<!--quoteo(post=2049620:date=Dec 22 2012, 01:34 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 22 2012, 01:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you expect to balance the game - both pub and comp play - but without taking anything from pub games into consideration? And I'm the one being ridiculous?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you expect official tennis rules to be balanced around both pub and comp play? Pub tennis players are pretty bad at serving, does this mean you should increase the number of allowed fouls to balance server vs receiver power? You are missing the point entirely, no pun intended.
Imagine a line, from low skill to high skill. The question should be, <i>taking into account skill to power and fun factor motivation, how do mechanics scale and compare in power across this line?</i> I assure you, experienced players who you might consider 'competitive' and 'elitist' have a far better understanding of the complete line, and where it breaks down if at all. Nearly all 'competitive', 'experienced', 'highskilled' players started from pubs, and still pub on a regular enough basis, only now with a more complete perspective.
A little part of me dies everytime i read someone spouting nonsense about 'pub vs competitive'. Sure there are elitist comp players, but they arn't justification for this irrational insanity. I also cringe when people suggest that pub players 'play for fun' but competitive players 'play to win'. Well designed games never make players choose between fun and winning/getting better. Madness. "Hey you, you can win, but only if you buy the invincible alien worm and feed it by pressing e on it constantly for 10 minutes. If you miss one click, the 10 minute timer will reset. Or you can go kill other players and have fun, but the spawn rates are high enough to prevent you from winning without mr worm."
Also, i've never seen glissy rage post. Welldone savant, welldone lol.
<!--quoteo(post=2049736:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:38 PM:name=CheesyPeteza)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CheesyPeteza @ Dec 22 2012, 08:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049736"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lots of things you can try, but IMO it is still overpowered. But I am asking can the stats show this. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really would like to know can the stats show this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The stats would only tell you how long it takes for a powernode to die on average from bilebomb. A bit overkill when you can just theorycraft from known numbers or do local server testing to confirm. You'll not get any kind of helpful context from it, and the judgement call about bilebomb ttk powernode will always be largely subjective.
Bilebomb possibly being OP against powernodes is an interesting issue however because it shows how the current powernode design is kinda flawed. Overwhelmingly, powernodes are I win buttons, like hypothetical 10 minute alien worms. They're found all over the map, so degree of 'I win' does not scale with powernode hp/buildtime and you can only have one per room. Imagine if you wern't allowed to overlap pylons in sc lol. Along with skulk movement etc., this is a good example of most of NS2's 'balance problems' actually being in part due to problems on the higher design level. What you gain from killing a base powernode is simply too high to meaningfully balance. Stats won't necessarily help you here.
I would like to see more on the "Internal game stats" data.
This should be further expanded to also include an optin for performance/crash log reports that could potentially be automatically uploaded to UWE for evaluation.
Out of curiosity: is there a "heat map" feature that can show level designers from the gathered stats where people die most frequently in a map or perform other specific actions like building specific structures there?
Like this? <img src="http://www.90percentofeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heatmap1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I find a lot of the changes that competitive players institute in their games to be stupid or counterproductive, but everyone is entitled to their own preferences. Reconciling the disagreement is simple. UWE should balance the game for public play which represents 99% of the games played. Competitive players can then make a mod that alters whatever they feel they need to alter. UWE can facilitate this by ensuring that the features the competitive players want are able to be implemented. This should make everyone happy.
Just because you killed 2 exos by yourself doens't mean the game is imbalanced. Skulks shouldn't be solo killing exos? Why? Just because they are in exos a lone skulk should be unable to kill them?
IF they can't aim, and if their teammates can't support them then you should be able to kill them. If you can't ONLY then is the game imbalanced.
If a soccer team's defense can't play well enough to stop a lone striker from scoring a goal is the whole game flawed? No.
I'm a casual NS2 player - i played NS as a HL mod too. I haven't found the pub games to be imbalanced. Some worthless players/comms, poor teamwork, Yes, but not imbalanced.
<!--quoteo(post=2049844:date=Dec 22 2012, 02:23 PM:name=soccerguy243)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (soccerguy243 @ Dec 22 2012, 02:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049844"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I made an account to to reply to Savant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Welcome to the forums! :)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because you killed 2 exos by yourself doens't mean the game is imbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The *developers* say the game is imbalanced, and I agree with them. The last balance patch noted that aliens are winning ~60% of the time. They know about it and they are trying to reduce that gap. So if you feel the game is balanced, that's cool - the developers disagree with you though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skulks shouldn't be solo killing exos? Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I didn't say they shouldn't. I don't want to get into this here, but in short the 'ultimate' unit on one team should be comparable to the ultimate unit on the other. If a skulk can solo an EXO in 7 seconds, let's have marines soloing Onos in 7 seconds. If not, let's give each side an ultimate unit that is just as strong. If it will take marines 32 seconds to solo an Onos, then lets have it so it takes 32 seconds for a skulk to solo an EXO. I really don't want to debate the EXO in here though. It's not the place. (Start a new thread and I'll be happy to jump in.)
