. Meaning they're not doing anything productive while doing so. And after they get the needed res it will be who can purchase the sg the fastest again. And then what? How is teamwork created by this? I don't honestly seeing players go. "Oh man, my shotgun costed a few more resources. I am now filled with this sudden urge to play as a unit with my team."

Or maybe you meant that because a few players might be impatient to wait for the needed res that they would perhaps grab a flamethrower instead of what they really wanted? That is a possibly, or it is more likely they'll just stick with the lmg since it costs 0 res and wait for a player with a shotgun to get chomped on and take their shotgun instead. "But the LMG isn't a shotgun so that right there adds diversity!" You'd might say. True, I will have to agree with that, but why is it that almost every single marine grabs a shotgun? Because shotguns have incredibly stupid killing power. There are only positives to using a shotgun and barely, if any, negatives at all.

Raising res cap per unit on the field is a band-aid fix that would just cause headaches during the game. Players massing certain weapons/lifeforms ISN'T the problem, it is a SYMPTOM of a problem.

Death isn't scary enough for marines (pres-wise). There is no sense of fear or loss (pres) that comes with death. "######, I died. I'll just respawn and sprint back to where I died and pick up my shotgun. No loss." "But how does this have anything to do with players massing shotguns right when it's teched?!?" It doesn't, but it DOES keep shotguns on the field indefinitely longer and thus majority of the marines will be carrying around a shotgun because of it. And because shotguns are cheap pres wise, if they do happen to lose their first shotgun, they already have the pres to purchase a second one. Unlike if an alien dies, the res cost associated with that life form goes down the drain with it.

Now about Aliens. Why do players mass fades when hive 2 is up? Because shotguns are too effective against skulks, and lerks are grossly inadequate against them. That means to keep up against marines who are continuing to tech up, Aliens have to mass fades. Even more so to rush them and get an early game lead before the Marines can research lvl 2 armor and weaps.

Now all this boils down to what the real problem is and why people mass certain weapons/lifeforms. There are no interesting or equally powerful choice other than shotguns. The only thing strong enough and "quick" enough to get to go up against shotguns are fades. (And even then, Shotguns are still damn powerful against fades.) And there no counter plays in this game. As some one else put it earlier in this thread, this game needs Rock-paper-scissors game play that RTS games are about if they ever hope to get people to switch things up.

Having counters in the game will cause teamwork more than a soft-cap ever would.

If the marines go all shotguns, I should be able to choose lerk and have a advantage against them. Sadly, lerks are in such bad shape and shotguns are too strong that that doesn't happen, so I end up saving the res and going fade with everyone else.

If I have a shotgun, I would want to have a lmg with me so I don't get picked off by a lerk. That would be especially so if there is a big risk associated with dying. (No longer able to pick up a dropped gun after death). If I was a fade and the other team had flame throwers, I would want a lerk to pick off the flame thrower before I blink in to take out the shotguns while the skulks can take out the lmgs. But stuff like this doesn't happen because of the way certain weapons/life forms are too strong/weak/unable to perform certain functions adequately enough, or too well.

SideOfBeef · March 2012

@MisterNubs How was the shotgun before the dispersion/range buff? It sounds to me like your problem is the shotgun being too strong at mid-range (while the Lerker is closing in, or the Skulk is flying away). With more dispersion/less range, the shotgun remains viable against Fades (it better be, it's the intended counter) while giving Lerks the chance to close in, with the low refire giving Lerks an even larger advantage than the one they have now.

