<!--quoteo(post=1710009:date=Jun 3 2009, 08:34 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jun 3 2009, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Firewater</b> and <b>Bacillus</b> seem to agree about everything except that the former is optimistic[gasp!] about the actual implementation and goals and the latter is pessimistic[half-gasp].
In general I tend to learn toward optimism because the devs know how to make a good game, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised by this system. But I tend to think the goal of this system is to make the maps easier to follow and that few/predictable chokepoints are a design strategy to this end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is the fear I, and I think <b>Crispy</b> and <b>Bacillus</b>, are trying to voice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh I can understand why you maybe slightly shocked at my optimism, I have been critical of the dev team in the past, but I have also been supportive. Also this open ended teching system is something that I've wanted for a long time, actually for NS1 (can't find a post, but I believe it was in 2003-2004).
I tend to agree with Firewater and niaccurshi. It seems a lot of people have, as niaccurshi so eloquently put it, "misplaced nostalgia." There would be no use in making a new game if it's going to pretty much mimic the old one. And as I've stated in an other thread; there's no reason why a classic mode couldn't be scripted and released as a mod. I can't wait for the alpha/beta testing, so some of these things can work themselves out. There is just not enough information to truly base any argument on, it all seems rather speculative to me. Until we've play-tested this new system, I think people should cut back a bit on preconceptions and belligerence. (Unless I have totally misinterpreted the general trend of this thread.)
<!--quoteo(post=1709976:date=Jun 3 2009, 05:40 PM:name=niaccurshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (niaccurshi @ Jun 3 2009, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1709976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second, I think your view on what NS was about is an extremely limiting one. The game is about Marines attacking aliens and aliens defending? Maybe it's just the company I kept but games varied a bit more than that, on some levels it would be a strong marine start and it would happen as you say. On other levels the aliens would get the upper hand first and it'd be about the marines trying to establish a foothold while the aliens attempt to annihilate them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree I think with an open ended system, you can have two teams simultaneously attacking each other's bases as a common tactic, not some desperate hail mary pass that it used most commonly today.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The old system meant that the best thing for marines to do was to hunker down, usually in a hive so they get a nice two for one deal, and build temporary PG links or tech up the JPs. If aliens wanted to win the ONLY option was to take the second hive and kill the rines before they teched up enough to make a come back. It also meant that for aliens it was all about one hive, not two, on top of the one you started with. If you won the second hive that was it, there was no other element involved, the victory might have taken ages to achieve depending on res towers and comm competency but generally that's what happened.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, that is the common theme that is often in the public experience (sometimes competitively as well). People use this strategy over and over again because of a certain degree of success. In fact, its so common, I often get criticized for attempting to do something different (i.e. pressure first hive, while players cap), even though that can be more effective I often get called a "newb" as a commander.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now we're talking about a gameplay system where Marines have more control over controlling the landscape they enter, about needing to do more than just turtle a single room, and hopefully (as Firewater has been putting across quite amazingly amongst everything else) to see the Aliens need to branch out in how they consider solving the problem because of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the complement, I appreciate it. More of an open tech system will allow more strategies and tactics, and truly allow for more dynamic gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We'll see what the PTs come up with, how it all goes down in the testing, but to claim that what is being talked about here will *limit* the strategy in the game, as if you could ever possibly get less strategy than we ended up with in NS once the tricks and strats were all out and well rehearsed, is monumentally naive; and probably more than slightly filled with misplaced nostalgia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The beauty of pre-ordering this game is the fact with either the regular edition or special edition that player will have access to the beta. So community members can test outside the regular playtesting community can test the game and form their own opinions on what should be included in gameplay, and what shouldn't. I am greatful for this opportunity because I would really like to organize some tests with community members.
I also agree with the misplaced Nostalgia comment. I truly do believe that one of the barriers in NS that really kept it from its potential was the current hive system. How often did one see hive 3 abilities used tactifully, and not just used in a free for all at the marine base.
<!--quoteo(post=1710045:date=Jun 4 2009, 03:58 PM:name=Slaught)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slaught @ Jun 4 2009, 03:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710045"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Until we've play-tested this new system, I think people should cut back a bit on preconceptions<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for truth
<!--QuoteBegin-locallyunscene+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Firewater and Bacillus seem to agree about everything except that the former is optimistic[gasp!] about the actual implementation and goals and the latter is pessimistic[half-gasp].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I generally tend to be quite critical and negative until something is proven right. At least I hope it provokes more people into these discussions and hopefully also makes people to try to agrument a bit. If UWE has got a good plan (which they certainly have) they can just chuckle and ignore my messages and get back to their work.
