Helping Marine Comebacks

2456711

Comments

  • LuchsLuchs Switzerland Join Date: 2014-07-23 Member: 197569Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 75 Fully active user
    nachos wrote: »
    That is so false. You can grind a win away as marines and be in a position to kill the game off through 10-15 minutes of hard work, and then a gorge rush happens. Doesn't mean alien team had better teamwork or map awareness in total, just for those last few minutes.

    I don't agree with you there. Part of a good team is to be strong in all phases of the game, and that includes keeping your map-awareness even after PGs are up. It's what differentiates a good team from a mediocre one. Dominating aliens early isn't that difficult if you have excellent shots in the marine team, but if you arrive in mid-endgame the requirements rise, teamwork, trapping and map awareness become more important. And yes, it's certainly true that new players will simply not have this experience.
    And no one is disputing that that is not a valid win for aliens, Anzestral was just saying how cheap, boring it is for aliens and how frustrating it is to be a marine playing with other incompetent people.

    I was playing exactly such a round against Anzestral 2 days ago. Veil, him in the marine team (commanded by Nexen, who apparently didn't feel like dropping a 2nd CC). We lost 1 hive, were down to pipeline with no upgrades, got a tunnel next to Skylights, and took down the CC in control which resulted in an instant win.

    The marine game was mainly carried by two really, really good players, including Anzestral himself, without which the dominance early game would never have been so strong. Losing that game was credited to the FTE vote arranging a team consisting of 3 excellent players (1 of them in the com chair), paired up with of course a bunch of weaker ones. The two legit conclusions I see there is that FTE balance doesn't work when you have to pair 3 guys with a tremendous hive score with mostly rookies to average it out, and that 2-3 players can't win a game by themselves, which I think is an excellent point as it makes teamwork stronger than individual player skill. It's ridiculous that we even won that - because if you're clearly dominating and basically holding 3 tech points, yet lose to a bile rush targeted at the only CC you have, it's not an unfair comeback; it's a major risk taken by the commander which was punished, and at the end cost them the game.

    IronHorseSoul_Rider
  • meatmachinemeatmachine South England Join Date: 2013-01-06 Member: 177858Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Posts: 1,551 Advanced user
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    I'm on the fence here. I throw this out extemporaneously. Would it make sense to have gorge tunnels, that are finished outside infestation, make a global cry-out (like a beacon, or a nydus worm)?
    I like the idea, an earthquake kinda effect as the tunnel wormholes its way through the fabric of spacetime would be almost a little epic, though something tells me a lot of players would just ignore it anyway :P

    I'd rather not introduce nerfballs to one of the games more interesting mechanics.

    Its odd how people see tunnel rushes as cheese, when really they usually require a good deal more preparation (and occaisionally situational awareness), and telegraph much further than a sudden marine push on a hive (those things can happen like wildfire man!).
    nachos wrote: »
    Also it's sooooooooo amusing that public players can do this when they're often stuck in their hive having basically lost the game, instead of doing it to res bite to win the game earlier! This is a really good example of how misunderstood the game is supposed to be played by the majority of the community.
    QFT.
    Too weird to live, yet too rare to die
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    Luchs wrote: »
    nachos wrote: »
    That is so false. You can grind a win away as marines and be in a position to kill the game off through 10-15 minutes of hard work, and then a gorge rush happens. Doesn't mean alien team had better teamwork or map awareness in total, just for those last few minutes.

    I don't agree with you there. Part of a good team is to be strong in all phases of the game, and that includes keeping your map-awareness even after PGs are up.

    Yes but a winning team doesn't make a better team. The aliens in that scenario are still a worse team to get into that position in the first place. One or two mistakes made my the marine comm or spawners doesn't make that team worse, it just makes them lose.

    If we can't agree on that statement there's no point discussing this further and we're going to have to agree to disagree.
    Luchs wrote: »
    Dominating aliens early isn't that difficult if you have excellent shots in the marine team

    That is not true either. It's not difficult for marines to dominate if aliens floor/straight line skulk into excellent shots. It is to counter this by expanding on the opposite side of the map and focussing there. Much like how the gorge tunnel comes into play for a base rush, you end up bypassing the strong shots because they can't be everywhere at the same time.

    It's easy to dominate aliens if marines spread on the map to deny res biting, gorges getting behind routes (at any stage) and to pull skulks across the map so you can pressure.
    Luchs wrote: »
    it makes teamwork stronger than individual player skill.
    Your scenario doesn't prove this. It's not that aliens were coordinated enough to pull this off. It's that the bad players on the marine team coupled with the obvious mistake from the marine comm gave aliens a window of opportunity. It doesn't make your team stronger or better, it just highlights how bad most players are in the ns2 community.


    Luchs wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that we even won that - because if you're clearly dominating and basically holding 3 tech points, yet lose to a bile rush targeted at the only CC you have, it's not an unfair comeback; it's a major risk taken by the commander which was punished, and at the end cost them the game.

    No one is saying it's unfair. I even said it's a valid victory in my previous post. I'm just saying (and I think Anzestral is too), that it's a cheap, boring win. Comeback mechanics should be from player skill and being able to out skill and maneuver the opposite team on the map.

    Watch Do It Yourself vs Lucky Chams mineral alien and Do It Yourself vs Lucky Chams summit alien

    Those are alien come backs through res biting, individual frags, group play.