_Necro_ · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The problem is that instead of some units(how it was in ns1) getting a upgrade(weapon/lifeform), now every single unit on the team get it.
That creates some pretty damn unfair situations, as I have listed before.
Full teams of lerks, full teams of fades, full teams of shotguns. Are <b>easily</b> aquired.
In NS1 going a full team of lerks or a full team of shotguns, cut you down on your tech.
It doesn't in NS2, those trade-offs are non-existent. So we need another solution for NS2.
Sure, you should be able to get to a point where the whole team is equipped with a good weapon or lifeform.
The way it works now, it's just a spamfest, no strategical thought is needed. Buy weapon/evolve? Yes, do it <b>now</b>.
With the current system it never makes sense to wait or even think about it a second time.</div>

Up to this point, you are all right. But your next sentences treat the symptoms, not the cause.
And this is, what Grissi tries to explain to you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Changing the prizes won't help, as the problem is that everyone on the team gets the lifeform/weapon <b>at the same point in the game</b>.</div>

This is NOT the problem. This is a symptom. If one single weapon is so superior, that everyone only wants to buy it, as soon as it comes available, (Maybe, because there is no real counter to it.) than the problem is, that this weapon is overpowered or the other weapons are underpowered.
The solution should not be to add a very unintuitive mechanic, that adds simply nothing to the fun of the game and only is a workaround for the real problem (=no real counter to Shotgun / Fade at the time, they appear).
The solution should be to tweak the strength and weaknesses of the weapons and lifeforms, so that this "everyone buys the same"-tactic can't be successful. This adds tactical depth, because you have to get the right combination of weapons to win.

Your solution just adds a stock market mini game, which is not fun: "Oh, I got 50res. Now I can buy a fade! *pushes B* Oah... now it costs 56res. I was to late... this is not fun." So we get this workaround in exchange for a cool balanced game, where every weapon has its counter. Do you really want this?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 5 2012, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If you still can't see that problem, I don't know what to tell you. I'm pretty sure I made it obvious.

As for my solution, it is pretty simple.
Draw the % of team having the specific lifeform/weapon in buy menus.
Draw the extra cost from that.
Something like:
Shotgun - 20 res + 2 (10% of team owns a shotgun already)
That way it's intuitive, and easy for everyone to understand.</div>

A noob won't understand, why the prices are changing. It's not intuitive.
A real solution could be to make the shotgun especially weak against Lerks. That means, you have to extremely increase the fire cone. And make the Lerks Spikes more effective. This way, the shotgun is useful against Skulks, Fades and buildings. But absolutely no option against a lerk, which uses his spikes on long to midrange. So you would want to have a few LMG marines, that deal with the lerks. You need a counter to every weapon / lifeform so the player will favor a mix of weapons in order to be successful. THIS is a solution which compliments the tactical depth of an RTS. Not your workaround with soft restrictions, that add nothing to the fun.

TL;DR: The main problem with your solution is, that it adds nothing to fun and is only a workaround for the real problem. The inbalance of weapons and the lack of counters to some weapons at the time they appear. Which leads to the symptom of everyone wanting this superior weapon. This problem has to be solved with balancing and soft- and hard-counters, in a way that adds tactical depth and not a mini game of: "When is the best time to buy shares... erm weapons."

NurEinMensch · March 2012

The counter to everyone getting a shotgun is no one having the res to get a grenade launcher.

ogz · March 2012

3 reasons behind why 'as soon as tech is available, everyone can spam that new 'class'

1. People have stored up enough pres by the time tech is available. Obviously if marines started with 0 res and went up slowly, then when shotty is researched, people can't afford it yet

2. Pres is now tied with res nodes and spread evenly.. Eg, everyone has the same resources at the same point in time.

3. new class usually happens to be the most powerful class, and spamming that class is more powerful than any combination of classes (is this even true?)

Things to address these issues:

1. Lower pres income. Put it in Tres instead
2. Either introduce a system to have unbalances res income between players again, OR, allow team (or comander) to give additional resources to a player (or buy that class for them). Note, Commander can already buy weapons for players. I think it uses pres right now but why not make it Tres? Similarly, Commander has, or will have? the ability to pre-evolve an egg?, if not, lets make that so.

3. Create more synergy between classes!, lmg+shotty > shotty+shotty?? lerk+skulk > skulk+skulk?

Yuuki · March 2012

I think the mines illustrate the problem nicely, why does the mines are nerfed compared to ns1 ?
Because of the resource system ? Yes. So again, the choices are :

1) strong but scarcer lifeforms/weapons
2) weaker and "every get's one" lifeforms/weapons

Now the relevant question is what are the arguments for 1) and 2).

