<!--quoteo(post=1956746:date=Aug 3 2012, 09:45 PM:name=Xaragoth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xaragoth @ Aug 3 2012, 09:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I tend to use Mines when the Fade-Zerg begins. They usually step into them with all that hopping around and blow themselves up. No real solution though :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I've had Fades tank several mines and then run away to regen health. At most mines are a deterrent not an actual solution.
At some point, all that tweaking the balance on fades will do is affect how long the fade will harass individual units. The fade is a hit-and-run unit; the glass cannon. If it's buffed, it will sit out swiping marines all that much longer; if it's nerfed, it will retreat all the sooner. But there's no changing the core mechanic: get in quickly, do damage, get out quickly. And that's the thing that annoys marines the most, that they can't close the deal and kill the thing. The only way is a coordinated effort between players - <i>which it should be</i>. It's a 50 P-Res investment on the part of another player, that's not something that should be taken lightly.
Fades aren't really "glass cannons", they have the second most health out of any alien in the game. And nobody is really suggesting fades be easy to take out, obviously they are very costly and should therefor be decently powerful. Personally I'm starting to believe that a big problem with fades currently is how confusing their blink sprite is and the performance issues making them nearly impossible to hit in a crowded area.
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.
<!--quoteo(post=1956763:date=Aug 3 2012, 10:34 PM:name=Firepower01)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firepower01 @ Aug 3 2012, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fades aren't really "glass cannons", they have the second most health out of any alien in the game. And nobody is really suggesting fades be easy to take out, obviously they are very costly and should therefor be decently powerful. Personally I'm starting to believe that a big problem with fades currently is how confusing their blink sprite is and the performance issues making them nearly impossible to hit in a crowded area.
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good jetpacker with a shotgun can be very cost efficient, plus it's important to consider that marines are much stronger in large groups.
Parts of the problem of why their balance is so off compared with NS1:
-Regeneration is too fast, letting fades put relentless pressure on groups of marines that never really ends.
-Being able to pair carapace with regeneration has thrown the balance of fades out of alignment with where they originally were with NS1. You combine the ability to absorb lots of shock damage with the ability to regen very quickly. So not only do you survive, but you keep pressure on.
-Lack of scaled upgades so you get the highest benefit right off the bat.
You need a large group of shotgun wielding marines to even have a chance at killing a competent fade before they can get away, but then feint death might save them anyway. And if they do get away, chances are they will be back in a few seconds anyway after healing up, after having already killed a marine or two. So you really are just guaranteed to be beaten down over time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the xman 'nightstalker' style that was initially championed was always going to cause problems from a gameplay perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not really. If we made the fade sufficiently weak that he could be killed during those brief moments of visibility then it wouldn't be a problem. But I am sure it would take a much greater reduction than 30 health, as some have done on modded servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1956757:date=Aug 3 2012, 06:21 PM:name=Cee Colon Slash)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cee Colon Slash @ Aug 3 2012, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At some point, all that tweaking the balance on fades will do is affect how long the fade will harass individual units. The fade is a hit-and-run unit; the glass cannon. If it's buffed, it will sit out swiping marines all that much longer; if it's nerfed, it will retreat all the sooner. But there's no changing the core mechanic: get in quickly, do damage, get out quickly. And that's the thing that annoys marines the most, that they can't close the deal and kill the thing. The only way is a coordinated effort between players - <i>which it should be</i>. It's a 50 P-Res investment on the part of another player, that's not something that should be taken lightly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I proposed the regen nerf. If you can give the fade significant downtime with a regen nerf then it would feel less hopeless and futile on the part of the marines who are trying to keep the fades at bay. Sometimes getting the fade to leave you alone for a minute because you injured it so bad can be a victory, but that won't happen if regen is up.
Also, part of the problem is that they absorb too much initial damage so they can do too much damage to the marines even if they are in groups.
This ability to be very destructive before leaving, combined with the ability to regen so quickly to hit them again, is what creates the situations where marines are hopelessly beaten down through attrition of time and resources.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited August 2012
The problem, imo,<b> is his visibility implementation.</b> Watch a fade blink right in front of you (not yourself w/ thirdperson as its not the same) standing still. You will see a cloud of black, a white electrical effect, and then below it the faintest outline of a fade.
When the fade is moving at 88 mph, the black cloud and white electrical effect trail behind at at the level of his HEAD and not center mass.. And in that cluttered screen of yours, your eye is picking up that electrical effect contrasting with the black cloud, and you are shooting at it incorrectly like you would look for the small plane in the sky based on the sound that trails behind it.