<!--quoteo(post=2049835:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:59 AM:name=Evil.Iguana)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Evil.Iguana @ Dec 22 2012, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049835"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I find a lot of the changes that competitive players institute in their games to be stupid or counterproductive, but everyone is entitled to their own preferences. Reconciling the disagreement is simple. UWE should balance the game for public play which represents 99% of the games played. Competitive players can then make a mod that alters whatever they feel they need to alter. UWE can facilitate this by ensuring that the features the competitive players want are able to be implemented. This should make everyone happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> what changes are you referring to? are we not all playing the same game? everyone keeps mentioning these "changes" without specifying what they are. could it be... that there are none?
sorry I missed this earlier: <!--quoteo(post=2049608:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:49 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049608"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you cannot balance for pub play then you can only balance for competitive play. QED.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> incorrect, and shows you either missing the point or ignoring posts entirely. read my multiple posts above that illustrate why it is not a decision between one or the other. or don't :E
<!--quoteo(post=2049878:date=Dec 22 2012, 11:38 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 22 2012, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"We don't want to only take feedback from public games, because those games are more focused on fun instead of winning at all costs."
That's an.. odd thing to say.
One would have thought the point of the game is to be fun, enjoyable, entertaining.
If winning is opposed to fun, isn't that sort of a problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> competition brings a different mentality to the field. typically focused on winning in the most efficient and consistent means possible. public games I am also trying to win to a certain extent. there are too many variables in skill level, so I often find myself teaching and goofing around more than playing to win.
this also supports my point as to why balancing for public play is not going to accomplish anything. if you have one competent friend to play with, you can ensure won games all across the board with any sort of strategy you want.
EXOs every single round, and no one would question that they are undoubtedly the most overpowered thing in this game.
or how about the #METAGAME NO MINES RUSH?
...
<!--quoteo(post=2049639:date=Dec 21 2012, 07:11 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Dec 21 2012, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049639"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you tried actually reading my post before you responded then you'll clearly see that I said average stats of pub games can be used to determine that there may be balance issues in pubs. Using stats like these (which could be done by NS2stats!), it is possible to see general trends in pub play. These trends should then be investigated and experimented with in controlled settings using competent and knowledgeable players repeating situations or experiments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> hopefully this is what the balance strike squad xXx is intended to do. this is the only method for balance that will gain any ground.
I dont think we need a competitive mod. I also dont think that there really is some kind of balance for pub or competitive play.
I think NS2 just doesnt work too well in the current setup, that we know and are used to by "classic" fps games with more simple gameplay. (symmetric and balanced for 1v1)
Pick a random server with an open slot and hop into the game, join running matches, have matches start with different team sizes, with or without players that want command, rookies and veterans, lower and higher skilled players, etc.
You dont do this in rts games, you dont do this in moba games, and i also dont think we should do this in ns2... or at least not as the main way to play it but rather as an alternative way. (i.e. kinda like a "custom games" server list)
If you set it up like a classic tdm game, ppl will play it like that (seek an experience that is similar to that, because honestly as first glance ns2 looks kinda like a normal fps game) -> in my opinion a big part of unbalance whine results from this. The system just doesnt fit very well to how ns2 has to be played.
Matchmaking similar to how a League of Legends or whatever else does it would work a lot better for ns2. (and while it sounds more strict and serious and some ppl might "fear" it because of the sound of it, it will be fun - a lot more fun. Ppl dont really fear it, look at LoL Sc2 etc. and their ladders, matchmaking etc. - those have become the main way to play and enjoy those games)
What about those ppl that want an quick and easy fun tdm style expirience? direct them towards an gamemode that works better for that - like combat. (also try to make it look like an official part of the game(if you have a gamemod that you are happy with and that works well for that style of play)
edit: This more stricter and managed way to play ns2 will help ppl focus more on how ns2 has to be played. It might get ppl more interested in playing as teams rather than individuals that just want to have quick fun running and gunning around in silence like ns2 is bf3 or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=2049886:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:09 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 22 2012, 08:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->competition brings a different mentality to the field. typically focused on winning in the most efficient and consistent means possible. public games I am also trying to win to a certain extent. there are too many variables in skill level, so I often find myself teaching and goofing around more than playing to win.
this also supports my point as to why balancing for public play is not going to accomplish anything. if you have one competent friend to play with, you can ensure won games all across the board with any sort of strategy you want.
EXOs every single round, and no one would question that they are undoubtedly the most overpowered thing in this game.
or how about the #METAGAME NO MINES RUSH?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And because of that, attempting to win in the most efficient and consistent manner <i>should be the optimum path to fun.</i>
That's my point, if you have to choose between the game being fun and winning, that means that the best way to win is to do things that aren't fun, thus you have the division between people who want fun, and people who want winning.
This is obvious now in the sense that the best way to help the team is to ignore fighting and just go bash res towers for the rest of time, or ignore lifeforms and save up for a final onos rush, or ignore territory and strategy and just gather everyone into a rush and stomp the base before the enemy can react with no opposition. The best way to win is to ignore most of the game mechanics, the game mechanics that are the bits that make the game interesting.
Make winning and fun the same thing, and you have no reason for that division between competitive and public, except for possibly in terms of skill levels involved.
Why aliens win more than 60% games ? -> Because all the rookies goes as marines every single time. I mean, why a new player will test alien if there is already a side he likes ? That's their first mistakes, it's not a regular fps, in CoD or BF, it's mainly fire a long-range and not close or very close contact situation like NS2. People in pub games don't play as a team because they just want to have some fun and fragin' fest. So if your team lose, its your team fault, not the game's fault.