I already gave some :

An argument for 1) was that it make lifeforms (and weapons) more desirable to the players, because they are stronger and scarcer, while 2) make them cheap (meaning worthless).

An argument against 1) is that you have inequality in the team since not everybody get (immediately) an item.

Is there any positive argument for 2) ?

_Necro_ · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Mar 6 2012, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910466"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Is there any positive argument for 2) ?</div>

<ul><li>It is less frustrating for a player losing it.</li><li>You can balance better around the stone-scissor-paper mechanic, because:</li><li>the weapon / lifeform don't has to be much stronger than the default one, makes the default one also useful in the late game,</li><li>what leads to fewer disconnects of players who have lost all their res, and can't have fun in the late game with their default weapon / lifeform.</li></ul>

The whole mechanism of weapons / lifeforms being superior of others is wrong and is forcing the player to use them, in order to have a chance.
When it would be much more fun, when the weapons / lifeforms would be side-grades which enable you to be superior in one kind of a situation in exchange of being vulnerable in another situation. Than it comes tactic into the game.

Koruyo · March 2012

It is less frustrating for a player losing it.
<span style="color:#808080">- Or it will make marines care more about keeping their weapons from despawning, in case they die?
And a lot equipment could be more satisfying... (flamethrowers, mines, lerks etc.)</span>

the weapon / lifeform don't has to be much stronger than the default one, makes the default one also useful in the late game,
<span style="color:#808080">Most values doesnt have to change from their current form, it will just be a <u>litte</u> more rare on both sides.(so it you wont see as much full marine teams with shotguns or full alien teams as lerks or fades, because now it will have some penalty - while you can still do it as a tactic it will need to be something you have to think about, is it worth it or do we play save?)</span>

what leads to fewer disconnects of players who have lost all their res, and can't have fun in the late game with their default weapon / lifeform.
<span style="color:#808080">As if the server wouldnt be able to store your steamid and res amount for Xminutes while a match is active(so if you reconnect in X minutes you will at get your res back, it could even add the res you missed from rts.) </span>

PS: the system is good to fight spam, it can also be working on structures... if you have X amount of sentries, arcs, mines whatever active on the field the cost increases per purchase... etc.
=> less spam possibilitys means you can make it more effective but it will be more rare.
Rarity gives more tactical impact, if you want to play ns2 combat - play ns2 combat...

RisingSun · March 2012

Holy crap that was a lot of reading and i had to skip some of it to get my point out lol. So here goes:

In NS1 the lifeforms were unlocked as we all know BUT a Hive 1 onos/fade were pretty much garbage. Without fade self heal and onos stomp (or second chamber, usually DC) these lifeforms were limited in number just based on that.

I agree with Swalk that lifeforms need to be accessible anytime regardless of hive count. I bet if you make it so the fade can only shadow step and only blink with the second hive you will find not a lot of people go fade before hive 2. (just an example and not a REAL suggestion. Without Meta for fade self heal being tied to hive 2 fade is awesome from the first purchase.)

Another problem is the lose chamber upgrade system. You can about buy them all. There is no trade off anymore. With DCs you purchased ONE. Armor, regen, or chance of rebirth. Each had it's use and one life form always proffered one over the others. The same goes for the other chambers. It was almost nice to know that MC was the preferred starting chamber but there was a gamble using the other two first. SC was map dependent and skill dependent. Just about the most risky chamber. DC was the safe chamber but killed your mobility and MC was preferred because it allowed for not only hive warp but faster energy gain. Important to everyone.

Bottom line TOO MUCH WAS CHANGED. What made NS great was a bunch of little things grouped together THAT WORKED. Alone certain mechanics were awful but they were complimented by other GOOD decisions that forced strategic thinking on many levels (comm and ground soldier alike). I think NS2 has lost sight of that. Pres, hive life/form lock, alien ability changes, and size/movement all contribute to this problem. Some cant be helped, some were good ideas at the time, and some shouldn't have been implemented but we are too close to launch to change.