A shot of one holding still. Try taking the shot of one using celerity perpendicular to your position:
<!--quoteo(post=1956692:date=Aug 3 2012, 11:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 3 2012, 11:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree, supsu. More momentum along with higher energy costs for blinks would make the fade a lot more fun to play and would do wonders for the skill gradient.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1, I find the current blink a bit boring, it feels like you are swimming in oil or something. The low blink cost makes that you never need to use momentum at all.
Sometimes it seems like I'm earing the vortex bullet sound when shooting fades, is that right?
<!--quoteo(post=1956763:date=Aug 3 2012, 10:34 PM:name=Firepower01)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firepower01 @ Aug 3 2012, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally I'm starting to believe that a big problem with fades currently is how confusing their blink sprite is and the performance issues making them nearly impossible to hit in a crowded area.
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really agree with these points. Fades just don't take as much work to slaughter people. I'm by no means a good player, but fades just seem easy to me in comparison to a shotgun/jetpack or any other marine weapon. I hope exo suits have some pain in store for the fades!
<!--quoteo(post=1956858:date=Aug 4 2012, 07:37 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Aug 4 2012, 07:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->110% agree with you this time ironhorse! :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
@Tweadle in general, it's not so much wanting it to look cool as to just not look awkward, which is hard to do if it's just flying through the air with no visible means of propelling itself. I mean, bladed jesus was funny and all, but kinda hard to market in a modern game... just imagine all the youtube comments making fun of it!
<!--quoteo(post=1957079:date=Aug 4 2012, 05:53 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Aug 4 2012, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1957079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Tweadle in general, it's not so much wanting it to look cool as to just not look awkward, which is hard to do if it's just flying through the air with no visible means of propelling itself. I mean, bladed jesus was funny and all, but kinda hard to market in a modern game... just imagine all the youtube comments making fun of it!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If thats the only reason to have blink like this, i dont know what to say.
<!--quoteo(post=1956959:date=Aug 4 2012, 09:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 09:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To some extent perhaps, but it doesn't actually bother me that much. I suppose making the Fade model semitransparent rather than completely invisible would be alright, but I don't think there's a need to revert all the way to NS1's a-wizard-did-it levitation.
As for Blink's current movement mechanics, no comment at this time - I haven't used it much in recent builds (and my framerate is terrible besides). But I will agree that NS1 did it well.
There are a myriad of ways to make a fade visible and, at the same time, not make it look spastic while in flight. If that's the reasons it's in, then making it invisible is not only a cop-out, but a damaging one.
<!--quoteo(post=1957141:date=Aug 4 2012, 06:11 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 06:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1957141"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are a myriad of ways to make a fade visible and, at the same time, not make it look spastic while in flight. If that's the reasons it's in, then making it invisible is not only a cop-out, but a damaging one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't need to be invisible (and indeed it isn't any more, though the effect may need tweaking), just needs to look good. So, just suggest things that would make visible blinking look swell while still being really clear - I'm sure they can see both sides of the issue.
My suggestion is that it should be entirely visible and I've said why. I'm not an animation artist though and I doubt my saying how I would view a fade flying would be useful.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited August 2012
I don't see where you've said why? The only justification I saw was for issues already resolved?
Would love to have a reason presented, because I think the concept intended is far better than the glitchy looking fade from ns1. (we all know they never wanted him to look that way back then, was a limitation of the engine)
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited August 2012
I did, and I reiterate:
<!--quoteo(post=1957240:date=Aug 4 2012, 01:51 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Aug 4 2012, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1957240"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see where you've said why? The only justification I saw was for issues already resolved?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go ahead and disagree with me, but I think Fade balance is pretty bad right now
I rarely play fade, but 2 games ago comm re spawned me as a one <i>(a mechanic I didn't even know was in this build)</i>
With Double Jump + Shift + Blink you don't take any damage until you're hitting the Marines and if you kill them in 2 hits they can only get a few bullets in you
I ripped through 7 Marines all in a row one after the other. . . I remember the engagement very clearly; these were not stealthy kills, this was 100% head on with each marine getting pot shots in before I got into range
That's a 16 pop server so do the math. . . <b><u>I wiped their entire team</u></b>, minus the commander, <b><u>alone</u></b> and had 83 health left over
All I could think is what would happen if someone with heavy experience was behind the wheel
You'd probably get something like this: <a href="http://i50.tinypic.com/2mctxeh.png" target="_blank">http://i50.tinypic.com/2mctxeh.png</a>
Spent the better half of game with full upgrades and always in a group of 3-4 marines being unable to kill the Fades Roving the map
Couldn't even trigger a Feign Death which I'm guessing they would just blink immediately from when they get up
Exo-Suit seems like the only hope, but really I think it's just going to be more of the same where you can never kill them
<u><b>I actually don't want the fade to get nerfed</b></u>, but it seems like everytime I ask for a weapon that counters the fade it falls on deaf ears Would it be so terrible if fade was dealt heavy, persistant damage if they tried to shift or blink while burning?