Atm, the game is not "broken" or "unbalanced", well, there are some few things to improve but nothing critical.
I really don't think we need a "tournament" mod or whatver you want to named it, it'll dig more and more the gap between "pub" and "competitiv" players. What's the point ? To ruin this community and get 2 instead of one ?
<!--quoteo(post=2049890:date=Dec 22 2012, 09:19 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Dec 22 2012, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... This more stricter and managed way to play ns2 will help ppl focus more on how ns2 has to be played. It might get ppl more interested in playing as teams rather than individuals that just want to have quick fun running and gunning around in silence like ns2 is bf3 or whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, having a complete system would require some work, but the current system has major flaws that could easily be fixed; half of the public games start with 2 players on each team, I don't know why the warm-up time has not be increased...
<!--quoteo(post=2049948:date=Dec 22 2012, 07:12 PM:name=Taniss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Taniss @ Dec 22 2012, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really don't think we need a "tournament" mod or whatver you want to named it, it'll dig more and more the gap between "pub" and "competitiv" players. What's the point ? To ruin this community and get 2 instead of one ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I hear this time and time again, and I ask, "HOW?" How will a competitive mode "ruin the community"? So far all I get is obfuscation and double-talk. (IOW, bullcrap) Want to change my mind? Detail how the game will implode and the 'community' will be 'ruined' because the game has an 'easy' mode and a 'hard' mode.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with people on this issue, which is why I'm not replying to posts that debate it anymore. However, I have yet to have anyone bring up a single hard point on how this will 'totally destroy' the game as they so claim. So far all I see are competitive players who want to make the game in their own image, and who don't give a crap about the pubbers. Been that way since NS1, and nothing has changed now. That elitest arrogance is something I see time and time again.
<!--quoteo(post=2049929:date=Dec 22 2012, 06:28 PM:name=Omar - The Wire)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omar - The Wire @ Dec 22 2012, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Read this whole thread. Interesting. I'm wondering if someone wearing a clan tag stole Savant's puppy when he was a child.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I played competitively for about a decade in mostly TFC and then later in TF2. I did also play competitively for a short while when Firearms was alive too. (I also dabbled a bit in competitive play in WoW, but it's on a different level of course.) So I know exactly what mindset competitive players have. I think the post that best sums it up can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126294&view=findpost&p=2049667" target="_blank">here</a>.
I make no apologies for standing up for the 'pubbers' playing NS2. They are the ones paying for this game and all they get is the collective finger from those who tell them their gaming experience doesn't count for squat. Sorry. I disagree. When 99% of the player base are 'pubbers' then you're damn right I'm going to want their experience to determine how the game is balanced. They're the one's playing it, and they're the ones paying for it.
Which is why I see no point in debating the issue. I'll agree to disagree with those who don't share my opinion since all we're doing is going in circles. If they want to continue to push to screw over the pubbers when it comes to balance, it's totally their right.
<!--quoteo(post=2049969:date=Dec 22 2012, 03:00 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 22 2012, 03:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I played competitively for about a decade in mostly TFC and then later in TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious who you played for in TFC / what name?
<!--quoteo(post=2049886:date=Dec 22 2012, 03:09 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 22 2012, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what changes are you referring to? are we not all playing the same game? everyone keeps mentioning these "changes" without specifying what they are. could it be... that there are none?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't actually referring to NS2 specifically as I am not really familiar with the competitive scene. The big one across all the games I've played, though, is player count, and that applies to competitive NS2 as well. For whatever reason comp gamers like 6 v 6 even in games like TF2 where everything is balanced around 12 v 12. Changing the number of players in a game can have a huge impact in how it plays. It's virtually impossible to design a game that scales perfectly with player count, and NS2 is no exception.
I'm assuming that 8v8 is what UWE is designing for as this is what all the official servers run. I'm a little more partial to 9 v 9 but that is neither here nor there. Going from 8 v 8 to 6 v 6 is less extreme than what you see in TF2 (half size teams) but is nonetheless a significant change. Just to give one example of how it can affect the outcome, an early 7 player rush (leaving comm at home) that would just barely kill a hive or CC could very easily fail with only 5 players.
None of this is to say that the vast majority of balance decisions are not equally applicable to public and competitive play, but when you start fiddling with fundamental things like game size you pretty much necessitate a different rule set to go with it.
<!--quoteo(post=2049970:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:03 PM:name=Omar - The Wire)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omar - The Wire @ Dec 22 2012, 08:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm curious who you played for in TFC / what name?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Area51 was one of my main haunts. I knew Andy there from when he created the site, although I don't know the ones who own it now.
Edit: Back when I played it was called "Area51 Live"
<!--quoteo(post=2049948:date=Dec 22 2012, 11:12 PM:name=Taniss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Taniss @ Dec 22 2012, 11:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why aliens win more than 60% games ? -> Because all the rookies goes as marines every single time. I mean, why a new player will test alien if there is already a side he likes ? That's their first mistakes, it's not a regular fps, in CoD or BF, it's mainly fire a long-range and not close or very close contact situation like NS2. People in pub games don't play as a team because they just want to have some fun and fragin' fest. So if your team lose, its your team fault, not the game's fault.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cause are not the rookies. When the game was released new on Steam, the win rate was pretty much 50/50 with everyone except the alpha/beta veterans being new to the game. But then the new players learned how to play the game properly and the win rates shifted to 60-70% alien wins (also in competitive plays). With the new influx of rookies we only get more drastic results right now because veteran players know that albeit aliens are easier to play, rookies will stack marines often because it's more similar to something they already know. Making the matches even more one-sided than they already were from the existing imbalance.