    Comeback mechanics like keeping your lifeform upgrades when a hive dies are a good example of a good comeback mechanic.
    A "sneaky" gorge tunnel is not a good example of a good comeback mechanic. It's a good example of how inept players are.
    SebAnzestraltwilitebluevideoP
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    Yea the problem isn't alien rushes winning the game, it's bile bomb+gorge tunnel. Letting one skulk through should mean that there's someone biting res, not letting the whole team through to the base.

    Restrict building gorge tunnels to infestation and this is solved.

    We just won a game last night on the Captain's server, losing pretty bad as alien but we were able to get 3 skulks through all the way to their base and won it right there. Except it wasn't actually a ridiculous bile bomb tunnel rush. So we actually had to keep playing to win, but it gave us the positional advantage and breathing room needed to win. THIS IS A COMEBACK. Not an immediate win off a bile-tunnel rush, that's ridiculous.
    mattji104
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,191 admin
    Sigh... this is why I hinted at presentation being so important to this topic ..

    PSA: Competitive games do not remotely suffer from the symptoms of snowballing, long frustrating endings, concede wars, caring about T3 tech and basically do not need such "cheap" comeback mechanics.

    If you are a competitive player exclusively, then this conversation is not for you.
    If you play public games frequently then you know those symptoms aren't a theoretical, but they are the most realistic scenario 8/10 rounds. That should be addressed and not shrugged off.

    If you think pushing "L2P" is the solution, then know you are ignoring what has been realistically occurring for years in pub games, and that you attesting what "should" happen is just justification for said ignoring of the statistical outcomes.

    Besides the fact that comp mod would remedy anything that particular community did not like, the worst thing that would occur for comp games if it were left in is an additional mechanic that would be as predictable, counterable and rarely seen as BB. So forgive me, but I think I could live with that impact if it assisted the rest of the playerbase that doesn't use a universally accepted server mod geared toward their needs.

    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    BeigeAlertcooliticDaveodethtwiliteblue
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    I don't think that the pub community would shrug if comp mod were added in full in a patch tomorrow and called NS2: Chocolate Chips.

    I think they'd learn what's new, moan endlessly, and keep playing because adapting to changes in this game is always been more interesting and fun then the static game itself. There would simply be new pub strategies that evolve out of the change.

    No matter how unbalanced anyone thinks an HMG is in public play, having a new gun to play with is likely more important.

    Natural Selection itself means evolution
    mattji104
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    Ironhorse on his highhorse crusading against competitive scene yet again...

    The simple fact of the matter is ns2 does not show it's whole potential when being played by incompetent people. You don't need to be competitive or amazing to have great games, you just need to be open and responsive to simple ideas.

    The past 3-4 months on thirsty onos servers in EU have seen a dramatic increase in skill in some exclusively public players and it's a joy to play with and against them. The fact of the matter remains that the vast majority of players outside of these regulars are incompetent. I can field comm and tell people where to go and for what reasons and people will do it and we will win. I can then not field comm or go on the opposite team and those same players will fall right back into clueless mode.

    If you think that part of the solution doesn't lie in L2P then the changes you make to compensate for the current dogma in attitude would ruin some of the complexity and beauty of the game for the sake of SPAWN-->PG-->KILL/DIE : REPEAT.

    Also if the tech routes can change through paradigm shifts, and some exclusively pub players can get better, it's ignorant to say that L2P is NOT an issue or is impossible to overcome.


    Also I'm not entirely sure but if you are actually suggesting that I'm only a competitive player who never plays public then you should probably checkout my hive page.
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    I think the angle is wrong. What allows a comeback is first to loose something other than the initial base.

    Aliens need a second hive. Loosing one and get another hive up is actually a comeback. For marines loosing a second base is just money lost.

    A second base allows some little things like catalyst and eventually double Exos... Well; nothing that prevent the marines to finish the aliens with only one base. I was keen on previous versions in which you had to develop and build a second base. Unfortunately this wasn't balanced at the time (perf, 100%cloak etc..)

    The thing is the marine tech tree has been dumbed down to a point that you just ask yourself why you need an armory to make a obs... it's not even delaying anything. It is clear that Shade is only used by those who know how to use it properly. And at high level it's still a bargain. Better not being late on RTs...


    What is see is two worlds clearly separated with few common things. I wished for 3 types of plan for Alien AND Marine. Something that is not a 100% counter for each plan. I explain.

    For each alien plan coded with colors (Red, blue and green) the marine team can adapt with a plan that is a counter for 50% color 1, and 50% color 2.
    Examples:
    *Alien choose Crag - Marine can adapt with a plan providing a counter for 50% crag and 50% shift (or shade).
    *Alien choose Shade- Marine can adapt with a plan providing a counter for 50% Shade and 50% shift.

    It may not force the marines to build a second base unless there is a lock:
    Ex:
    -not being able to upgrade level 3 something unless a second base is built.
    or
    -not being able to get another colored upgrade unless a second base is built.

    Better yet to balance this kind of things. Instead of having a basic speed, life, cara, and a buff. When they choose a plan it will provide buff AND nerf. For example Shade would be 100% cloak when walking but the units would have -10% Cara/LifePoints. Eventually. We could even remove strafe jump. Make slower a Shotgun marine (i doubt anyone can run carrying with 2 hands a shotgun indefinitely).

    All this as example to demonstrate the system; not to make some proposal that requires deeper insight.

    The thing would be to preserve a 50%/50% map control for both teams. All team can build 2 bases in a decent time, and fight hard for a third one.

    Right now a balanced game is 70%/30% Res control in favor of the marine. I see something annoying in this sentence...

    It may be surprisingly interesting with more players. More things to defend / attack... More people.