Game will probably be released within the next quarter; so I feel like this is the last time I'll ask
<!--quoteo(post=1956680:date=Aug 4 2012, 12:34 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 12:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956680"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it's particularly hard to let go of the blink animation because of the very clear design goal put forward early on in the project but, unfortunately, the xman 'nightstalker' style that was initially championed was always going to cause problems from a gameplay perspective. I'm really glad that teleportation was avoided, that invincibility and invisibility have been removed and that the lust for damage reduction has been better controlled. However, the last remnant of that nightstalker vision (which was a cool but tough ambition to achieve/manage in NS2's context) is the glowy-ball blink animation which is trying to contribute to a design goal that has already failed. There is now no reason to make it so frustratingly hard and annoying to track/see a fade's movement when it resembles the original vision so loosely and it is the last remaining poor mechanic that the nightstalker path has taken us down - removing it would hit the last nail in that coffin.
I say hit it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here I speculate as to why we have it in the first place and argue why I think the original blueprint no longer necessitates invisible blinking. I also say that it's frustrating to track.
<!--quoteo(post=1956723:date=Aug 4 2012, 01:52 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 01:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956723"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm referring to the arguments for their insertion in the first place. Some people still feel that a swipe delay would be appropriate (I don't but I can see the logic) and that is because of how difficult it is to see a fade approaching for the 'free' swipe. Similarly, a fade that can blink in such a poorly visible state for the entire duration of their energy counter is not exactly desirable. Both are mechanics I am glad to see the back of but both are mechanics that visibility, or the lack thereof, elicited. A completely visible fade would make the debate beautifully redundant (not that the debate is particularly popular at the moment). I certainly don't see any reason not to go the whole hog and let us actually see the fade in all its glory, do you?
It was an open question but yeah, kind of. That you talk about it looking 'cool' pretty much answers my suspicions though :P.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here I talk about some of the side-effects of invisibility. You yourself were a proponent of the swipe-delay and highlighted the problem of the 'free' swipe so I would imagine this is particularly relevant to you. It's also why I find it strange that suddenly you feel as if it has been resolved. It has been 'resolved', but certainly not in your favour unless you've changed your mind. Either way, I always understood the logic but felt that it would still be better removed.
I also mention that the maximum blink duration was introduced for valid balance reasons related to the strong combination of low visibility and high mileage. Again, I didn't like the artificial blink duration cap but could see the problem which is why I argue that a visible fade would "make the debate beautifully redundant".
<!--quoteo(post=1956959:date=Aug 4 2012, 12:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here, I refer to your point on implementation and imply that the problem wouldn't even exist in the first place if the fade was visible by calling it a "problem on top of another one". I also remind elodea that the fade is still "ridiculously hard to see" and it should have been clear by now that I think this sucks.
All of this, in conjunction with my general sentiments echoed throughout everything I've said in this thread - that there is no reason to make the fade so difficult to see, that it is the remains of a failed blueprint, that it's annoying to play against and that there are a plurality of ways to make the fade not look silly without making him practically invisible - should make it pretty clear why I think the fade should simply be completely visible.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
But it doesn't? You are only addressing where the night crawler approach has failed and that this is a reason for implementing full visibility, not actually providing a reason on why full visibility should be used over any of the other "plurality if ways"??
Thats what I'm looking for. Not talking about whats wrong currently, you know I agree with you there (as well as the free swipe that is unavoidable)<b> but why full visibility over the other methods? </b>What does it bring? Sure easier tracking, but also a higher entrance of use (noobs get gunned down entering rooms like lerks do because they wont bob or weave.)
Im not accusing nostalgia of being the motivator again, I'm just concerned it is after the mutual understanding of the other options being on the table.