<!--quoteo(post=2049969:date=Dec 22 2012, 05:00 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 22 2012, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I know exactly what mindset competitive players have. I think the post that best sums it up can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126294&view=findpost&p=2049667" target="_blank">here</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mean to play gotcha, but the post you're referencing the guy actually agree's with you for many of the reasons you're citing. Take this as an indicator I'm actually reading what you're saying.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is why I see no point in debating the issue. I'll agree to disagree with those who don't share my opinion since all we're doing is going in circles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to be the case. Talking about it more, or less, won't make a difference.
You <i>can</i> start hosting a server with your own 'new player' or 'large server' rule set if you feel that strongly about it.
<!--quoteo(post=2049987:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:44 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Dec 22 2012, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You <i>can</i> start hosting a server with your own 'new player' or 'large server' rule set if you feel that strongly about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->And one could also say that if two rulesets were put into place that a person could run their own server that ran it the 'old' way. This works both ways. :)
AceDudeJoin Date: 2007-08-26Member: 61994Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=2049805:date=Dec 22 2012, 02:16 PM:name=CrushaK)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CrushaK @ Dec 22 2012, 02:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Out of curiosity: is there a "heat map" feature that can show level designers from the gathered stats where people die most frequently in a map or perform other specific actions like building specific structures there?
Like this? <img src="http://www.90percentofeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heatmap1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup! I've been working on them past few days. We will use it to visualise data about kills, performance etc.
I was checking out the picture of the process you guys are using. I noticed performance is nowhere to be found. Is there a way you could implement that into your process so we can see how much is being devoted to performance. Appreciate it.
<!--quoteo(post=2050027:date=Dec 23 2012, 02:32 AM:name=AceDude)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AceDude @ Dec 23 2012, 02:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050027"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yup! I've been working on them past few days. We will use it to visualise data about kills, performance etc.
(All those red dots at power node locations indicating the countless Skulks/Marines that have been caught off guard while chewing/welding on them. And the amount of death in Skylights is interesting too.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If a skulk can solo an EXO in 7 seconds, let's have marines soloing Onos in 7 seconds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.twitch.tv/adhd123/c/1791309" target="_blank">well i did my best.....</a>
Fully agree with Savant, Havoc and the few others who think enough is enough about comp players trying to ditch pub gameplay as useless as reference for balancing.
Pub play IS the game. No matter how you look at it the comp community here is just a tiny albeit annoyingly vocal fraction of it. I sympathise with UWE for also trying to cater for that group. Indeed competitions fulfill their role in promoting and supporting the game.
But again, pub gaming is where the business model should mostly be at. UWE decision obvions l'y, but i really hope they don't take what I believe would be a very bad decision if they give equal weight to both comp and pub balance feedback to maintain a single build for both.
And to those who still think pub data can not be used for balancing I call BS. Main key balance metrics can be perfectly well traced and tracked for pub gaming if the sample size is big enough. Different skills or stacked situations cancel themselves out if the sample size is large, just statistics 101 and the law of averages. I am sure that after proper and detailed review of relevant stats the current alien winning % can be pushed down much closer to the mean.
<!--quoteo(post=2049858:date=Dec 22 2012, 12:24 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 22 2012, 12:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Welcome to the forums! :)
The *developers* say the game is imbalanced, and I agree with them. The last balance patch noted that aliens are winning ~60% of the time. They know about it and they are trying to reduce that gap. So if you feel the game is balanced, that's cool - the developers disagree with you though.
I didn't say they shouldn't. I don't want to get into this here, but in short the 'ultimate' unit on one team should be comparable to the ultimate unit on the other. If a skulk can solo an EXO in 7 seconds, let's have marines soloing Onos in 7 seconds. If not, let's give each side an ultimate unit that is just as strong. If it will take marines 32 seconds to solo an Onos, then lets have it so it takes 32 seconds for a skulk to solo an EXO. I really don't want to debate the EXO in here though. It's not the place. (Start a new thread and I'll be happy to jump in.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->skulks shouldn't be solo killing 75 res EXOs when marines can't solo kill 75 res Onos - on either a public or competitive level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you did. That's the reason why exos shouldn't be alone, unsupported. A lone soldier can disable a tank with an RPG. That's why tanks don't go without support.
In chess the pawn can kill the queen. If I'm rookie and playing a vet should I be mad that I didn't move my queen when he threatened with his rook?
On a side note: does a skulk take 7 sec to kill a level 1 armor Exo? Does the armor levels affect the Exo? Does a marine with W1 take 32 sec to kill a level 3 armor Onos? I don't know the numbers.
Have we considered new players will tend to play marines? That could skew the W/L ratio. I know in NS1 it was suggested for new players to go marine first.