All in all we have fallen down the rabbit hole and we are grabbing anything we can to stop the decline. The game IS fun though but it isnt NS1, not even close. Those who have played NS will be disappointed but not being able to put their finger on it. Those who play for the first time will love it but not know they are being cheated of what could have been. NS2 is combat thrown into an NS map where the comm decides your upgrades.

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Mar 6 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>This is NOT the problem. This is a symptom. If one single weapon is so superior, that everyone only wants to buy it, as soon as it comes available, (Maybe, because there is no real counter to it.) than the problem is, that this weapon is overpowered or the other weapons are underpowered.</div>
Lifeforms and weapon buys, will give you some attributes over the basic ones, ie. make you stronger.
I don't think all weapons can be "balanced" to work with the "everyone gets one", we have seen through the beta.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Mar 6 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The solution should not be to add a very unintuitive mechanic, that adds simply nothing to the fun of the game and only is a workaround for the real problem (=no real counter to Shotgun / Fade at the time, they appear).
The solution should be to tweak the strength and weaknesses of the weapons and lifeforms, so that this "everyone buys the same"-tactic can't be successful. This adds tactical depth, because you have to get the right combination of weapons to win.</div>
If the devs wanna go that way, they will end up nerfing everything to be utterly useless/equally useful, and you might as well not buy any weapon at all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Mar 6 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Your solution just adds a stock market mini game, which is not fun: "Oh, I got 50res. Now I can buy a fade! *pushes B* Oah... now it costs 56res. I was to late... this is not fun." So we get this workaround in exchange for a cool balanced game, where every weapon has its counter. Do you really want this?</div>
Yes, I would really like that.
I don't like fighting fade after fade after fade after fade, in every single round.
My suggestion grows more fades over time(if they stay alive), instead of <b>all instantly popping them at the same point in the game</b>.
I want to see some diversity, and more use of the basic weapon/lifeform.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Mar 6 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>A noob won't understand, why the prices are changing. It's not intuitive.</div>
So you're basicly saying that noobs cant read or do simple math? I don't think thats true in most cases.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Mar 6 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>A real solution could be to make the shotgun especially weak against Lerks. That means, you have to extremely increase the fire cone. And make the Lerks Spikes more effective. This way, the shotgun is useful against Skulks, Fades and buildings. But absolutely no option against a lerk, which uses his spikes on long to midrange. So you would want to have a few LMG marines, that deal with the lerks. You need a counter to every weapon / lifeform so the player will favor a mix of weapons in order to be successful. THIS is a solution which compliments the tactical depth of an RTS. Not your workaround with soft restrictions, that add nothing to the fun.</div>
I don't like this idea of every unit having equal strengh, that is why we need to make lifeforms and weapons a little bit more rare.
We do that most effectively by tweaking the prizes depending on % of players already having that specific gun/lifeform.

John Blackthorne · March 2012

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~post failure~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GORGEous · March 2012

I don't know about other people, but I don't buy the "IT'S NOT LIKE IT IS IN NS1 SO IT'S BAD" arguments. That's just nostalgia spouting crap.

Swalk makes some good points in the proliferation of high tech weapons / life forms immediately upon becoming available, but I think his solution (+2 res for x per x on the field) misses the point.

The best way to prevent everyone suddenly going fade at hive 2 is to make people want to spend pres on other lifeforms. Right now, gorges and lerks are clutch early game units. Your team is much more powerful if you have a gorge at first and second hive and a lerk or two to help harass. That's 3-4 players that won't be going fade. Typically this leaves 2-4 players in most pubs that will be going fade when hive 2 hits. What is wrong with this?

A team that saves all of their res throughout tier 1 in order to buy fades as soon as the second hive drops are taking a risk. They're intentionally under powering themselves early in order for a payoff later in the game. If the marines don't recognize this and punish the aliens via RT kills or a hive push, then the marines have simply been out played.