<!--quoteo(post=1956959:date=Aug 4 2012, 09:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 09:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh Ironhorse was talking about it only in the limited sense of the purple blob being out of sync? lol.
Well, there's a problem with the visual implementation of fade blink currently, and that much i think we all agree on. You've outlined the problem really well already and I mistakenly thought Ironhorse was agreeing with you as well for once :p.
I've said it before myself, its silly to base the fade around 100% blink damage but have no facing direction, animation, model etc. for easy visual identification of blinking fades (as in ns1). A faint purple blob or glow doesn't make sense in that context where the mechanic of blink damage creates luck-based outcomes more so than skill-based outcomes imo. You can't exactly shoot at what you can't see very well.
At this point, I'd rather UWE either stick with 100% blink damage fade which is easily visible/trackable in blink, or go back to their no blink damage and stay with the purple blob. Obviously, the former is the superior option for many reasons =D.
Fade blink animation needs to be reasonably sized (about fade sized) and clearly definitive ... and actually coincide with the hitbox correctly.
And one thing I think tweadle is touching on is that when you just have a glowy sphere animation you can't properly track well because you cannot tell the orientation/facing of the fade and thus predict what direction he's going to move in.
I think you might be able to fix that without butchering the neat nightcrawler effect, it's just that visual queues need to be added. Also the graphic overall needs to be much more visible as right now it's very low opacity/small and hard to follow.
my poorly drawn idea: <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/Drakuu/fadeblink.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
add smaller bright mini glowies in front of where the fade is looking (where his "face" would be while blinking), so that you would be able to tell the orientation of the model
I mean i get where they were going with it..but it just doesn't look like that while going mach 2, and all your eyes catch is that glowing white ball 30 ft behind it. I think if it were all black, save for the few directional cues ON THE MODEL (not trailing) it could work, even if you didnt mess with transparency..
direction cue on the model: (Terrible example, i know, but you get the idea) <a href="http://www.cf-network.com/cfan/IMG/art876-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.cf-network.com/cfan/IMG/art876-3.jpg</a>
Ok, all very cool and everything. Knowing the direction would be awesome, but can't we just see the fade and do away with these silly effects? It would surely be a lot easier and then we get to see, not only the direction, but the entire model, yippee! I can shoot it's torso, it's head, it's feet, whatever I like and that would be pretty tasty.
If we really have to go along with some pointless 'cool' effect this is my suggestion: Have a considerably more solid and evenly shaped sphere (with some effect to denote view-direction), make it glow bright so that we can see it and make the sphere itself the hitbox so you would literally be aiming at what you see, rather than attempting to predict where it's penis is.
Comments
Yeah I've had Fades tank several mines and then run away to regen health. At most mines are a deterrent not an actual solution.
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good jetpacker with a shotgun can be very cost efficient, plus it's important to consider that marines are much stronger in large groups.
-Regeneration is too fast, letting fades put relentless pressure on groups of marines that never really ends.
-Being able to pair carapace with regeneration has thrown the balance of fades out of alignment with where they originally were with NS1. You combine the ability to absorb lots of shock damage with the ability to regen very quickly. So not only do you survive, but you keep pressure on.
-Lack of scaled upgades so you get the highest benefit right off the bat.
You need a large group of shotgun wielding marines to even have a chance at killing a competent fade before they can get away, but then feint death might save them anyway.
And if they do get away, chances are they will be back in a few seconds anyway after healing up, after having already killed a marine or two. So you really are just guaranteed to be beaten down over time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the xman 'nightstalker' style that was initially championed was always going to cause problems from a gameplay perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not really. If we made the fade sufficiently weak that he could be killed during those brief moments of visibility then it wouldn't be a problem.
But I am sure it would take a much greater reduction than 30 health, as some have done on modded servers.
That's why I proposed the regen nerf.
If you can give the fade significant downtime with a regen nerf then it would feel less hopeless and futile on the part of the marines who are trying to keep the fades at bay.
Sometimes getting the fade to leave you alone for a minute because you injured it so bad can be a victory, but that won't happen if regen is up.
Also, part of the problem is that they absorb too much initial damage so they can do too much damage to the marines even if they are in groups.
This ability to be very destructive before leaving, combined with the ability to regen so quickly to hit them again, is what creates the situations where marines are hopelessly beaten down through attrition of time and resources.
Watch a fade blink right in front of you (not yourself w/ thirdperson as its not the same) standing still.
