People talking about t3 tech like it matters, the main benefit from a 2nd or 3rd hive is charge, umbra leap biomass and extra upgrades, everything else is superfluous.
I mean to be clear, all the abilities you mentioned are hive 2. And I FULLY agree, hive 3 abilities are a joke right now, except xenocide, i guess that's done well enough.
People talking about t3 tech like it matters, the main benefit from a 2nd or 3rd hive is charge, umbra leap biomass and extra upgrades, everything else is superfluous.
I mean to be clear, all the abilities you mentioned are hive 2. And I FULLY agree, hive 3 abilities are a joke right now, except xenocide, i guess that's done well enough.
Eh, xeno is mainly good in 20+ player pubs.
I agree, but I imagine that if all lifeforms had something to work with at the same time at 9 biomass, xenocide wouldn't be bad in 6v6-9v9 as it is
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2015
@NotPaLaGi Thanks for the well thought out reply
This is slightly a tangent as we're just dissecting BB and comeback mechanics, instead of arguing for the need of a mechanic.. but if it helps paint the big picture.. *Shrug*
If a fade start wrecking and we are only on w1/a1 with no SGs, you can quickly tell the commander we need SGs now and to try and push out upgrades ASAP. Maybe we spent our res on early PG tech and failed to get map control, but the situation is understandable to the majority of people. A sneaky tunnel that costs you the game because 1/8th of your team didn't do the right thing and either call it out or scout is extremely frustrating to the majority of people.
Your comparison falls short imo because it's not as though dealing with that fade didn't also require a minority of your team, be it clicking a research button (a singular person) or two shotgunners.
Moreover, it's not as though that silent rookie who died to a skulk and a gorge in topo and failed to warn the rest of the team of the potential impending BB was the sole person responsible.
Besides the fact that the commander should have the highest situational awareness from staring at a map during the entirety of commanding, every other person has a map, too, *and* even the most rookie of rookies knows to stick together in a group.
I know, I know, "But Iron, according to you isn't this scenario about the average pub games where commanders and the team in general lack said skills such as situational awareness?"
Yes... and in that case if every member of the team fails to prevent a mistake - not just 1/8th of it - then I say the team needs to learn from its clear mistake, much like how it would be from being on A1 until 15 minutes in because no one said anything at all.. (we've all seen it before)
I completely agree with your assessment of the importance of lane control and the onus it places on the marine skill floor. But i disagree that mistakes shouldn't be able to be exploited by the losing team. Why is it that a skulk rush on your base - which requires coordination - isn't being brought up at all? Many feel it is a legitimate strategy at any point in the round and if you lose to it that you deserved to because of your own mistakes.
So comparing that to BB: the end results are the same, the method to predict it is the same, the ability to counter it is slightly different and more difficult, (due to timing and combat effectiveness) yet one is considered "cheese" and the other legitimate - even though you can down a powernode faster with 5 skulks than you can with 1 gorge biling, and killing 1 gorge is far far easier than 5 skulks.
So is that it? Because the other team mindlessly zerg rushed your base while you were out of position instead of a lone player doing so, it's magically not considered "cheese" anymore and is fairly exploiting a team's mistakes? What about when aliens enact a beacon to isolate Exos that end up out of position from supporting teammates? This exploits the winning marine team's mistake and one player could have achieved that beacon - is this considered "cheese" too?? There are just dozens of examples of exploiting teams' mistakes, so why is it BB receives a different label? I wonder if powernodes were removed, whether anyone's opinion would change..
I also disagree when you call it a good comeback mechanic. Sacrificing your fade/onos res for more lerks to get map control back is a comeback mechanic. Giving up map control to get behind lines and bite extractors is a comeback mechanic. Using a sneaky tunnel and all going gorge to bilebomb a power node (abusing awareness of one single marine) is not a good comeback mechanic, it's just cheese.
I sincerely do not believe
1) A team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
2) Your average pub team could be proficient with lerks in mid-late game scenarios against W3 rines who clearly lane adequately
3) Any mechanic or method that does not have a good chance of moderately impacting the winning team's accrued tech (think 2nd Hive) is a comeback mechanic at all, but instead how your team should have been playing the whole round to prevent said advantageous position.