(All those red dots at power node locations indicating the countless Skulks/Marines that have been caught off guard while chewing/welding on them. And the amount of death in Skylights is interesting too.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skylights is probably the most popular initial route taken by Marines and will almost certainly be the first conflict point if alien hive starts in sub or cargo. It's also a pretty popular harass point for aliens since you can nip between both extractors on that side of the map.
<!--quoteo(post=2050228:date=Dec 23 2012, 11:43 AM:name=soccerguy243)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (soccerguy243 @ Dec 23 2012, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050228"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the reason why exos shouldn't be alone, unsupported.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Going against an Onos, perhaps, but if you are saying the EXO needs to have 3 welders sitting on his ass every time he steps foot out of marine start to avoid getting soloed by skulks, then I'm going to say that you're off your rocker. You would be better to have marines with jetpacks and shotties, which is what most people use instead of the EXO. The EXO isn't a weapon, it's a liability.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lone soldier can disable a tank with an RPG. That's why tanks don't go without support.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->EXOs aren't tanks. If played NS1 you would know they are heavy armor suits. Basically a stock marine with more armor protection and more firepower. The ARC is what you could call a 'tank' and I *do* agree that the ARC should never go out without support.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On a side note: does a skulk take 7 sec to kill a level 1 armor Exo? Does the armor levels affect the Exo?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, EXOs atart at 400 armor and gain armor up to armor 3. (400/460/520/580)
My 7 second quote was for a 580 armor EXO. If you take out a 'stock' EXO, with 400 armor, he goes down in <b>5 seconds</b> versus a single skulk. Still balanced? Heh. Sorry, you'll never convince me of that with these kinds of numbers.
<i>Edit: for comparison, it would take FIVE weapons 3 LMG marines to take down an Onos in 5 seconds, assuming they all shot with >95% accuracy.</i> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does a marine with W1 take 32 sec to kill a level 3 armor Onos?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The number was for a top of the line weapons 3 LMG marine. Any marine with less than weapons 3 <b>would not have enough LMG bullets to kill an Onos</b>. It takes 259 bullets for a weapons 2 marine to kill a carapace Onos. He only carries 250.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have we considered new players will tend to play marines? That could skew the W/L ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes it could. Except the stats are the same for the competitive players, who are far from green behind the ears.
It should be noted that the "unspoken majority" is far more than 90%. If you took the number of players who've ever made a forum post here and divided it by the total number of NS2 sales I'm sure you'd come up with a number below 0.01 (more than 99% of players being "unspoken")
Doesn't really change the overall approach, it just feels like both players and devs need to be aware of how truly minuscule the forum minority is. (On the games I've worked on, the number has been more like 0.0001, but I work on significantly more casual titles.)
Comments
So you expect official tennis rules to be balanced around both pub and comp play? Pub tennis players are pretty bad at serving, does this mean you should increase the number of allowed fouls to balance server vs receiver power? You are missing the point entirely, no pun intended.
Imagine a line, from low skill to high skill. The question should be, <i>taking into account skill to power and fun factor motivation, how do mechanics scale and compare in power across this line?</i> I assure you, experienced players who you might consider 'competitive' and 'elitist' have a far better understanding of the complete line, and where it breaks down if at all. Nearly all 'competitive', 'experienced', 'highskilled' players started from pubs, and still pub on a regular enough basis, only now with a more complete perspective.
A little part of me dies everytime i read someone spouting nonsense about 'pub vs competitive'. Sure there are elitist comp players, but they arn't justification for this irrational insanity. I also cringe when people suggest that pub players 'play for fun' but competitive players 'play to win'. Well designed games never make players choose between fun and winning/getting better. Madness. "Hey you, you can win, but only if you buy the invincible alien worm and feed it by pressing e on it constantly for 10 minutes. If you miss one click, the 10 minute timer will reset. Or you can go kill other players and have fun, but the spawn rates are high enough to prevent you from winning without mr worm."
Also, i've never seen glissy rage post. Welldone savant, welldone lol.
<!--quoteo(post=2049736:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:38 PM:name=CheesyPeteza)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CheesyPeteza @ Dec 22 2012, 08:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049736"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lots of things you can try, but IMO it is still overpowered. But I am asking can the stats show this. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really would like to know can the stats show this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The stats would only tell you how long it takes for a powernode to die on average from bilebomb. A bit overkill when you can just theorycraft from known numbers or do local server testing to confirm. You'll not get any kind of helpful context from it, and the judgement call about bilebomb ttk powernode will always be largely subjective.
Bilebomb possibly being OP against powernodes is an interesting issue however because it shows how the current powernode design is kinda flawed. Overwhelmingly, powernodes are I win buttons, like hypothetical 10 minute alien worms. They're found all over the map, so degree of 'I win' does not scale with powernode hp/buildtime and you can only have one per room. Imagine if you wern't allowed to overlap pylons in sc lol. Along with skulk movement etc., this is a good example of most of NS2's 'balance problems' actually being in part due to problems on the higher design level. What you gain from killing a base powernode is simply too high to meaningfully balance. Stats won't necessarily help you here.
This should be further expanded to also include an optin for performance/crash log reports that could potentially be automatically uploaded to UWE for evaluation.
I do not think such a system is implemented yet.
Like this?