    With this kind of thinking we could delay bile bomb as it wouldn't be needed desperately. High price, or need 2 hives etc. there would be a problem though. It would require that all maps are 5 TPs version. But nothing is impossible on that area. Far from it.
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,729 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    The biggest problem with ns2 is player retention, especially for new players. We have lost dedicated players also because the game was not competitive enough. Personally I think it is possible with enough time and thought to create an ns2 that is both complex and rookie friendly. I honestly wish ns2 was more complex in many ways even though I am strictly a pub player.

    L2P is not an answer. The fact that the game has been out this long and most players are still "clueless" says clearly that L2P is not the solution. So many players seem to agree agree's you need 10's or 100's of hours to understand the game. Personally I was so bad, as if brand new, for my first 300 hours. For most players this is unacceptable. The majority of new players should be able to learn how to play ns2 in under 4 hours for the most part, but be difficult to master. They can't just learn, but be able to enjoy it in 4 hours. My 300 hour rookie status is abnormal, most players would and have stuck around that long. I think ironhorse said it well with "Recognize what should occur versus what is occurring."

    "The simple fact of the matter is ns2 does not show it's whole potential when being played by incompetent people." Without the so called incompetent people there would not be a playerbase right now.

    There are core design issues with ns2 that hurt player retention. There does seem to be a trade off between making the game accessible to new players, but also making the game complex enough to hold dedicated players. Ns2 has excelled at the latter but not well enough. Ns2 can not hold new players at all. The few, so so few, who become dedicated players don't stick around forever either. We have lost a large portion of our dedicated players already.

    Whatever is discussed here is almost entirely hypothetical. We could potentially be having the initial conversations that will make up ns3. I am seeing some combativeness and polarization in here. Lets talk it out. It is hypothetical so what are the consequences? Ns2 does have some serious design issues that will need to be dealt with before ns3 is even attempted. Why not us, the community attempt to solve them?
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
    twilitebluevideoP
  • corundcorund Siberia Join Date: 2015-04-13 Member: 203372Members Posts: 45 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    Nordic wrote: »
    Personally I think it is possible with enough time and thought to create an ns2 that is both complex and rookie friendly.
    We have League of legends as an example of successful complex game with toxic community (inherited from Dota) but user friendly to Rookies. CDT needs to analyze this phenomenon and make right decisions.
    Post edited by corund on
  • SebSeb Melbourne, AU Join Date: 2013-04-01 Member: 184576Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Retired Community Developer Posts: 514 mod
    edited April 2015
    IronHorse wrote: »
    If you think pushing "L2P" is the solution, then know you are ignoring what has been realistically occurring for years in pub games, and that you attesting what "should" happen is just justification for said ignoring of the statistical outcomes.
    Nordic wrote: »
    L2P is not an answer. The fact that the game has been out this long and most players are still "clueless" says clearly that L2P is not the solution. So many players seem to agree agree's you need 10's or 100's of hours to understand the game.
    But that's exactly what the problem is. Pubs turn into crap because people don't know how to play this game properly. Most players don't know when to push when they need to, or lose critical engagements that would have flipped the game the other way if they had better positioning or better aim. Most players don't know about fade/lerk timings, res control vs res defense vs res pressure, double pressure, advanced tactics like baiting enemies to commit to fights they shouldn't and general zoning/lane awareness. These are fundamental aspects of the game that you should know to play this game properly because surprise surprise, that's how this game was designed!

    I'll use an example, when I play pubs, if I'm on the losing side, I hear a lot of "oh we didn't have enough res or we didn't get phase gates at xx.xx minutes" or whatever excuse people can come up with but this game is 90% about engagements and 10% about all the other stuff I mention in this post. The raw aim and positioning skills of players vs players. Many people have a misconception about this game being a res game or this game being a tech path game, but they are wrong. Everything hinges on engagements. The cycle of winning a fight to gain control of a res node so that you can then win more fights. That's it.

    People in this thread are saying L2P is not an answer or saying L2P is bad, but that is what the problem is. That is why people with good aim from other PC shooters can come into this game and be good at it immediately. When it comes down to it, the res game/tech game/meta game is not as important as being able to aim and position yourself.

    That is how the game is right now and how it has been since it came out and this is why the game is loved by many competitive players and doesn't work well on a casual level.

    I certainly think right now it is a L2P issue, but that's no one's fault but the game's. And again, I'm not saying you should just ditch everyone that's bad and only focus on the people that are skilled, but you have to look at the basic facts here. NS2 is an old style twitch shooter with fast moving targets or a multi movement class based melee shooter depending on what side you're on. To not say L2P is just ignoring the underlying issues here.
    The majority of new players should be able to learn how to play ns2 in under 4 hours for the most part, but be difficult to master. They can't just learn, but be able to enjoy it in 4 hours.
    This is a really good point to bring up. Easy to pick up, hard to master. That's what NS2 isn't. Actually it half is, Hard to pick up, hard to master. Look at CSGO, the poster child for complex and deep yet simple and rewarding gameplay. People take thousands of hours to master CSGO, but you can jump in and still get kills against people your own skill level. You can even see your own progress in the form of rank/skill group as you learn the mechanics of the game.
    Decoyelodea
  • JektJekt Join Date: 2012-02-05 Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    what have you done
    Sebcoolitic
  • SebSeb Melbourne, AU Join Date: 2013-04-01 Member: 184576Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Retired Community Developer Posts: 514 mod
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    Incompetence is not the problem in my opinion. Incompetence exists in every game - the difference is; they take measures to separate people with large skill gaps.