They need what they need to get back in the game, not to insta-win just because someone thinks they deserve a chance to win when they simple do not deserve a chance to win.
I can appreciate requiring merit of some sort in order to secure a victory over a team that's winning... so why doesn't exploiting a team's mistakes count?
I definitely get your point though - don't just give away a random free win - make the team work for it, and if possible assist getting them "back in the game"..
So long as you agree that more comeback methods are needed - that's my only argument really - and my take is that the losing team generally can't utilize the typical means to secure a victory, so you're left with a very narrow range of methods they might employ in order to "get back in the game", even moreso if exploiting the winning team's mistakes is off the table.
I just despise the average pub rounds resulting in predictable outcomes the strong majority of the time, it makes the game boring at best and frustratingly pointless at worst.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
I think the point I'm trying to make is that zone control is more important than anything. There should be some kind of safety in holding most of the map, because you deserve it. It should just be much harder to take control of the whole map. I like the idea of referencing a MOBA here, because in a MOBA you have a definitive way to make this happen. You can get an advantage, hold it, and throw it. But the losing enemy team CAN NOT just automatically win because of ONE mistake. The losing team needs to capitalize on a series of mistakes, large and small.
How to fix this? Remove cysting and power requirements from having functional structures. Why? So the marines can UTILIZE the power nodes to protect their back res when they can afford it, allowing them to UTILIZE their advantage. Why? So aliens don't get trapped in an early res hole from placing cysts over and over so later they can UTILIZE their advantage later by cysting their back to protect it and bolster it's strength.
At the same time, these mechanics could be UTILIZED STRATEGICALLY to take advantage of mistakes to try to get you back in the game. Your base should be relatively safe for the first 5-10 minutes (I haven't thought of the exact timeline, but yea).
You seem to want teams to be able to ruin a game with an insta-win. Instead I want them to be able to better defend themselves in the first place. I also want commanding to be more interesting by allowing the commander to bolster PvP WITHOUT using direct PvE. I think whips are dumb, I think sentries are dumb. I think this because they take away from the FPS aspect without adding anything meaningful to the RTS aspect.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
Here's an idea to make ARCs fun and interesting, and bring back real sieges that would function as a comeback mechanic that's in-line with what you're saying about bile-bomb, without being insta-win. Note that all of my ideas require tweaks, no serious new programming or assets. Some of the commander abilities I talk vaguely about might, but nothing MAJOR.
ARCs as they are ruin the epic sieging scenarios that used to exist in NS1. Here's some bullet point changes I'd like to see that wouldn't work well without removing the cysting and power requirements i mentioned above
Increase ARC movement speed SIGNIFICANTLY
Increase ARC range SIGNIFICANTLY
Decrease ARC effective health REASONABLY
ARCs can only DEPLOY ONCE
ARCs can be recycled
This would increase the situations in which a siege is even possible, since most maps make it virtually useless. Do I also think that Fades need higher effective health to make this reasonable, yes. Do I also think that marines then need more DPS from shotguns, yes. Do I think that lerks need ranged spores more than umbra, yes. Do I think Observatory scans should go back to energy based, instead of res, yes.
Do I think this would be extremely fun for everyone of all skill levels, fuck yes.
Cannon_FodderAUSBrisbane, AUJoin Date: 2013-06-23Member: 185664Members, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
edited April 2015
I think we are thinking this wrongly. There shouldn't really be a come back mechanic for the late game, because the game has been decided (aliens 3 hives with marines turtling in base OR aliens boxed into one hive waiting to get sieged out). That game is over, there is no need to "come back" from that. Let the game finish and move on. You can argue aliens have a "come back mechanic" in a bile rush with a sneaky tunnel, but by that stage, marines should have 2+ cc and backup structures so a rush of 1 base isn't going to end the game. If the marine comm didn't do that then its gg wp aliens.
Conversely I guess the argument is why can't marines have a similar mechanic? Well if marines are stuck on one base and is turtling, the aliens WILL have multiple hives and probably enough PvE to make a sneaky assault non viable. I thought I read some where (a long time ago), the alien's goal is to get extra tech points to get into the mid/late game, and the marines are to prevent that. Any time you let aliens on 3 hives for long is almost certain a marine loss, let that be.