<span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%">I repeat, if marines let the aliens get away with saving for their entire team to immediately fade upon hive 2 drop, then marines have been out played.</span>

Now on to marines. I think shotgun "spam" is an over exaggerated issue. This last build, 199, has significantly reduced the power of shotguns. Shotguns are an investment every time you pick them up. If your entire team picks up a shotgun and attacks then you've taken a huge risk. At most, these shotgun pushes have 1 or 2 go's before marines run out of pres. And if you fail your push(s), then the marines are at a serious disadvantage with no shotguns/welders/mines on the field. This is exactly the same as if everyone on the alien team go lerk or gorge and rush. It's a risk that potentially sacrifices strength later on for strength now.

What I think should be focused on is the skill less nature of GLs and flame throwers. I also think shotguns could use a small 5-10 bump in cost to delay their rush.

GORGEous · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Mar 6 2012, 12:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Lifeforms and weapon buys, will give you some attributes over the basic ones, ie. make you stronger.
I don't think all weapons can be "balanced" to work with the "everyone gets one", we have seen through the beta.

If the devs wanna go that way, they will end up nerfing everything to be utterly useless/equally useful, and you might as well not buy any weapon at all.

I don't like this idea of every unit having equal strengh, that is why we need to make lifeforms and weapons a little bit more rare.
We do that most effectively by tweaking the prizes depending on % of players already having that specific gun/lifeform.</div>

You keep implying that the current pres setup will result in all higher tech lifeforms/weapons being nerfed. That's simply a huge exaggeration that is not backed up with any evidence.

There are already downsides to an entire team saving for fades (lack of tier 1 strength). If marines fail to capitalize on this, then it's akin to aliens failing to take down a phase gate/armory outpost right outside their hive. Marines should be punished if they let an alien team get away with saving for 6+ fades.

Shotguns are probably the only weapon/lifeform that I can think of which is supported by your "when researched, everyone buys" theory. And shotguns, while probably the best marine upgrade, have downsides. I'm pretty good with the shotgun, thus I almost always save my pres for shotguns. Because of this, I typically can't afford mines (which cost 3/4 of a shotgun) and I can't afford more than 1 or 2 welders. If I do buy mines or excessive welders, then I typically have to give up my shotgun. There are already tradeoffs in place.

swalk · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 6 2012, 06:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You keep implying that the current pres setup will result in all higher tech lifeforms/weapons being nerfed. That's simply a huge exaggeration that is not backed up with any evidence.

There are already downsides to an entire team saving for fades (lack of tier 1 strength). If marines fail to capitalize on this, then it's akin to aliens failing to take down a phase gate/armory outpost right outside their hive. Marines should be punished if they let an alien team get away with saving for 6+ fades.

Shotguns are probably the only weapon/lifeform that I can think of which is supported by your "when researched, everyone buys" theory. And shotguns, while probably the best marine upgrade, have downsides. I'm pretty good with the shotgun, thus I almost always save my pres for shotguns. Because of this, I typically can't afford mines (which cost 3/4 of a shotgun) and I can't afford more than 1 or 2 welders. If I do buy mines or excessive welders, then I typically have to give up my shotgun. There are already tradeoffs in place.</div>
With the current system you will either have to nerf the weapons and lifeforms to be useless, or you will have to limit them somehow. AlÃ¡ NS1, or my suggestion to PRes, or something else that achieves the same(I can't think of anything else).
I would not like it if they just reverted every single thing to work like NS1, then we might as well just go play that.
But imagine the current system in a 16v16.
In a game like that, the problems I have stated will be even worse(becomes worse with higher playernumbers).
As suddenly popping most of the team with a lifeform or weapon, can overpower the opposite team very quickly.
The problem is that it is too easy to get a full team of fades, it doesn't take a long time, even if you go lerk or gorge in the earlygame.
Currently, in a 6v6 game, if you go two lerks, one gorge, three skulks in the earlygame.
Then you get 3 fades instantly when the hive goes up, and the lerks can follow that lead pretty quickly.
If my suggestion was in, you would most likely get one fade before the hive, and then pop more fades over the course of time.
So even a full out lerkrush doesn't really punish the aliens, they can still get a full team of fades soon after the second hive is up.
Same goes for a full shotgun equipped team.
The timings of when the weapons and lifeforms first are seen in the game, fits really well.
But the amount of lifeforms popping at those timings, are just too much.