Critical and supportive is the way I've been trying to post, although the supportive sometimes fails depending on my mood and lack of skill when it comes to creating well written, segmented and easy to read posts.
<!--quoteo(post=1710121:date=Jun 4 2009, 09:07 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Jun 4 2009, 09:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I generally tend to be quite critical and negative until something is proven right. At least I hope it provokes more people into these discussions and hopefully also makes people to try to agrument a bit. If UWE has got a good plan (which they certainly have) they can just chuckle and ignore my messages and get back to their work.
Critical and supportive is the way I've been trying to post, although the supportive sometimes fails depending on my mood and lack of skill when it comes to creating well written, segmented and easy to read posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am generally the same way, though usually I give an idea the benefit of the doubt unless its really out there. People just see the negative comments and just assume that you are only negative. This especially holds true if you aren't popular in certain segments of the community.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1710017:date=Jun 3 2009, 09:35 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firewater @ Jun 3 2009, 09:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710017"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eh I can understand why you maybe slightly shocked at my optimism, I have been critical of the dev team in the past, but I have also been supportive. Also this open ended teching system is something that I've wanted for a long time, actually for NS1 (can't find a post, but I believe it was in 2003-2004).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah I get what you mean. I wasn't really shocked, it was just a joke. I mean when you get down to it we're all cynical crusty old NS Community members anyway.
I like the multiple tech points on the map and agree that has tremendous potential. I feel that potential would be squandered if there are only two choke points on the map like the orig design since everything would be about getting and holding those points early.
kabo0mKT of Insomniacs Anonymous Gaming CommunityJoin Date: 2004-08-06Member: 30415Members
<!--quoteo(post=1710191:date=Jun 4 2009, 01:39 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jun 4 2009, 01:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1710191"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah I get what you mean. I wasn't really shocked, it was just a joke. I mean when you get down to it we're all cynical crusty old NS Community members anyway.
I like the multiple tech points on the map and agree that has tremendous potential. I feel that potential would be squandered if there are only two choke points on the map like the orig design since everything would be about getting and holding those points early.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been a long time coming and for a bit there it was starting to looking like NS2 would never happen. I am happy to hear of the latest developments and the SA clan is starting to preorder.
I am starting to like NS2 more and more. I've accepted it will be quite a different game to the original NS1, but at its core will be quite similar/same.
My only gripe is with multiple commanders if it will be in release. More then one commander would lead to confusion and increase the chances of griefing as well as taking another player off the field. Apart from that, the power system makes sense and means that Marines will have to be more protective of all their RTs and expansions. Losing any of the RTs can kill your offensive all together and cause you major problems further on. I think it would encourage turtling but will still give Aliens a chance to break the marines later on.
<!--quoteo(post=1711082:date=Jun 8 2009, 10:52 AM:name=NF3RN0)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NF3RN0 @ Jun 8 2009, 10:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My only gripe is with multiple commanders if it will be in release. More then one commander would lead to confusion and increase the chances of griefing as well as taking another player off the field.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If commanders operate the same way and the res system is no different. However we know that this isn't the case from what has been said already. If anything multiple commanders should mean that there is less opportunity for griefing as you can't have one solitary person refuse to play ball. And are we forgetting the eject a commander option? Now it's my turn to make a baseless assumption and think that such a feature will be retained.
<!--quoteo(post=1711164:date=Jun 8 2009, 12:17 PM:name=niaccurshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (niaccurshi @ Jun 8 2009, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711164"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If commanders operate the same way and the res system is no different. However we know that this isn't the case from what has been said already. If anything multiple commanders should mean that there is less opportunity for griefing as you can't have one solitary person refuse to play ball. And are we forgetting the eject a commander option? Now it's my turn to make a baseless assumption and think that such a feature will be retained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is difficult to say how multiple commanders will affect the gameplay either positive or negatively. I do however think that this idea could work, but I am not sure how much functionality it will provide. I remain optimistic though, because I really think the powergrid is a step in the right direction.
I like the idea of power grid, simply because it causes marines to actually PLOT OUT a route to take, rather them spam spam spam, and stick with what holds. A LOT of people are forgetting that dynamic infestation is the alien equivalent. You cant spam OCs, or random SCs just anywhere... Seige camping will can also be broken up by taking out the res tower in the middle they are forgetting about... structures are now an extension of the bases, not auto rambo tools...