Note: this argument doesn't stand when you have fully teched sides (3 hive alien vs. 2 cc marines all on full tech). In that case, it is a matter of strategy and team play to try and weaken your opponent's position (eg. pain train to hive to siege vs. alien's forcing beacon or assaulting multiple locations etc...)
I think we are thinking this wrongly. There shouldn't really be a come back mechanic for the late game, because the game has been decided (aliens 3 hives with marines turtling in base OR aliens boxed into one hive waiting to get sieged out). That game is over, there is no need to "come back" from that. Let the game finish and move on.
As ironhorse has mentioned already, there's no reason to assume that a 'comeback mechanic' (I'm increasingly disliking that term), can't also be a 'game finisher mechanic'.
I think we are thinking this wrongly. There shouldn't really be a come back mechanic for the late game, because the game has been decided (aliens 3 hives with marines turtling in base OR aliens boxed into one hive waiting to get sieged out). That game is over, there is no need to "come back" from that. Let the game finish and move on.
As ironhorse has mentioned already, there's no reason to assume that a 'comeback mechanic' (I'm increasingly disliking that term), can't also be a 'game finisher mechanic'.
They just shouldn't be doing both at once. No mechanic should immediately fully forgive a team that's made mistakes consistently while being unforgiving to a single player or team for their simple mistake.
I think we are thinking this wrongly. There shouldn't really be a come back mechanic for the late game, because the game has been decided (aliens 3 hives with marines turtling in base OR aliens boxed into one hive waiting to get sieged out). That game is over, there is no need to "come back" from that. Let the game finish and move on.
As ironhorse has mentioned already, there's no reason to assume that a 'comeback mechanic' (I'm increasingly disliking that term), can't also be a 'game finisher mechanic'.
They just shouldn't be doing both at once. No mechanic should immediately fully forgive a team that's made mistakes consistently while being unforgiving to a single player or team for their simple mistake.
Sorry about following mis-posts, the mobile edit function is no longer normal lol
Last thing you want is Mario party style Bullshit.
I think we are thinking this wrongly. There shouldn't really be a come back mechanic for the late game, because the game has been decided (aliens 3 hives with marines turtling in base OR aliens boxed into one hive waiting to get sieged out). That game is over, there is no need to "come back" from that. Let the game finish and move on.
As ironhorse has mentioned already, there's no reason to assume that a 'comeback mechanic' (I'm increasingly disliking that term), can't also be a 'game finisher mechanic'.
They just shouldn't be doing both at once. No mechanic should immediately fully forgive a team that's made mistakes consistently while being unforgiving to a single player or team for their simple mistake.
Sorry about following mis-posts, the mobile edit function is no longer normal lol
Last thing you want is Mario party style Bullshit.
Lol are you talking about the awards at the end? Because yea, if you win 19 of 20 minigames, you should probably win if Mario Party was competitive. In which case the awards for random stuff is simply random and shouldn't effect the winner.
Why is it that a skulk rush on your base - which requires coordination - isn't being brought up at all? Many feel it is a legitimate strategy at any point in the round and if you lose to it that you deserved to because of your own mistakes.
So comparing that to BB: the end results are the same, the method to predict it is the same, the ability to counter it is slightly different and more difficult, (due to timing and combat effectiveness) yet one is considered "cheese" and the other legitimate - even though you can down a powernode faster with 5 skulks than you can with 1 gorge biling, and killing 1 gorge is far far easier than 5 skulks.
So is that it? Because the other team mindlessly zerg rushed your base while you were out of position instead of a lone player doing so, it's magically not considered "cheese" anymore and is fairly exploiting a team's mistakes? What about when aliens enact a beacon to isolate Exos that end up out of position from supporting teammates? This exploits the winning marine team's mistake and one player could have achieved that beacon - is this considered "cheese" too?? There are just dozens of examples of exploiting teams' mistakes, so why is it BB receives a different label? I wonder if powernodes were removed, whether anyone's opinion would change..