    I must admit, I did not watch the rookie games in cph myself, I don't have that kind of patience. But what I understand from anecdotes is, that these rookies seemed to play fairly well all on their own, with no guidance at all. So it's more of an issue of relative incompetence, relative to the opponents that is.

    If I play chess with my 10 week old nephew (proud uncle here), I could easily crush him. It wouldn't be enjoyable for either of us. To my nephew, playing me or playing Magnus Carlsen is indistinguishible. But if I were to play Magnus Carlsen, to me it would be indistinguishible from playing an unbeatable stockfish.
    So to look at a case of a couple of premiere division players playing on a pub server, and then conclude that the problem with the game is incompetence of the opponents, is missing this point I think.

    The reason it takes 100's of hours to be even remotely "good" at ns2, is not because there's anything intrinsically difficult about NS2 compared to other games. It's that the standard levels of competition is higher in NS2, because all spectrums, rookies and prem division all the same, are lumped in together.

    The difficulty of a game is measured by one factor, and one factor alone; The relative skill of the opponent to yours.

    Yeah we are pretty much saying the same thing, just with your argument being more pedantic than mine. The common point being that there is a learning difficulty/skill floor problem/skill disparity problem. It has been established that we can't separate the skills of players more than we have currently between different servers, so what do you do then? Increase the skill floor? New tutorials? I think we can agree that this issue is more complex than just adding in new abilities or mechanics.
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,729 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    Maybe I used the wrong language in my post, but I agree with Santa claws post quite a bit. I even feel it supports my assertion that L2P is not the answer with "Incompetence is not the problem."I was trying to say what he said in part. I just think there is more to it than that.

    I definitely agree this issue is more complex than game mechanics. It is just the least discussed aspect of the issue. I consider raising the skill floor to be of the same topic as adjusting game mechanics.

    I feel we are closer in opinion than our language suggests.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,082 Advanced user
    Seb wrote: »
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    Incompetence is not the problem in my opinion. Incompetence exists in every game - the difference is; they take measures to separate people with large skill gaps.

    I must admit, I did not watch the rookie games in cph myself, I don't have that kind of patience. But what I understand from anecdotes is, that these rookies seemed to play fairly well all on their own, with no guidance at all. So it's more of an issue of relative incompetence, relative to the opponents that is.

    If I play chess with my 10 week old nephew (proud uncle here), I could easily crush him. It wouldn't be enjoyable for either of us. To my nephew, playing me or playing Magnus Carlsen is indistinguishible. But if I were to play Magnus Carlsen, to me it would be indistinguishible from playing an unbeatable stockfish.
    So to look at a case of a couple of premiere division players playing on a pub server, and then conclude that the problem with the game is incompetence of the opponents, is missing this point I think.

    The reason it takes 100's of hours to be even remotely "good" at ns2, is not because there's anything intrinsically difficult about NS2 compared to other games. It's that the standard levels of competition is higher in NS2, because all spectrums, rookies and prem division all the same, are lumped in together.

    The difficulty of a game is measured by one factor, and one factor alone; The relative skill of the opponent to yours.

    Yeah we are pretty much saying the same thing, just with your argument being more pedantic than mine. The common point being that there is a learning difficulty/skill floor problem/skill disparity problem. It has been established that we can't separate the skills of players more than we have currently between different servers, so what do you do then? Increase the skill floor? New tutorials? I think we can agree that this issue is more complex than just adding in new abilities or mechanics.
    Okay, then I think that issue is settled. However, this thread was about comeback mechanics. It is not about solving the player retention issue or making the game less difficult. So I think it's an unfair standard to put on Ironhorse and co. - that because their suggestions won't solve the underlying player retention problems, that the effort is fruitless. Adding new abilities or mechanics have their own merit, even if they don't solve everything. If I understand it correctly, this is about improving gameplay so it is more enjoyable, for joy's sake and nothing else.
    IronHorse
  • AnzestralAnzestral Join Date: 2013-05-21 Member: 185327Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester Posts: 145 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    No you guys are right, L2P is not the issue. The issue is a mechanic that punishes a whole (winning) team for mistakes made by players who didn't L2P. That is what I (and I think also Wob) tried to tell you. I see no problem with real comebacks due to good teamplay, great trapping of lifeforms, good resbiting or similar things. I see a problem with a mechanik that only can work because it abuses mistakes made by single bad players. That is exactly the reason why we don't see it in competetive games. The mechanic is also there, but it can't be abused because most competetive palyers actually learned to play.

    Fortunately marines don't have a similar mechanic simply because the game is designed for aliens to play on 2-3 hives and marines only on 1 cc. In a scenario where the aliens are winning even a sneaky pg and a rush on the hive ends in a loss for the marine team just because the aliens have a second hive and also the aliens can counter the marine rush simply by rushing the marine base. In that case it doesn't even matter what exaclty the aliens focus.
    - Killing the powernode or cc is an instant gg.
    - Killing the base-pg forces the commander to beacon and the marines lose complete mapcontrol as well as the sneaky pg.
    - Killing the obs and afterwards grinding the gate leads to a win.
    - Killing the arms lab leaves the marines without upgrades.
    The aliens could as well just sacrifice the hive and kill the sneaky gate. That forces the marine commander to beacon to the save the marines and leads to the lose of the complete mapcontrol (and aliens could probably jsut redrop the hive) or in case of no beacon the aliens could just clear all marines and redrop the hive after.

