Increase the value of rifle marines/skulks
Josef K
Join Date: 2012-12-31 Member: 176829Members
Join Date: 2012-12-31 Member: 176829Members
Good strategy games have an intrinsic risk vs reward aspect to them. For example, the risk of losing 10 res by dropping an RT vs the reward of increased income. This works because the things the commander risks losing have value
The only value that rifle marines and skulks have is their ability to be on the field to protect valuable structures and attack enemy structures. Many people have noticed that the risk in this situation is very often outweighted by the possible rewards, the result of this being gameplay trends which honestly I think make NS2 a worse game. Skulk rushes, suicide runs to snipe harvesters and upgrades, proxy phase gates to snipe hives, and all forms of zerging
It's plain to see why these strategies prevail when you consider the risks vs the rewards involved
Possible rewards
-The enemy is on the defensive, limiting their ability to gain map control and res nodes
-Should the tide of a fight turn in favor of the aggressors, they will likely kill several structures of value
-Should a fight go immensely in their favor, it may suddenly win the game altogether
Risks
-If the attacking units die, they are unable to protect their team's structures. However, because they were fighting on enemy ground, the enemy units are likely too far away from structures of value to be of threat before respawn
Good strategy games revolve around knowing the proper time for defense, the proper time for offense. To know one's weaknesses as well as strengths, protecting the first and capitalizing on the second. In NS2, it seems that the right time to attack is always, the only weakness to not be strong. Units which can be zerged with little risk result in hyperagression. This is a problem because it results in a strategy game with little thought and less strategy
I think that the this can be improved by adding additional, tangible risk to attacking. To force commanders to decide whether the possible rewards mentioned above are worth the risk of losing the units
There are probably better ways to do this, but the simplest way I can think of is to give respawn a small cost to team res. The rate at which RTs generate res would need to be adjusted accordingly
The only value that rifle marines and skulks have is their ability to be on the field to protect valuable structures and attack enemy structures. Many people have noticed that the risk in this situation is very often outweighted by the possible rewards, the result of this being gameplay trends which honestly I think make NS2 a worse game. Skulk rushes, suicide runs to snipe harvesters and upgrades, proxy phase gates to snipe hives, and all forms of zerging
It's plain to see why these strategies prevail when you consider the risks vs the rewards involved
Possible rewards
-The enemy is on the defensive, limiting their ability to gain map control and res nodes
-Should the tide of a fight turn in favor of the aggressors, they will likely kill several structures of value
-Should a fight go immensely in their favor, it may suddenly win the game altogether
Risks
-If the attacking units die, they are unable to protect their team's structures. However, because they were fighting on enemy ground, the enemy units are likely too far away from structures of value to be of threat before respawn
Good strategy games revolve around knowing the proper time for defense, the proper time for offense. To know one's weaknesses as well as strengths, protecting the first and capitalizing on the second. In NS2, it seems that the right time to attack is always, the only weakness to not be strong. Units which can be zerged with little risk result in hyperagression. This is a problem because it results in a strategy game with little thought and less strategy
I think that the this can be improved by adding additional, tangible risk to attacking. To force commanders to decide whether the possible rewards mentioned above are worth the risk of losing the units
There are probably better ways to do this, but the simplest way I can think of is to give respawn a small cost to team res. The rate at which RTs generate res would need to be adjusted accordingly
Comments
Zerging in as skulks has little strategic requirement behind it, but the players who are playing the skulks still need to be evasive, and kill marines, and focus the right targets. For them its still fun.
Rushing to take out an upgrade chamber is a pretty obvious choice. They are very expensive and a marine is very free, but that doesn't mean its easy to walk into a hive and destroy it, and it doesn't mean that the marine doesn't have to overcome challenges on the way there. For him it is still a fun experience.
It feels like you are thinking of NS2 as an RTS game with FPS elements. This was potentially true for the NS1 marine experience, but it isn't any more. NS2 is very much an FPS game with slight RTS elements. Sure, the commander is very important, but the vast, <i>vast </i>majority of focus is on the FPS players. Rightfully so in my opinion.
My evidence is that people play NS2. The fps shooter aspect of NS2 is pretty fun and unique in some ways, but there are games out there that offer fps in a simply superior manner. If I wanted to play a fps I'd play black ops, or s4 league, or team fortress, or halo 4. I think that any person that passes these other games up to play NS2 is doing so because they are drawn to the strategy of it
Even the people that don't like to play commander. If they are playing to win, they are playing it as an rts, as the winner is not decided by who has the most kills
I would not dismiss skulk rushing as simply the result of people wanting to have fun. People skulk rush because they want to win, and they recognize that hyperagression is the way to do it. It may result in a pretty unsatisfying game, but a win is a win. The fact that it is unsatisfying is why it should be changed
QFT.
Nothing better than running behind enemy lines to take out say there closest and perceived safe extractor (usually as a skulk) or an upgrade chamber right next to the hive as a marine. Taking the fight to the enemies base is the key to winning in NS2. You want to be the aggressor, not the team that is always reacting and defending against aggression. More people are learning this at least. When I comm I tell them that there is no shame in dying as a free life form whilst trying to mess up the enemies program, because as you say, there is no next to no loss if you fail. (other than no Pres when dead, and possible egg lock as alien) I love this about the game, I wouldnt want to see more risk for 0 res life forms as it would take a big element of fun away from the FPS side of the game. There is already enough of a problem on the marine side of people not pushing out and attacking due to fear of dying. (who cares if all you lose is a 0 res rifle, and as long as you have a couple of IPs the wait will be tiny anyway)
The other way to adress this, rewarding people for kills (or RFK) was how ns1 worked. Somehow, the devs were not happy with this system so we have no res while dead now, but that is another story. I think indirectly increasing respawn time a bit could fix this. Increase the "cooldown" time of infantry portals and nerf egg growth rate but tie this to the playercount.
RFK would bring the MOBA rage upon this game. The community would probably be less friendly to new players if those players feed the enemy resources by dying a lot. If you punish players for mistakes that another player makes, you create a lot of hatred towards that player. The way it works now is that the dying player gets punished for dying and those who manage to stay alive and hold territory are rewarded with more res for their purchases.
Crushak, please post your "arguments" in an RFK thread, not here.
"There was no rage in NS1" doesn't hold as argument either because this is not NS1. This game is released on Steam, in a different time than NS1, and to a larger audience.
NS1 was a niche mod for players who were ready to go knee-deep into everything. NS2 has more exposure (I never even heard about NS1 before NS2) and appealing graphics, which makes it more likely to also attract casual players. Times have changed a lot for videogames and the internet over the last decade and there are a lot of players these days that rage far more easily about stuff in games than they would have back in the old days.
its much more intense than having a map where there are only 1-2 conflict/seige points happening at any point in time.
Think of the strategy portion as closer to a 'hold the control points' type game as opposed to the classic starcraft type rts.
Oh btw, the 'right time to attack' is not 'always'. Thats the other part of the game that I enjoy, deciding between offensive and defensive maneuvers
but if new players cant get res because they suck at aiming they will never progress to higher tech equipment.
That's a pretty good idea actually. Although the asymmetry police might have issues with its similarity to a shift. I guess it's a direct buff to marines and would need careful balancing.