You can't compare a zerg rush on base to a gorge bile bombing. One requires a team effort and good coordination and is easy to spot coming (It takes time to get the team together for such a rush - during which there aren't engagements occurring) The other takes a single skulk to get past the marines front line and evolve... Much more difficult to see coming and potentially just as devastating. Even if you get back in time to deal with the gorge(s), they've done a ton of damage to structures (assuming they didn't target the power node) and you'll be sat there for over a minute repairing everything whilst aliens can retake areas of the map.
Personally I don't have an issue with Bilebomb as a mechanic and don't feel it needs to be nerfed... However, I don't like how easy it can be to get deep into marine territory as a skulk before evolving. If you were only able to evolve when on Infestation, it'd come across as much less 'cheesy' as the gorge(s) had to make their way from alien controlled territory into marines base. Either the gorge(s) need support to get past the frontlines from other lifeforms (telegraphing the attack from reduced engagements elsewhere), or the marines have completely failed to cover a lane and deserve to be punished for the mistake.
I don't disagree that the ability to come back from a losing battle is needed, but there's too much focus here on the end-game. It's rare to get to the end-game without the match having already been decided. The early-mid game are far more important, and if you're behind during those stages you've got a real struggle to pull it back.
That said, It would certainly help bring an alien-dominated match to a close if marines had the ability to get out of base (and a reason to try) at the end-game, if only so the aliens could capitalize on the reduced marine presence in base.
I can count on one hand the number of occasions i've been stuck in a marine turtle where I feel we deserved a comeback. Similarly I can count on one hand the number of times i've seen marines win after Xeno is up. It's damn near impossible to push into a room and take out a hive when you've got a couple of skulks blowing up as you bunch up on your way in... So where these complaints of alien end-game tech are coming from I have no idea.. It's just hard to push into marine base when their entire team is inside, which is understandable, and it doesn't help when the aliens sit outside the entrances not allowing marines to escape the room.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
I'm saying there needs to be better end-game alien tech across the lifeforms because of what you said. Xeno keeps marines in their base for a turtle, which is good, but it doesn't let the game end. It can just drag out if there's a single dual exo, etc. Granted, I'm not highly worried about this since it's only a problem in low to average skill ranges
Yeah, you're right in saying Xeno isn't going to end a match alone, but it's a great way to open a push into marine base with higher lifeforms. Most lifeforms have abilities that help with such a push already. We've already discussed the Skulk and gorge abilities, but the Lerk is underutilized at this stage of the match. Umbra is a fantastic ability for end-game pushes without putting your lerk at risk... With a bit of luck, spores can also be quite powerful with so many marines in a single room.
Fades are the only lifeform really lacking any useful abilites in such a push.. their third ability slot taken up by "Stab", which in my opinion is absolutely useless. I simply ignore it exists... I'd like to see Vortex make a return, as that can temporarily neutralize Exo's camped in base (or the arms lab).
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Mario party, aka the game whose victor is purely based on chance, (fu bowser) is not anywhere near the equivalent to allowing deliberate exploitation of mistakes by the losing team.
You clearly believe in merit determining the winner, as do I, so I would assume you would agree that if a winning team gets sloppy, over extends etc, then they should be punished for it, yes?
Well as it stands now basically, in order to determine the winner through *multiple skill sets* there exists many things a team must do correctly, without error. Besides being a more accurate assessment of team skill, this also creates the opportunities to lose to an opponent who couldn't beat you at X, but can at Y.
This design is paramount to ensuring a varied game, both in strategy and skill.
Without it, the winner would be apparent after the first successful engagements / goals, and the round would never be worth playing about beyond that.
It'd be like if the only way basketball was played was by singular standing 3 point free throws - you'd be throwing away all the other many aspects to what makes up a skillful team, to include actual teamwork itself.
Worst of all (besides being dreadfully boring) after a few throws into a leading score, it would seem pointless /demoralizing to try and continue as the losing "team".
All that's being suggested here is improving one area where there really isn't a vulnerability for one team.
Just one subtle mechanic adjustment (FT), by diminishing the impact of increased pub PvE scenarios and decreased coordination, in order to focus on PvP which could allow for a greater chance of varied rounds for the average skilled pub game.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Well... It applies to all predictable scenarios where marines are on the backfoot, so sure it could also assist in stacked teams, but wouldn't guarantee anything of course.