    On the other hand a (due to the already discussed reasons) nonspotted bilerush is pretty much an instant win. Don't get me wrong. I love NS2 for the asymmetrical desgin but in my opinion an instant-win mechanic for a losing team (that maybe already flashed a lot of high lifeforms) because of single player mistakes is too much...
    videoP
  • ZavaroZavaro Tucson, Arizona Join Date: 2005-02-14 Member: 41174Members, Super Administrators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Posts: 756 admin
    Seb wrote: »
    The majority of new players should be able to learn how to play ns2 in under 4 hours for the most part, but be difficult to master. They can't just learn, but be able to enjoy it in 4 hours.
    This is a really good point to bring up. Easy to pick up, hard to master. That's what NS2 isn't. Actually it half is, Hard to pick up, hard to master. Look at CSGO, the poster child for complex and deep yet simple and rewarding gameplay. People take thousands of hours to master CSGO, but you can jump in and still get kills against people your own skill level. You can even see your own progress in the form of rank/skill group as you learn the mechanics of the game.

    I agree with this as well. The problem is how to repair this issue.
    CDT Map Testing Lead and NA Playtesting Whip
    Steam / Watch live video from zavaro on Twitch / Twitter
    Have a bug in NS2? Report it in the thread! If you can, post how to reproduce it, or private message me on the forum!
    IronHorse
  • vartijavartija Join Date: 2007-03-02 Member: 60193Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 99 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Sigh... this is why I hinted at presentation being so important to this topic ..

    PSA: Competitive games do not remotely suffer from the symptoms of snowballing, long frustrating endings, concede wars, caring about T3 tech and basically do not need such "cheap" comeback mechanics.

    Sure, but this doesn't mean the ending of a game is really fulfilling. The game doesn't really snowball fast enough and teams tend to play to the end where winning conditions are met although the winner has been decided long ago. The possibility of (alien) comeback is just somewhere in the back of every nsplayer's mind and this prolongs games unnecessarily. Kinda reminds me of gambling problem.

    You mentioned t3 tech. It's just not powerful enough to really end the game and can be matched with proper lower tier tech. At best it's risky but effective. If you are already ahead there is not much sense taking this risk to end the game earlier and it comes down to slow grinding. NS1 did this pretty well at least on marine side. Too bad there was no alternative high tech option for JP so onos would have been played more.

    I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the marine comeback mechanism that is in the game. That's killing the lifeforms. You can call it PVP comeback. It for sure is much harder to pull off than alien comeback (PVE comeback). This might be the one reason why team winning percentages do not mach. Marines have to rely multiple lifeforms making mistakes while aliens rely commander mistake.

    So all in all it's hard to see when the game is decided because there is no easy way to tell and there is always that somewhat realistic minimal comeback chance. The game just doesn't snowball fast enough when other team is too far ahead and pushes the team to keep hanging on until they can try the comeback mechanism at some point.
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,082 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    Anzestral wrote: »
    The issue is a mechanic that punishes a whole (winning) team for mistakes made by players who didn't L2P. That is what I (and I think also Wob) tried to tell you. I see no problem with real comebacks due to good teamplay, great trapping of lifeforms, good resbiting or similar things. I see a problem with a mechanik that only can work because it abuses mistakes made by single bad players.
    Is it fair to say, that your frustration is grounded in the fact that you are punished because team mates fail to scout the (for a lack of a better term) 'comeback mechanic'? In other Words, you are punished, because you took the wrong lane, or for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

    Because if we can narrow it down like that, rather than making blanket statements about "mistakes", I think it's easier to offer concrete solutions.

    I think we can agree, that if you know the bilerush is going to happen, it's fairly easy to counter, even as an individual in many cases.

    So I'm going to repeat my suggestion; Make gorge tunnels make a global sound when they are finished off infestation. That way, even if you are scouting the other side of the map, you will still have a clear notification, in spite of your team mates lack of awareness.

    Is that a compromise worth considering at all?
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    Anzestral wrote: »
    The issue is a mechanic that punishes a whole (winning) team for mistakes made by players who didn't L2P. That is what I (and I think also Wob) tried to tell you. I see no problem with real comebacks due to good teamplay, great trapping of lifeforms, good resbiting or similar things. I see a problem with a mechanik that only can work because it abuses mistakes made by single bad players.
    Is it fair to say, that your frustration is grounded in the fact that you are punished because team mates fail to scout the (for a lack of a better term) 'comeback mechanic'? In other Words, you are punished, because you took the wrong lane, or for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

    Because if we can narrow it down like that, rather than making blanket statements about "mistakes", I think it's easier to offer concrete solutions.

    I think we can agree, that if you know the bilerush is going to happen, it's fairly easy to counter, even as an individual in many cases.

    So I'm going to repeat my suggestion; Make gorge tunnels make a global sound when they are finished off infestation. That way, even if you are scouting the other side of the map, you will still have a clear notification, in spite of your team mates lack of awareness.

    Is that a compromise worth considering at all?

    No. It's another fucking band-aid
    mattji104
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    Seb wrote: »
    People in this thread are saying L2P is not an answer or saying L2P is bad, but that is what the problem is. That is why people with good aim from other PC shooters can come into this game and be good at it immediately. When it comes down to it, the res game/tech game/meta game is not as important as being able to aim and position yourself.

    That is how the game is right now and how it has been since it came out and this is why the game is loved by many competitive players and doesn't work well on a casual level.
    I don't know where you saw that. It would be lowering all NS2 people to dumb CS/COD players to say that. I disagree.

    I mean, i give med to those who are shooting at the tunnel and i like to receive ones when i do. How many games a commander lost because of morons that just decide to shot the opponent instead of the RTs (or structure)???

    This is basic knowledge in NS2; not aiming. Positioning and aiming are tools to achieve strategic matters. Not the contrary.