You will see a cloud of black, a white electrical effect, and then below it the faintest outline of a fade.
When the fade is moving at 88 mph, the black cloud and white electrical effect trail behind at at the level of his HEAD and not center mass..
And in that cluttered screen of yours, your eye is picking up that electrical effect contrasting with the black cloud, and you are shooting at it incorrectly like you would look for the small plane in the sky based on the sound that trails behind it.
A shot of one holding still. Try taking the shot of one using celerity perpendicular to your position:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/ByKGj.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Bhspm.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
110% agree with you this time ironhorse! :p
+1, I find the current blink a bit boring, it feels like you are swimming in oil or something. The low blink cost makes that you never need to use momentum at all.
Sometimes it seems like I'm earing the vortex bullet sound when shooting fades, is that right?
Edit: Also cost-wise a jetpack marine with a flamethrower (40 resources, 50 resources if jetpacks still cost 20) isn't even close to being as effective as a fade (50 resources). So cost-effectiveness should also be balanced accordingly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really agree with these points. Fades just don't take as much work to slaughter people. I'm by no means a good player, but fades just seem easy to me in comparison to a shotgun/jetpack or any other marine weapon. I hope exo suits have some pain in store for the fades!
Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]
If thats the only reason to have blink like this, i dont know what to say.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To some extent perhaps, but it doesn't actually bother me that much. I suppose making the Fade model semitransparent rather than completely invisible would be alright, but I don't think there's a need to revert all the way to NS1's a-wizard-did-it levitation.
As for Blink's current movement mechanics, no comment at this time - I haven't used it much in recent builds (and my framerate is terrible besides). But I will agree that NS1 did it well.
It doesn't need to be invisible (and indeed it isn't any more, though the effect may need tweaking), just needs to look good. So, just suggest things that would make visible blinking look swell while still being really clear - I'm sure they can see both sides of the issue.
The only justification I saw was for issues already resolved?
Would love to have a reason presented, because I think the concept intended is far better than the glitchy looking fade from ns1. (we all know they never wanted him to look that way back then, was a limitation of the engine)
<!--quoteo(post=1957240:date=Aug 4 2012, 01:51 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Aug 4 2012, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1957240"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see where you've said why?
The only justification I saw was for issues already resolved?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mind pointing me to it?
I rarely play fade, but 2 games ago comm re spawned me as a one
<i>(a mechanic I didn't even know was in this build)</i>
With Double Jump + Shift + Blink you don't take any damage until you're hitting the Marines and if you kill them in 2 hits they can only get a few bullets in you
I ripped through 7 Marines all in a row one after the other. . .
I remember the engagement very clearly; these were not stealthy kills, this was 100% head on with each marine getting pot shots in before I got into range
That's a 16 pop server so do the math. . . <b><u>I wiped their entire team</u></b>, minus the commander, <b><u>alone</u></b> and had 83 health left over
All I could think is what would happen if someone with heavy experience was behind the wheel
You'd probably get something like this:
<a href="http://i50.tinypic.com/2mctxeh.png" target="_blank">http://i50.tinypic.com/2mctxeh.png</a>
Spent the better half of game with full upgrades and always in a group of 3-4 marines being unable to kill the Fades Roving the map
Couldn't even trigger a Feign Death which I'm guessing they would just blink immediately from when they get up
Exo-Suit seems like the only hope, but really I think it's just going to be more of the same where you can never kill them
<u><b>I actually don't want the fade to get nerfed</b></u>, but it seems like everytime I ask for a weapon that counters the fade it falls on deaf ears
Would it be so terrible if fade was dealt heavy, persistant damage if they tried to shift or blink while burning?
Game will probably be released within the next quarter; so I feel like this is the last time I'll ask
I say hit it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here I speculate as to why we have it in the first place and argue why I think the original blueprint no longer necessitates invisible blinking. I also say that it's frustrating to track.
<!--quoteo(post=1956723:date=Aug 4 2012, 01:52 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 01:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956723"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm referring to the arguments for their insertion in the first place. Some people still feel that a swipe delay would be appropriate (I don't but I can see the logic) and that is because of how difficult it is to see a fade approaching for the 'free' swipe. Similarly, a fade that can blink in such a poorly visible state for the entire duration of their energy counter is not exactly desirable. Both are mechanics I am glad to see the back of but both are mechanics that visibility, or the lack thereof, elicited. A completely visible fade would make the debate beautifully redundant (not that the debate is particularly popular at the moment). I certainly don't see any reason not to go the whole hog and let us actually see the fade in all its glory, do you?