Multi-com will allow new players to get introduced to the com system in a more supported position, rather then "OMG NUB! GET OUT THE CHAIR!" proceeded by 10 com ejects because he didnt make the right amount of IPs, or upgraded damage 2 first... This will actually give squading some value, rather then everyone being grouped into "squad one" on join...
A LOT of people seem to be forgetting about new players (as they ALWAYS have in ns...) wanting to rely on the "tried and true" textbook method of winning rather then actually have a dynamic game where there is more then one way to play.
A lot of people seemed concerned that they just might not be "leet" any more, having to admit to sharing com, and the team having more responsibility... at least now, clueless nubs can defend the RTs while the elitists work on whatever they decide they should be doing that's so "awesome", giving all players a chance to feel useful. That alone should make it worth it.
NS 1 is INFAMOUS (more then ANY cs game) for NOT being nub friendly, simply because of the learning curve. Pair that up with a bunch of elitist tools who MUST win every game by the book, and well, you can see where that goes... sadly, usually to co...(lol?)
So, seeing as this is my only post on here so far, I'd like to say "nice work etc..." to the devs, and hope they keep up on it with an open mind.
Does this mean that with Power Grid, you will have 3 commanders at one point? Will they share the resources? Will they get into conflicts? My suggestion is to have only one commander and make the new command posts just entry points to only one position. However if there will be other commanders in the secondary command posts, maybe make them 'field' commanders. They will only be able to build in the command room and the rooms imediately adjacent to the room unlike the main commander who is able to build anywhere. The main commander should also have the ability to block out the 'field' commanders from using up too much resources.
<!--quoteo(post=1933392:date=May 4 2012, 10:26 AM:name=Gsemia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gsemia @ May 4 2012, 10:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is a 3 years old Thread. This blog does not exist anymore. Neither is the information valid anymore. So stop talking here :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, I thought it was actually interesting reading the last few pages again. Power grid is a hot topic again.
Comments
In general I tend to learn toward optimism because the devs know how to make a good game, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised by this system. But I tend to think the goal of this system is to make the maps easier to follow and that few/predictable chokepoints are a design strategy to this end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is the fear I, and I think <b>Crispy</b> and <b>Bacillus</b>, are trying to voice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh I can understand why you maybe slightly shocked at my optimism, I have been critical of the dev team in the past, but I have also been supportive. Also this open ended teching system is something that I've wanted for a long time, actually for NS1 (can't find a post, but I believe it was in 2003-2004).
I agree I think with an open ended system, you can have two teams simultaneously attacking each other's bases as a common tactic, not some desperate hail mary pass that it used most commonly today.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The old system meant that the best thing for marines to do was to hunker down, usually in a hive so they get a nice two for one deal, and build temporary PG links or tech up the JPs. If aliens wanted to win the ONLY option was to take the second hive and kill the rines before they teched up enough to make a come back. It also meant that for aliens it was all about one hive, not two, on top of the one you started with. If you won the second hive that was it, there was no other element involved, the victory might have taken ages to achieve depending on res towers and comm competency but generally that's what happened.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, that is the common theme that is often in the public experience (sometimes competitively as well). People use this strategy over and over again because of a certain degree of success. In fact, its so common, I often get criticized for attempting to do something different (i.e. pressure first hive, while players cap), even though that can be more effective I often get called a "newb" as a commander.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now we're talking about a gameplay system where Marines have more control over controlling the landscape they enter, about needing to do more than just turtle a single room, and hopefully (as Firewater has been putting across quite amazingly amongst everything else) to see the Aliens need to branch out in how they consider solving the problem because of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the complement, I appreciate it. More of an open tech system will allow more strategies and tactics, and truly allow for more dynamic gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We'll see what the PTs come up with, how it all goes down in the testing, but to claim that what is being talked about here will *limit* the strategy in the game, as if you could ever possibly get less strategy than we ended up with in NS once the tricks and strats were all out and well rehearsed, is monumentally naive; and probably more than slightly filled with misplaced nostalgia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The beauty of pre-ordering this game is the fact with either the regular edition or special edition that player will have access to the beta. So community members can test outside the regular playtesting community can test the game and form their own opinions on what should be included in gameplay, and what shouldn't. I am greatful for this opportunity because I would really like to organize some tests with community members.