    With what you describe, it would be to admit that NS2 is the biggest failure of them all.
    Performances aside... Simply because : for having good fights you need to 'provide'.
    But instead : "You'd better NOT flash that fade because you won't buy it again". -"Wait, if i flash fade and can't buy it back (or have it on re-spawn) where is the fun ??", says the rookie. I'll have a hard time convincing him...

    Many games allow to select a class and the players stay that way for the game duration. NS is far from it.

    Other than that. I used to entertain myself with the so called "good players from another shooter" you mentioned. I believe they never understood why i used the RT as a obstacle and continued to delicately caress it with my teeth instead of attacking them. I even finished a RT and then totally ignoring the guy, i went to the next. I'm not sure he/she did understand either. But I'm sure it got on the commander nerves.
    Seb wrote: »
    This is a really good point to bring up. Easy to pick up, hard to master. That's what NS2 isn't. Actually it half is, Hard to pick up, hard to master. Look at CSGO, the poster child for complex and deep yet simple and rewarding gameplay. People take thousands of hours to master CSGO, but you can jump in and still get kills against people your own skill level. You can even see your own progress in the form of rank/skill group as you learn the mechanics of the game.

    Hmm... make up your mind.

    This is a L2P issue when people act like dumb. The first menu is the 'server' menu. I doubt they read long enough to actually see there a 'tutorial' menu. Other games are easy to play and don't really need a tutorial. NS is nothing like other games. Make it more dumb and you get Combat (no offense intended).

    I'm sure i am not the only one who likes a sweet and delicately cooked brutal bloodshed served at the right moment for the kind of gourmet i am.

    NS will be in a better shape when the alien will be able to choose one of the 3 strategy equally (regardless of skill level). This means changing the marine tech tree too. I'm afraid we're not there yet.

    I hope for the best and prepare for the worst when i hear about FT and "bile OP" stuff.
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
    twiliteblue
  • WobWob Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 483 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Shame on you. I have never, not once, crusaded against the comp scene @nachos

    Then you're oblivious to the subtext a lot of your posts imply.

    I didn't say that L2P is the issue needed to help marine comebacks, I was only backing up the argument behind bile bomb rushes being a poor alien comeback mechanic example. But of course in your view I'm pushing L2P as the only solution to every problem in the game because I'm a top tier player yada yada yada. I probably land in the top 10-20% of the highest play time in public.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    if l2p was the only solution needed after all these years, then you wouldn't be saying "the majority of players are incompetent".
    The majority of players are incompetent at learning from mistakes which exactly why bile bomb rushes are so frequently successful. They should have an almost 0% success rate when it comes to a comeback mechanic because of how stunningly simple and easy it is to counter.

    It's essentially the same as a marine commander building enough ARCs to one hit a hive and being able to sneak them through the map without scouting. That would be an extremely awful group of alien players to not see that before the first wave of fire.

    Nordic wrote: »
    L2P is not an answer. The fact that the game has been out this long and most players are still "clueless" says clearly that L2P is not the solution
    L2P is the BEST answer to the comment on how OP bile bomb rushes are... Other answers like nerfing bile bomb or gorge tunnel needs infestation will have severe implications on other aspects of the game like ARC pushes becoming OP or the Alien 3rd tech point stalemate.
    Nordic wrote: »
    Without the so called incompetent people there would not be a playerbase right now.
    An incompetent player base is almost worthless. If they could learn just some of the basics, and that's all it is, instead of getting hooked onto a frag hunting mentality the you wouldn't see cheap bile bomb rushes succeeding nearly as often. If you have to adjust a surprisingly well balanced asymmetrical game because most of the player base can't get to grips with it, you'd probably end up over simplifying things. Remember, not everyone has to know everything, 3-4 strong map & game sensed players on each team would make a world of difference.
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    So to look at a case of a couple of premiere division players playing on a pub server, and then conclude that the problem with the game is incompetence of the opponents, is missing this point I think.
    Anzestral and my comments were solely about denying how strong bile bomb rush is and how easy it is to stop it happening. Equally we wouldn't want something marines could have that takes advantage of singular big mistakes made by aliens.
    Anzestral wrote: »
    an instant-win mechanic for a losing team (that maybe already flashed a lot of high lifeforms) because of single player mistakes is too much...

    Exactly my point too. This comeback mechanic is bad for the reason that it completely flips the game around from a team that has lost every step of the way to an instant win. Comeback mechanics should rely on skill and the skill involved in getting the tunnel up and to coordinate the team to rush is, in my opinion, not justifiable for the instant win based on the errors of not scouting/no 2nd CC.

    I say it again, a good comeback mechanic is something like NOT losing umbra on any lerk that was alive at the time of the upgrade but the biomass has since gone because a hive has died because then the lerk has to stay alive, has to use his umbra, and has to be involved in fights and use skill to frag marines and take back map control. NOT JUST FLIP THE GAME OVER.

    Now please realise that these comments and arguments are not denying the need for a marine comeback tool on the back of an L2P argument...
    vartija wrote: »
    I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the marine comeback mechanism that is in the game. That's killing the lifeforms. You can call it PVP comeback. It for sure is much harder to pull off than alien comeback (PVE comeback). This might be the one reason why team winning percentages do not mach. Marines have to rely multiple lifeforms making mistakes while aliens rely commander mistake.