It was an open question but yeah, kind of. That you talk about it looking 'cool' pretty much answers my suspicions though :P.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here I talk about some of the side-effects of invisibility. You yourself were a proponent of the swipe-delay and highlighted the problem of the 'free' swipe so I would imagine this is particularly relevant to you. It's also why I find it strange that suddenly you feel as if it has been resolved. It has been 'resolved', but certainly not in your favour unless you've changed your mind. Either way, I always understood the logic but felt that it would still be better removed.
I also mention that the maximum blink duration was introduced for valid balance reasons related to the strong combination of low visibility and high mileage. Again, I didn't like the artificial blink duration cap but could see the problem which is why I argue that a visible fade would "make the debate beautifully redundant".
<!--quoteo(post=1956959:date=Aug 4 2012, 12:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Aug 4 2012, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not think that, even if the cloud was centered in the right place, then it would still be ridiculously hard to see? I agree that the implementation is a problem but I can't help but feel like it's a problem on top of another one.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here, I refer to your point on implementation and imply that the problem wouldn't even exist in the first place if the fade was visible by calling it a "problem on top of another one". I also remind elodea that the fade is still "ridiculously hard to see" and it should have been clear by now that I think this sucks.
All of this, in conjunction with my general sentiments echoed throughout everything I've said in this thread - that there is no reason to make the fade so difficult to see, that it is the remains of a failed blueprint, that it's annoying to play against and that there are a plurality of ways to make the fade not look silly without making him practically invisible - should make it pretty clear why I think the fade should simply be completely visible.
You are only addressing where the night crawler approach has failed and that this is a reason for implementing full visibility, not actually providing a reason on why full visibility should be used over any of the other "plurality if ways"??
Thats what I'm looking for. Not talking about whats wrong currently, you know I agree with you there (as well as the free swipe that is unavoidable)<b> but why full visibility over the other methods? </b>What does it bring? Sure easier tracking, but also a higher entrance of use (noobs get gunned down entering rooms like lerks do because they wont bob or weave.)
Im not accusing nostalgia of being the motivator again, I'm just concerned it is after the mutual understanding of the other options being on the table.
[I assume that's what he means by implementation]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh Ironhorse was talking about it only in the limited sense of the purple blob being out of sync? lol.
Well, there's a problem with the visual implementation of fade blink currently, and that much i think we all agree on. You've outlined the problem really well already and I mistakenly thought Ironhorse was agreeing with you as well for once :p.
I've said it before myself, its silly to base the fade around 100% blink damage but have no facing direction, animation, model etc. for easy visual identification of blinking fades (as in ns1). A faint purple blob or glow doesn't make sense in that context where the mechanic of blink damage creates luck-based outcomes more so than skill-based outcomes imo. You can't exactly shoot at what you can't see very well.
At this point, I'd rather UWE either stick with 100% blink damage fade which is easily visible/trackable in blink, or go back to their no blink damage and stay with the purple blob. Obviously, the former is the superior option for many reasons =D.
And one thing I think tweadle is touching on is that when you just have a glowy sphere animation you can't properly track well because you cannot tell the orientation/facing of the fade and thus predict what direction he's going to move in.
I think you might be able to fix that without butchering the neat nightcrawler effect, it's just that visual queues need to be added. Also the graphic overall needs to be much more visible as right now it's very low opacity/small and hard to follow.
my poorly drawn idea:
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/Drakuu/fadeblink.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
add smaller bright mini glowies in front of where the fade is looking (where his "face" would be while blinking), so that you would be able to tell the orientation of the model
Standing still blink:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Qc2vt.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I mean i get where they were going with it..but it just doesn't look like that while going mach 2, and all your eyes catch is that glowing white ball 30 ft behind it.
I think if it were all black, save for the few directional cues ON THE MODEL (not trailing) it could work, even if you didnt mess with transparency..
direction cue on the model: (Terrible example, i know, but you get the idea)
<a href="http://www.cf-network.com/cfan/IMG/art876-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.cf-network.com/cfan/IMG/art876-3.jpg</a>
If we really have to go along with some pointless 'cool' effect this is my suggestion: Have a considerably more solid and evenly shaped sphere (with some effect to denote view-direction), make it glow bright so that we can see it and make the sphere itself the hitbox so you would literally be aiming at what you see, rather than attempting to predict where it's penis is.