This idea is not targeted to remedy such an occurrence, and in fact as evidence of this, it would be less effective in those cases compared to a more balanced team.
hey I got an idea. what if you have a few marines behind the pressure group, being able to instantly rotate back to catch the "ninja" gorge, and at the same time be able to rotate forward to aid the pressure if there are no aliens who managed to leak through.
omg
mind=blown
no but seriously, basic zoning/laning can counter these cheese comebacks ez... thing is that ppl on pubs are afraid of being useful/want to grind kills, so this never happens.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
That's not evidence, everything is simply less effective against a better team by nature.
You seem to want to give games variety by giving a stomped team an option to, in my opinion, ruin the game. I want to give games variety by giving teams options to prevent being stomped in the first place.
@IronHorse You're too dangerous, you have the power to make changes to the game so you shouldn't cast aside every suggestion/discussion just because it's not of your personal liking.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@Lamb
Nope, I'm just one person seeking discussion on an idea I believe has merit.
No different than if you were doing it.
Dangerous would be like prior balance changes where zero discussion was had and things were implemented because a few individuals believed they knew best...
That's pretty much the opposite of my approach. I'd rather beat an idea into the ground by a gauntlet of zealous fans before assuming it was optimal.
Also please direct me to where I've casted aside discussions?? That's quite the damming claim. To my knowledge I've done nothing but engage, providing rebuttals etc. Unless you are confusing actual debate and counter points as dismissive..
I implore you to engage in the actual discussion as well instead of fear mongering and ad hominems from the sidelines, since you clearly care.
@Lamb - I too would like to see a concrete example of Ironhorse casting aside discussion. What ever that means. That's a pretty serious accusation to make without providing a single example.
On this page alone, I count 5 posts with substance from Ironhorse. I count 1 post from you, with no substance.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
@SantaClaws , you're not a or the measure of substance, seriousness, or number counts. Why don't you just privately message people instead of this. Or just talk about the topics instead, or at very least how it can be construed as casting aside discussion, which I can see it as.
@SantaClaws , you're not a or the measure of substance, seriousness, or number counts. Why don't you just privately message people instead of this. Or just talk about the topics instead, or at very least how it can be construed as casting aside discussion, which I can see it as.
Substance is pretty objective. You can disagree with whether that substance is useful or true - I make no statement about whether I think Ironhorse is correct, but I acknowledge his posts have substance.
In Lamb's comment; it is a claim, with nothing to support that claim. In other words, there's nothing to point to, in case you disagree with him. That is what I refer to as substance. And that is all I request that he adds to his post.
I don't want him to pm me, I want him to post it here, cus he brought it up here.
Just one subtle mechanic adjustment (FT), by diminishing the impact of increased pub PvE scenarios and decreased coordination, in order to focus on PvP which could allow for a greater chance of varied rounds for the average skilled pub game.
I still have to disagree with FT buff. As an example. (commenting OP) It first needs the marine to be able to move outside the base.
2 cases in Late game (tier 3):
A/ marine are dominant and ruined every hope for aliens to come back. Last chance would be a tunnel bile bomb rush but one marine is the keeper. The bases are guarded with eyes and ears. No need to have a flame thrower... The marines will just finish it.
B/ Marine are not in a good position. And they are locked in their base. What would do a buffed FT ? I don't know.
1 case in mid game (tier 2) :
It would be easier for the marine to kill a second hive with this FT. It's already difficult to defend in a hive while skulks spawn with no upgrade... It would make things worse IMO.
In all cases it's definitely not a come back for the marines.
The marine will take care of bases and be focused on what's important when they will need a second base to be able to buy... i don't know,... a JP. Trust me they will want to keep that base. It will diminish the Bile bomb magnitude as all is not lost with one base down. After all a CC is cheap compared to a hive. 6 players will be a little short but on public no game is 6vs6. More like 7vs7 to 9vs9.
Give alien some air. It would please any Khammander to see this. I think.