I also agree with the misplaced Nostalgia comment. I truly do believe that one of the barriers in NS that really kept it from its potential was the current hive system. How often did one see hive 3 abilities used tactifully, and not just used in a free for all at the marine base.
Quoted for truth
I generally tend to be quite critical and negative until something is proven right. At least I hope it provokes more people into these discussions and hopefully also makes people to try to agrument a bit. If UWE has got a good plan (which they certainly have) they can just chuckle and ignore my messages and get back to their work.
Critical and supportive is the way I've been trying to post, although the supportive sometimes fails depending on my mood and lack of skill when it comes to creating well written, segmented and easy to read posts.
Critical and supportive is the way I've been trying to post, although the supportive sometimes fails depending on my mood and lack of skill when it comes to creating well written, segmented and easy to read posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am generally the same way, though usually I give an idea the benefit of the doubt unless its really out there. People just see the negative comments and just assume that you are only negative. This especially holds true if you aren't popular in certain segments of the community.
Yeah I get what you mean. I wasn't really shocked, it was just a joke. I mean when you get down to it we're all cynical crusty old NS Community members anyway.
I like the multiple tech points on the map and agree that has tremendous potential. I feel that potential would be squandered if there are only two choke points on the map like the orig design since everything would be about getting and holding those points early.
I like the multiple tech points on the map and agree that has tremendous potential. I feel that potential would be squandered if there are only two choke points on the map like the orig design since everything would be about getting and holding those points early.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been a long time coming and for a bit there it was starting to looking like NS2 would never happen. I am happy to hear of the latest developments and the SA clan is starting to preorder.
My only gripe is with multiple commanders if it will be in release. More then one commander would lead to confusion and increase the chances of griefing as well as taking another player off the field. Apart from that, the power system makes sense and means that Marines will have to be more protective of all their RTs and expansions. Losing any of the RTs can kill your offensive all together and cause you major problems further on. I think it would encourage turtling but will still give Aliens a chance to break the marines later on.
If commanders operate the same way and the res system is no different. However we know that this isn't the case from what has been said already. If anything multiple commanders should mean that there is less opportunity for griefing as you can't have one solitary person refuse to play ball. And are we forgetting the eject a commander option? Now it's my turn to make a baseless assumption and think that such a feature will be retained.
It is difficult to say how multiple commanders will affect the gameplay either positive or negatively. I do however think that this idea could work, but I am not sure how much functionality it will provide. I remain optimistic though, because I really think the powergrid is a step in the right direction.
A LOT of people are forgetting that dynamic infestation is the alien equivalent. You cant spam OCs, or random SCs just anywhere...
Seige camping will can also be broken up by taking out the res tower in the middle they are forgetting about...
structures are now an extension of the bases, not auto rambo tools...
Multi-com will allow new players to get introduced to the com system in a more supported position, rather then "OMG NUB! GET OUT THE CHAIR!" proceeded by 10 com ejects because he didnt make the right amount of IPs, or upgraded damage 2 first...
This will actually give squading some value, rather then everyone being grouped into "squad one" on join...
A LOT of people seem to be forgetting about new players (as they ALWAYS have in ns...) wanting to rely on the "tried and true" textbook method of winning rather then actually have a dynamic game where there is more then one way to play.
A lot of people seemed concerned that they just might not be "leet" any more, having to admit to sharing com, and the team having more responsibility...
at least now, clueless nubs can defend the RTs while the elitists work on whatever they decide they should be doing that's so "awesome", giving all players a chance to feel useful.
That alone should make it worth it.
NS 1 is INFAMOUS (more then ANY cs game) for NOT being nub friendly, simply because of the learning curve.
Pair that up with a bunch of elitist tools who MUST win every game by the book, and well, you can see where that goes... sadly, usually to co...(lol?)
So, seeing as this is my only post on here so far, I'd like to say "nice work etc..." to the devs, and hope they keep up on it with an open mind.
However if there will be other commanders in the secondary command posts, maybe make them 'field' commanders. They will only be able to build in the command room and the rooms imediately adjacent to the room unlike the main commander who is able to build anywhere. The main commander should also have the ability to block out the 'field' commanders from using up too much resources.
So long ago... wonder why it was scrapped. Too Cyst/Infestation-like?
Anyway, I hope the whole usage of Power Points have some ideas in the pipe (writing as of build 207), still a lot of cool possibilities.
-A
casn't find it anywhere
Heh, I thought it was actually interesting reading the last few pages again. Power grid is a hot topic again.