    ...and this is probably where the conversation should resume. It is a very good point. I think that this mechanic is too weak because it is too difficult for most players to achieve. As much as I'd like to see trapping and positioning improve (and something I believe everyone can improve at), the aim and reflex requirements are too much at times (something difficult to improve at). So this begs the question, does there need to be a PvE or commander intervention to help frag lifeforms, or are we going to ignore this part and look for other marine comeback opportunities?
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    If we decouple buildings from power nodes, power nodes could be used to provide the marine comm with some ability-for-res options that would deter a bile-bomb rush from becoming majorly effective before the power goes down, giving the marines time to gather an appropriate response without losing map presence due to a magic tunnel portal.

    It also makes for an interesting decision between biting the power and biting the arms lab and biting the phase gate or observatory. Pretend I'm a gorge with 2 skulks and that electrification is rather expensive, but it IS there. This ridiculous tunnel atleast makes some sense now. The team that gained a massive lead was able to invest in base rush deterrent that causes the gorge to take significantly longer to have an effect in the base.

    Try to realize I'm not advocating this SPECIFIC electrification idea, but I do realize that most of people will focus on the specifics anyway. It also doesn't need to require new content creation, but could inspire it in a nice fresh way.
    mattji104
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,729 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    Okay, then I think that issue is settled. However, this thread was about comeback mechanics. It is not about solving the player retention issue or making the game less difficult. So I think it's an unfair standard to put on Ironhorse and co. - that because their suggestions won't solve the underlying player retention problems, that the effort is fruitless. Adding new abilities or mechanics have their own merit, even if they don't solve everything. If I understand it correctly, this is about improving gameplay so it is more enjoyable, for joy's sake and nothing else.
    I see comeback mechanics as a way to reduce the snow ball. I don't mind the snow ball, but I recognize that it is harmful to player retention. Comeback mechanics are one way to lessen that snow ball.
    nachos wrote: »
    vartija wrote: »
    I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the marine comeback mechanism that is in the game. That's killing the lifeforms. You can call it PVP comeback. It for sure is much harder to pull off than alien comeback (PVE comeback). This might be the one reason why team winning percentages do not mach. Marines have to rely multiple lifeforms making mistakes while aliens rely commander mistake.

    ...and this is probably where the conversation should resume. It is a very good point. I think that this mechanic is too weak because it is too difficult for most players to achieve. As much as I'd like to see trapping and positioning improve (and something I believe everyone can improve at), the aim and reflex requirements are too much at times (something difficult to improve at). So this begs the question, does there need to be a PvE or commander intervention to help frag lifeforms, or are we going to ignore this part and look for other marine comeback opportunities?

    That is a good point. Killing lifeforms is a comeback mechanic, a very difficult one at that. It could be expanded and made into a more obvious mechanic. I will offer a counter idea though.

    A lot of players struggle to learn higher lifeforms, specifically lerk and fade. One reason being that they have such little time to learn how to lerk or fade before they die. Not all rookie fades are like this, but I am sure you have seen the total walker fades walk right into a marine and die. The idea is to make it so aliens can get the lifeforms back quicker, so that there is more time playing with a lifeform. More time to learn. More time to enjoy being a higher lifeform.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
    IronHorsetwiliteblue
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,191 admin
    edited April 2015
    Anzestral wrote: »
    The mechanic is also there, but it can't be abused because most competitive players actually learned to play.
    So you recognize that in one type of game (pubs) that such mechanics can upset what might have otherwise been a locked in predictable outcome, and only due to the fact that the teams are not as organized or as skilled as the other type of game (small competitive) who happen to not utilize or be that effected by said mechanics.

    Do you see how one type of game suffers from an ailment that another does not? One is just more able to deal with the scenario if it arises, naturally.
    Do you also recognize that while some players improve and some leave / worsen, that within the average playerbase of pub games nothing has changed in this area for all the years NS2 has been in development and released?

    Debating this topic has always been a bit frustrating to me because people can see where the discrepancies lie, yet to suggest to account for it in any way is borderline blasphemy. Maybe because they feel they've earned their right to be where they are and they want it just as difficult for the entry level players too?
    I have no idea, but what I do know is that some people here like Seb have rightfully pointed to the "Easy to learn, Difficult to master" design of CSGO... so I know that the broad concept isn't entirely a hated one for all the players.

    True, the suggestion here is not to make the game necessarily "Easier to learn" (goodluck attempting that without dumbing it down) as much as it is "Punish less for not yet knowing and not being able to coordinate effectively with 11 others" in order to make the game more enjoyable at that level.... so how is that not something everyone can get behind? Especially if it won't largely impact higher levels of play, if at all?

    I truly believe that pub games would be more enjoyable from having less predictable outcomes, and since I do not see the L2P issue or the large playercount coordination requirement suddenly just fixing itself after all these years, I believe accounting for it through a singular and subtle way is appropriate.

    If a comeback mechanic requires too much coordination to pull off, then it just won't happen at lower levels of play, and therefore isn't really a viable comeback mechanic. (since they're the only ones that rely on those..)
    If a comeback mechanic requires too much of a financial investment then it is too often out of reach or not available at needed times in a round.
    If a comeback mechanic is not able to be countered in multiple ways, especially in a way that is not telegraphed, then it is OP.
    If a comeback mechanic cannot give a reasonable chance of ending the round, either immediately or within 5 minutes time of recouping the map, then it is not a comeback mechanic but something that too often painfully delays the inevitable.

    @vartija @nachos This thread is about assisting in dealing with the increased pub game PvE scenarios (with the FT) for the lesser skilled crowd, allowing them to focus more on the PvP, allowing for the "PvP comeback" you mention that I support.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    GhoulofGSG9
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    I see comeback mechanics as a way to reduce the snow ball. I don't mind the snow ball, but I recognize that it is harmful to player retention. Comeback mechanics are one way to lessen that snow ball.