*Make the cyst to "spore" when it's destroyed. Some parameters should be added. If it's not fully grown the spore magnitude is greater (max radius, max damaging). If the cyst is older than 5 minutes (must be tuned with testing) it doesn't do any damage. This would prevent too much pressure on Alien RTs (through cyst) and maybe one day we would fight for 50%/50% map control instead of getting kicks in the teeth just to defend the natural for 7 minutes.
This would be possible only with some of the following:
*Slower a little the Alien economy (-5% ?? ).
*Allow Alien players to re-buy the same lifeforms for a cheaper price. In the mean time the beast should be a little weaker (speed or life). This would make the mid-game longer but far more intense. It won't be unforgiving like it is today. Especially for rookies.
*Make BileBomb a little less accessible (expensive? more biomass?)
What would be the come back mechanic ? It there a need to make a come back when you have a mid-game so intense that when you have to say "it's screwed" you don't feel frustrated ?
I mean the best games i had in NS2 were not the ones i did really good and sh|t. It's the one in which the opponent could deliver a great challenge, and kicked back with clever solutions and stuff. And next it was our turn. and so on.
It was on AFB (24slots). That game lasted close to 1 hour 1/2 with greats players. I don't know what happened that day, everyone from the "sweet brutality social club" was there. Like a death rendez-vous. I was on marine and i saw the alien team drop 5 hives (something like that) during that game. This means no one was able to get on top as long a the 2 teams had resources and no one was willing to let the opponent claim a centimeter.
I don't know if you can imagine that; but 12 Super rascals versus 12 cyborg on TRAM is kind of guaranteed bloodshed at every corner. If the game wasn't recycling corpses, it would have crashed i think. In the end the alien lost. Some bad timing. That little thing that made the difference allowed to end the game. It was Epic.
But guess what? The alien team didn't felt bad at all. We were debriefing in RR the game like:
-Wow i lost track, 4.. 5 hives?
-Yeah some like that. And i could do one more. with some lerk eggs.
-daaaaam!
I thanked them that for that game as other marine did. I do not believe anyone was frustrated.
If early game is protected (each team get something)
If mid game is little longer (more intense)
The late game will be a formality
If NS2 can provide that kind of game every time... THAT will be something. I'm afraid a FT buff never will.
I've never really been happy with the design of the flamethrower as a support/disabling weapon. Over time more and more of these sorts of features have been added to it and still nobody uses the thing. No one wants to buy a gun with such ambiguous benefits. A flamethrower disabling spawners would not be nearly as threatening to the hive as bilebomb is to the base - it just doesn't do very much damage, and a Fade can swing by and clean up the pesky marine in no time.
I've always felt the FT should just be more effective as a direct damage weapon, and come up for another way for marines to make comebacks. Ninja phase gates aren't quite the answer because it requires the whole team to phase in to finish off a hive, which puts the marines in serious risk of a base trade scenario. If anything I think ARCs need something to be better in this situation. In NS1 a ninja phase gate was usually accompanied by siege turrets which the marines could camp without significantly risking their base, in NS2 you don't see that anymore.
But i disagree that mistakes shouldn't be able to be exploited by the losing team. Why is it that a skulk rush on your base - which requires coordination - isn't being brought up at all? Many feel it is a legitimate strategy at any point in the round and if you lose to it that you deserved to because of your own mistakes.
I don't think people are saying that these rushes shouldn't be exploited out of manners, it's more a case of being a poor example of a comeback mechanic. If you think that this is an adequate comeback mechanic I fear what you might think is a good idea for marine comebacks.
YES these rushes can win you games but if you think winning a game means you always clearly deserved to win, you're looking at comeback mechanics wrong. Comeback mechanics shouldn't be a backdoor rush with the ability to WRECK a base and reduce the deficit between the teams drastically. A comeback mechanic should be able to help teams reduce the rate at which the deficit grows (or snowball grows), in an attempt that having won enough GOOD plays, you might be able to put yourself in a winning position.
I also disagree when you call it a good comeback mechanic. Sacrificing your fade/onos res for more lerks to get map control back is a comeback mechanic. Giving up map control to get behind lines and bite extractors is a comeback mechanic. Using a sneaky tunnel and all going gorge to bilebomb a power node (abusing awareness of one single marine) is not a good comeback mechanic, it's just cheese.