John Blackthorne · March 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 6 2012, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know about other people, but I don't buy the "IT'S NOT LIKE IT IS IN NS1 SO IT'S BAD" arguments. That's just nostalgia spouting crap.

Swalk makes some good points in the proliferation of high tech weapons / life forms immediately upon becoming available, but I think his solution (+2 res for x per x on the field) misses the point.

The best way to prevent everyone suddenly going fade at hive 2 is to make people want to spend pres on other lifeforms. Right now, gorges and lerks are clutch early game units. Your team is much more powerful if you have a gorge at first and second hive and a lerk or two to help harass. That's 3-4 players that won't be going fade. Typically this leaves 2-4 players in most pubs that will be going fade when hive 2 hits. What is wrong with this?

A team that saves all of their res throughout tier 1 in order to buy fades as soon as the second hive drops are taking a risk. They're intentionally under powering themselves early in order for a payoff later in the game. If the marines don't recognize this and punish the aliens via RT kills or a hive push, then the marines have simply been out played.

<span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%">I repeat, if marines let the aliens get away with saving for their entire team to immediately fade upon hive 2 drop, then marines have been out played.</span>

Now on to marines. I think shotgun "spam" is an over exaggerated issue. This last build, 199, has significantly reduced the power of shotguns. Shotguns are an investment every time you pick them up. If your entire team picks up a shotgun and attacks then you've taken a huge risk. At most, these shotgun pushes have 1 or 2 go's before marines run out of pres. And if you fail your push(s), then the marines are at a serious disadvantage with no shotguns/welders/mines on the field. This is exactly the same as if everyone on the alien team go lerk or gorge and rush. It's a risk that potentially sacrifices strength later on for strength now.

What I think should be focused on is the skill less nature of GLs and flame throwers. I also think shotguns could use a small 5-10 bump in cost to delay their rush.</div>

+1 to GORGEous. People need to take off those rose coloured glasses and really think about Natural Selection 1 and all its faults just like any other game or thing ever made, and how it could be improved, people need to lose the lets make it NS1 and keep everything exactly the same mentality. I have seen this in about every game and its following iterations ( Tribes/ Total Annihilation,Supreme Commander/ Dawn of War series etc .... and in some games not listed the up roar is warranted in the case of Deus Ex and its sequel and its prequel. they provided much needed changes to the mix but failed to keep the greatness from the first, this is not the case here. The fact is sometimes the old vets are the worst to listen to because they're too jaded & are unable to create anything new.

I'm not standing here and saying everything is perfect and rainbow unicorn fun times and nothing needs fixing the opposite in fact, the game is still very much in development and needs alot of balancing, tweaking, and additions to make it a real game and with the help of the the amazing community and development team all of it can be solved, but you guys make too many posts that are useless & over zealous on every issue.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Mar 6 2012, 12:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>i see that the current mechanic works not optimal and some changes a required, but i don't like this solution. there has to be another way

a completely different approach could be the opposite of RFK: lose 1 res when you die. that would ensure that the better team earns their advantage, and prevents turtling. could have also some interesting effects on gameplay: on one side you don't want to risk too much and rambo less, on the other hand you want to prevent the enemy from expanding too much and get free RTs. now before you critize me for that idea: this is just an <b>example</b> for a completely different approach than what swalk suggested

edit: and it scales also with player number :D</div>
I really like this idea as well Schimmel, perhaps it could be implemented with some of the other ideas listed so we could beta test it :D I could see it changing the game in a very good way, giving the game some more risk... you can never have enough risk~!!!!!

Personal res management

Comments