    How do we know the effect of the snow ball with regard to player retention? This game does not have player retention that anyone is happy with.

    Maybe increasing the snowball would increase player retention. I just think that this is a bad assumption that everyone here makes. It was simply a design choice, that doesn't make it correct.

    For all we know, if the snowball was greater and you get two teams of rookies to play against eachother, they might find more value in the game early on and want to learn how to get better at snowballing. Right now if rookies play it's just a mess. People fucking love Dota and League of Legends and you can massively snowball in it
    mattji104
    Nordic
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,729 Advanced user
    mattji104 wrote: »
    Nordic wrote: »
    I see comeback mechanics as a way to reduce the snow ball. I don't mind the snow ball, but I recognize that it is harmful to player retention. Comeback mechanics are one way to lessen that snow ball.

    How do we know the effect of the snow ball with regard to player retention? This game does not have player retention that anyone is happy with.

    Maybe increasing the snowball would increase player retention. I just think that this is a bad assumption that everyone here makes. It was simply a design choice, that doesn't make it correct.

    For all we know, if the snowball was greater and you get two teams of rookies to play against eachother, they might find more value in the game early on and want to learn how to get better at snowballing. Right now if rookies play it's just a mess. People fucking love Dota and League of Legends and you can massively snowball in it

    I do not know for a fact that the snowball negatively effects player retention. I am really glad you pointed that out. I personally think I might enjoy more of a snowball for the same reason I like 4tp maps. I like 4tp maps because when one team has 3 tp's, the game is over very soon. I do not play dota, LoL, or much of any moba's so I can not make a proper comparison. I would love to admit I am wrong, but I think that ns2 would have more success with less of a snowball. I think that mostly because most rookies I see coming in are "incompetent." In my experience so few of them are willing to accept any sort of advice but complain about what I told them would happen. I have tried to get every one of my friends to play ns2. Most said one way or another that it was too hard. Saying all this does inspire fear of an over simplified game, but I think that with enough time and thought a simple but complex ns2 could be made. It really is a hard question. How do we make the game accessible to new players but good/complex/fun enough for veteran/competitive/dedicated players?

    As I mentioned before, I was utterly terrible for my first 300 hours. I really wish I remember what kept me playing then. I remember thinking ns2 was the coolest thing. No one ever believes this, but on my first or second night of owning the game I had an 8 hour match. I remember this very well because I could believe it was so early morning already. The game had to be almost all rookies for the game to last that long. It was on mineshaft in b208. I was in love with ns2 from the start I guess.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,477 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    Nordic wrote: »
    I really wish I remember what kept me playing then.

    I know exactly why I started playing NS1. I started playing because after trying it the first time I was compelled to understand and grow in the world. I was pushed BY the difficulty to keep going and improving my game. I was never bothered by playing with better players and I strived to do well enough to play WITH them.

    But that wasn't why I was able to play 4000 hours of the game (would have been more if I didn't go to high-school and start doing high-school things). I played 4000 hours because 1000 of those were learning the ideas of the game, how to script, how to modify my game to suit me, how to stay calm while tracking, how to specifically aim an exact distance distance away so I can twitch back precisely (must have went through like 5 diamondbacks because of it). I played 4000 hours because 1000 of those let me build cool forts in vents with my friends in the middle of an epic battlefield. I played 4000 hours because for 1000 of those I had to push myself to focus and compete on the highest level I could (Not THAT high). I played 4000 hours because for 1000 of those I was playing in a pub waiting for a pick-up-game while having fun talking to people on ventrilo or in Half-Life TV watching matches with the same people.

    I've played only 1500 hours of NS2 almost entirely because of NS1. And I'm not here because I want NS2 to be NS1. I just want NS2 to be more fun and more competitive for everyone. But worrying about things being too difficult is not good game design here, it's what makes this game so much more boring than it needs to be.

    edit: And the saddest part, for me atleast, is that the game has stopped evolving.

    edit2: And maybe I am being overly nostalgic, but the utter lack of creativity that this game has inspired also makes me sad. NS1 had music (and some music videos) with original songs, which for the content available to rap and sing about, were really impressive. There was way more frag videos because the things you could do, and HAD to do in competitive frag video cases, were far more numerous. I mean hitting 4 perfect sg shots on fade moving way faster than our fades now was alot more impressive than it is in our current 2.1 shot scenario.

    I just can't help but see the 300,000 viewers watching any given League Of Legends LCS regular season game and compare it to the idea of NS2 and how it fails to get 100 viewers. Half the reason or more that alot of people enjoy LCS is because they get to watch people execute the difficult skill and teamwork they can strive to obtain. They don't look down on balancing for competitive, they just do it with consideration for the public players. This could have easily been accomplished in 2013 when the playerbase existed, but the idea of "comp mod" was shit on when really it could havw made more difference than performance issues.

    It's highly unfortunate that Unknown Worlds has given the game development to the CDT but with impossible restriction. Maybe Flayra's vision in his 20s would have been worth alot to NS2, but he over-reached and abandoned the game now, but won't let the CDT evolve the game.

    What we need is NS2 2.0, because without it NS3 will likely never be possible. This game NEEDS sweeping change. The ideas of my first paragraph of my 'edit2' are my basis for this more than anything. The ability to communicate more things through the internet these days has been squandered.

    Maybe if Unknown Worlds had a million res nodes it could buy us some more fun
    Post edited by Frozen on
    mattji104
    vartija
Sign In or Register to comment.