<img src="http://www.90percentofeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heatmap1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Just because you killed 2 exos by yourself doens't mean the game is imbalanced. Skulks shouldn't be solo killing exos? Why? Just because they are in exos a lone skulk should be unable to kill them?
IF they can't aim, and if their teammates can't support them then you should be able to kill them. If you can't ONLY then is the game imbalanced.
If a soccer team's defense can't play well enough to stop a lone striker from scoring a goal is the whole game flawed? No.
I'm a casual NS2 player - i played NS as a HL mod too. I haven't found the pub games to be imbalanced. Some worthless players/comms, poor teamwork, Yes, but not imbalanced.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/https://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=2055e8" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/https://www.g...or/#16/e=2055e8</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because you killed 2 exos by yourself doens't mean the game is imbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The *developers* say the game is imbalanced, and I agree with them. The last balance patch noted that aliens are winning ~60% of the time. They know about it and they are trying to reduce that gap. So if you feel the game is balanced, that's cool - the developers disagree with you though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skulks shouldn't be solo killing exos? Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I didn't say they shouldn't. I don't want to get into this here, but in short the 'ultimate' unit on one team should be comparable to the ultimate unit on the other. If a skulk can solo an EXO in 7 seconds, let's have marines soloing Onos in 7 seconds. If not, let's give each side an ultimate unit that is just as strong. If it will take marines 32 seconds to solo an Onos, then lets have it so it takes 32 seconds for a skulk to solo an EXO. I really don't want to debate the EXO in here though. It's not the place. (Start a new thread and I'll be happy to jump in.)
That's an.. odd thing to say.
One would have thought the point of the game is to be fun, enjoyable, entertaining.
If winning is opposed to fun, isn't that sort of a problem?
what changes are you referring to? are we not all playing the same game?
everyone keeps mentioning these "changes" without specifying what they are. could it be... that there are none?
sorry I missed this earlier:
<!--quoteo(post=2049608:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:49 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049608"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you cannot balance for pub play then you can only balance for competitive play. QED.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
incorrect, and shows you either missing the point or ignoring posts entirely. read my multiple posts above that illustrate why it is not a decision between one or the other. or don't :E
<!--quoteo(post=2049878:date=Dec 22 2012, 11:38 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 22 2012, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"We don't want to only take feedback from public games, because those games are more focused on fun instead of winning at all costs."
That's an.. odd thing to say.
One would have thought the point of the game is to be fun, enjoyable, entertaining.
If winning is opposed to fun, isn't that sort of a problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
competition brings a different mentality to the field. typically focused on winning in the most efficient and consistent means possible. public games I am also trying to win to a certain extent. there are too many variables in skill level, so I often find myself teaching and goofing around more than playing to win.
this also supports my point as to why balancing for public play is not going to accomplish anything. if you have one competent friend to play with, you can ensure won games all across the board with any sort of strategy you want.
EXOs every single round, and no one would question that they are undoubtedly the most overpowered thing in this game.
or how about the #METAGAME NO MINES RUSH?
...
<!--quoteo(post=2049639:date=Dec 21 2012, 07:11 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Dec 21 2012, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049639"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you tried actually reading my post before you responded then you'll clearly see that I said average stats of pub games can be used to determine that there may be balance issues in pubs. Using stats like these (which could be done by NS2stats!), it is possible to see general trends in pub play. These trends should then be investigated and experimented with in controlled settings using competent and knowledgeable players repeating situations or experiments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hopefully this is what the balance strike squad xXx is intended to do. this is the only method for balance that will gain any ground.
I think NS2 just doesnt work too well in the current setup, that we know and are used to by "classic" fps games with more simple gameplay. (symmetric and balanced for 1v1)
Pick a random server with an open slot and hop into the game, join running matches, have matches start with different team sizes, with or without players that want command, rookies and veterans, lower and higher skilled players, etc.
You dont do this in rts games, you dont do this in moba games, and i also dont think we should do this in ns2... or at least not as the main way to play it but rather as an alternative way. (i.e. kinda like a "custom games" server list)
If you set it up like a classic tdm game, ppl will play it like that (seek an experience that is similar to that, because honestly as first glance ns2 looks kinda like a normal fps game) -> in my opinion a big part of unbalance whine results from this. The system just doesnt fit very well to how ns2 has to be played.
Matchmaking similar to how a League of Legends or whatever else does it would work a lot better for ns2. (and while it sounds more strict and serious and some ppl might "fear" it because of the sound of it, it will be fun - a lot more fun. Ppl dont really fear it, look at LoL Sc2 etc. and their ladders, matchmaking etc. - those have become the main way to play and enjoy those games)
What about those ppl that want an quick and easy fun tdm style expirience? direct them towards an gamemode that works better for that - like combat. (also try to make it look like an official part of the game(if you have a gamemod that you are happy with and that works well for that style of play)
edit:
This more stricter and managed way to play ns2 will help ppl focus more on how ns2 has to be played. It might get ppl more interested in playing as teams rather than individuals that just want to have quick fun running and gunning around in silence like ns2 is bf3 or whatever.
this also supports my point as to why balancing for public play is not going to accomplish anything. if you have one competent friend to play with, you can ensure won games all across the board with any sort of strategy you want.
EXOs every single round, and no one would question that they are undoubtedly the most overpowered thing in this game.
or how about the #METAGAME NO MINES RUSH?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And because of that, attempting to win in the most efficient and consistent manner <i>should be the optimum path to fun.</i>
That's my point, if you have to choose between the game being fun and winning, that means that the best way to win is to do things that aren't fun, thus you have the division between people who want fun, and people who want winning.
This is obvious now in the sense that the best way to help the team is to ignore fighting and just go bash res towers for the rest of time, or ignore lifeforms and save up for a final onos rush, or ignore territory and strategy and just gather everyone into a rush and stomp the base before the enemy can react with no opposition. The best way to win is to ignore most of the game mechanics, the game mechanics that are the bits that make the game interesting.
Make winning and fun the same thing, and you have no reason for that division between competitive and public, except for possibly in terms of skill levels involved.
I'm wondering if someone wearing a clan tag stole Savant's puppy when he was a child.
-> Because all the rookies goes as marines every single time. I mean, why a new player will test alien if there is already a side he likes ?
That's their first mistakes, it's not a regular fps, in CoD or BF, it's mainly fire a long-range and not close or very close contact situation like NS2.
People in pub games don't play as a team because they just want to have some fun and fragin' fest. So if your team lose, its your team fault, not the game's fault.
Atm, the game is not "broken" or "unbalanced", well, there are some few things to improve but nothing critical.
I really don't think we need a "tournament" mod or whatver you want to named it, it'll dig more and more the gap between "pub" and "competitiv" players. What's the point ? To ruin this community and get 2 instead of one ?
This more stricter and managed way to play ns2 will help ppl focus more on how ns2 has to be played. It might get ppl more interested in playing as teams rather than individuals that just want to have quick fun running and gunning around in silence like ns2 is bf3 or whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, having a complete system would require some work, but the current system has major flaws that could easily be fixed; half of the public games start with 2 players on each team, I don't know why the warm-up time has not be increased...
I'm happy to agree to disagree with people on this issue, which is why I'm not replying to posts that debate it anymore. However, I have yet to have anyone bring up a single hard point on how this will 'totally destroy' the game as they so claim. So far all I see are competitive players who want to make the game in their own image, and who don't give a crap about the pubbers. Been that way since NS1, and nothing has changed now. That elitest arrogance is something I see time and time again.
<!--quoteo(post=2049929:date=Dec 22 2012, 06:28 PM:name=Omar - The Wire)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omar - The Wire @ Dec 22 2012, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Read this whole thread. Interesting. I'm wondering if someone wearing a clan tag stole Savant's puppy when he was a child.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I played competitively for about a decade in mostly TFC and then later in TF2. I did also play competitively for a short while when Firearms was alive too. (I also dabbled a bit in competitive play in WoW, but it's on a different level of course.) So I know exactly what mindset competitive players have. I think the post that best sums it up can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126294&view=findpost&p=2049667" target="_blank">here</a>.
I make no apologies for standing up for the 'pubbers' playing NS2. They are the ones paying for this game and all they get is the collective finger from those who tell them their gaming experience doesn't count for squat. Sorry. I disagree. When 99% of the player base are 'pubbers' then you're damn right I'm going to want their experience to determine how the game is balanced. They're the one's playing it, and they're the ones paying for it.
Which is why I see no point in debating the issue. I'll agree to disagree with those who don't share my opinion since all we're doing is going in circles. If they want to continue to push to screw over the pubbers when it comes to balance, it's totally their right.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I'm curious who you played for in TFC / what name?
everyone keeps mentioning these "changes" without specifying what they are. could it be... that there are none?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't actually referring to NS2 specifically as I am not really familiar with the competitive scene. The big one across all the games I've played, though, is player count, and that applies to competitive NS2 as well. For whatever reason comp gamers like 6 v 6 even in games like TF2 where everything is balanced around 12 v 12. Changing the number of players in a game can have a huge impact in how it plays. It's virtually impossible to design a game that scales perfectly with player count, and NS2 is no exception.
I'm assuming that 8v8 is what UWE is designing for as this is what all the official servers run. I'm a little more partial to 9 v 9 but that is neither here nor there. Going from 8 v 8 to 6 v 6 is less extreme than what you see in TF2 (half size teams) but is nonetheless a significant change. Just to give one example of how it can affect the outcome, an early 7 player rush (leaving comm at home) that would just barely kill a hive or CC could very easily fail with only 5 players.
None of this is to say that the vast majority of balance decisions are not equally applicable to public and competitive play, but when you start fiddling with fundamental things like game size you pretty much necessitate a different rule set to go with it.
Edit: Back when I played it was called "Area51 Live"
-> Because all the rookies goes as marines every single time. I mean, why a new player will test alien if there is already a side he likes ?
That's their first mistakes, it's not a regular fps, in CoD or BF, it's mainly fire a long-range and not close or very close contact situation like NS2.
People in pub games don't play as a team because they just want to have some fun and fragin' fest. So if your team lose, its your team fault, not the game's fault.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The cause are not the rookies. When the game was released new on Steam, the win rate was pretty much 50/50 with everyone except the alpha/beta veterans being new to the game. But then the new players learned how to play the game properly and the win rates shifted to 60-70% alien wins (also in competitive plays).
With the new influx of rookies we only get more drastic results right now because veteran players know that albeit aliens are easier to play, rookies will stack marines often because it's more similar to something they already know. Making the matches even more one-sided than they already were from the existing imbalance.
I don't mean to play gotcha, but the post you're referencing the guy actually agree's with you for many of the reasons you're citing. Take this as an indicator I'm actually reading what you're saying.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is why I see no point in debating the issue. I'll agree to disagree with those who don't share my opinion since all we're doing is going in circles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to be the case. Talking about it more, or less, won't make a difference.
You <i>can</i> start hosting a server with your own 'new player' or 'large server' rule set if you feel that strongly about it.
Like this?
<img src="http://www.90percentofeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/heatmap1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup! I've been working on them past few days. We will use it to visualise data about kills, performance etc.
<img src="http://s13.postimage.org/4yfpljxc7/veil_4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://s13.postimage.org/4yfpljxc7/veil_4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice. :D
(All those red dots at power node locations indicating the countless Skulks/Marines that have been caught off guard while chewing/welding on them. And the amount of death in Skylights is interesting too.)
<a href="http://www.twitch.tv/adhd123/c/1791309" target="_blank">well i did my best.....</a>
Pub play IS the game. No matter how you look at it the comp community here is just a tiny albeit annoyingly vocal fraction of it. I sympathise with UWE for also trying to cater for that group. Indeed competitions fulfill their role in promoting and supporting the game.
But again, pub gaming is where the business model should mostly be at. UWE decision obvions l'y, but i really hope they don't take what I believe would be a very bad decision if they give equal weight to both comp and pub balance feedback to maintain a single build for both.
And to those who still think pub data can not be used for balancing I call BS. Main key balance metrics can be perfectly well traced and tracked for pub gaming if the sample size is big enough. Different skills or stacked situations cancel themselves out if the sample size is large, just statistics 101 and the law of averages. I am sure that after proper and detailed review of relevant stats the current alien winning % can be pushed down much closer to the mean.
The *developers* say the game is imbalanced, and I agree with them. The last balance patch noted that aliens are winning ~60% of the time. They know about it and they are trying to reduce that gap. So if you feel the game is balanced, that's cool - the developers disagree with you though.
I didn't say they shouldn't. I don't want to get into this here, but in short the 'ultimate' unit on one team should be comparable to the ultimate unit on the other. If a skulk can solo an EXO in 7 seconds, let's have marines soloing Onos in 7 seconds. If not, let's give each side an ultimate unit that is just as strong. If it will take marines 32 seconds to solo an Onos, then lets have it so it takes 32 seconds for a skulk to solo an EXO. I really don't want to debate the EXO in here though. It's not the place. (Start a new thread and I'll be happy to jump in.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->skulks shouldn't be solo killing 75 res EXOs when marines can't solo kill 75 res Onos - on either a public or competitive level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you did. That's the reason why exos shouldn't be alone, unsupported. A lone soldier can disable a tank with an RPG. That's why tanks don't go without support.
In chess the pawn can kill the queen. If I'm rookie and playing a vet should I be mad that I didn't move my queen when he threatened with his rook?
On a side note: does a skulk take 7 sec to kill a level 1 armor Exo?
Does the armor levels affect the Exo?
Does a marine with W1 take 32 sec to kill a level 3 armor Onos?
I don't know the numbers.
Have we considered new players will tend to play marines? That could skew the W/L ratio. I know in NS1 it was suggested for new players to go marine first.
(All those red dots at power node locations indicating the countless Skulks/Marines that have been caught off guard while chewing/welding on them. And the amount of death in Skylights is interesting too.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skylights is probably the most popular initial route taken by Marines and will almost certainly be the first conflict point if alien hive starts in sub or cargo. It's also a pretty popular harass point for aliens since you can nip between both extractors on that side of the map.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lone soldier can disable a tank with an RPG. That's why tanks don't go without support.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->EXOs aren't tanks. If played NS1 you would know they are heavy armor suits. Basically a stock marine with more armor protection and more firepower. The ARC is what you could call a 'tank' and I *do* agree that the ARC should never go out without support.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On a side note: does a skulk take 7 sec to kill a level 1 armor Exo?
Does the armor levels affect the Exo?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, EXOs atart at 400 armor and gain armor up to armor 3. (400/460/520/580)
My 7 second quote was for a 580 armor EXO. If you take out a 'stock' EXO, with 400 armor, he goes down in <b>5 seconds</b> versus a single skulk. Still balanced? Heh. Sorry, you'll never convince me of that with these kinds of numbers.
<i>Edit: for comparison, it would take FIVE weapons 3 LMG marines to take down an Onos in 5 seconds, assuming they all shot with >95% accuracy.</i>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does a marine with W1 take 32 sec to kill a level 3 armor Onos?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The number was for a top of the line weapons 3 LMG marine. Any marine with less than weapons 3 <b>would not have enough LMG bullets to kill an Onos</b>. It takes 259 bullets for a weapons 2 marine to kill a carapace Onos. He only carries 250.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have we considered new players will tend to play marines? That could skew the W/L ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes it could. Except the stats are the same for the competitive players, who are far from green behind the ears.
Doesn't really change the overall approach, it just feels like both players and devs need to be aware of how truly minuscule the forum minority is. (On the games I've worked on, the number has been more like 0.0001, but I work on significantly more casual titles.)