I sincerely do not believe
1) A team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
2) Your average pub team could be proficient with lerks in mid-late game scenarios against W3 rines who clearly lane adequately
3) Any mechanic or method that does not have a good chance of moderately impacting the winning team's accrued tech (think 2nd Hive) is a comeback mechanic at all, but instead how your team should have been playing the whole round to prevent said advantageous position.
1) They don't suddenly develop, they just suddenly CHOOSE to because their backs are against the walls.
2) You're right but that doesn't detract from it being a good comeback mechanic. Lerks synergise very well with every other lifeform. Lerks are very good at making a comeback after 5 minutes if the marines are in control, however when W3 comes out its like a marine comeback mechanic which then reduces the damage to the marine's winning position by lerks. Fades are even better at doing this role later in the game when marines have more tech.
3) If you're going to ignore how teams should have been playing and just implement something that has a huge impact one of two things will happen.
1 - It will be useless because it will be countered easily.
2 - It will be abused relentlessly by high skilled players because they always have a larger impact in games.
That third point brings me to the infamous and highly controversial argument: A good game must be balanced from the top down in terms of skill or you implement mechanics that higher skilled players will abuse more often and with greater success than other players and so will have a higher impact on games and lead to less fun for the worse players.
Which side of the line you stand on that argument, Ironhorse, determines just how dangerous you actually are as a person in power...
@IronHorse The discussions part may have been a long-shot, my intention was not for it to display aggression. Just that a quick view on a few posts gave me the impression that you're just shutting down ideas without giving it complete thought, though I've not read most of the topic.
Felt like nachos covered it pretty well, powerful last sentence.
Which side of the line you stand on that argument, Ironhorse, determines just how dangerous you actually are as a person in power...
No-one is implementing changes based in their personal opinions and no-one thinks there ideas would damage the game. That's why the CDT is a team... one that discusses changes amongst themselves, UWE and the community. We're supposed to be having a discussion regarding the changes, not attacking someone because their opinions may differ to your own.
Now if this was a dictatorship, your statement may have some merit, but to label someone as dangerous for having an opinion is ridiculously close minded, Particularity if you feel it's a controversial argument.
"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view."
Which side of the line you stand on that argument, Ironhorse, determines just how dangerous you actually are as a person in power...
No-one is implementing changes based in their personal opinions and no-one thinks there ideas would damage the game. That's why the CDT is a team... one that discusses changes amongst themselves, UWE and the community. We're supposed to be having a discussion regarding the changes, not attacking someone because their opinions may differ to your own.
I'm fully aware of how a team works and how decisions may or may not be made. My fear (and that's what it is, fear) is that someone who is voicing these opinions and who can articulate themselves very well can be incredibly convincing.
He is in a position to influence other members on the CDT, he is in a position to influence UWE, but most importantly he has is in a higher position to influence other members of the community.
A couple of things he has said over this thread are causes for concern. If I can not convince people of these issues by saying something is wrong, explaining why, and give examples then I must also highlight the fact that he can be dangerously convincing and challenge the community to take his words with a pinch of salt.
I have made it clear that I believe most people in NS2 are not intelligent enough to play the game to it's fullest potential. I extend this thought to forums, posts, and arguments. It's not a nice thing to say but I'm in a privileged position of having no power that I can say it. I therefore hope that some people might take the opportunity to reflect and think about everything more clearly and deeply.
Now if this was a dictatorship, your statement may have some merit, but to label someone as dangerous for having an opinion is ridiculously close minded, Particularity if you feel it's a controversial argument.
"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view."
Well versed people with an opinion on such a polarising topic is dangerous when you consider the implications of that way of thinking.
If you don't balance for the top, and you balance so that an average 1500 hive skilled player can do his job more effectively, the people at the top of the game will do an even better job because they make better decisions, have better aim, have better reflexes.
If you make it hard for the top, you can encourage synergy and team play which trumps the better players and makes them have less of an impact on the game increasing everyone's enjoyment.
Comments
Eh, xeno is mainly good in 20+ player pubs.
I agree, but I imagine that if all lifeforms had something to work with at the same time at 9 biomass, xenocide wouldn't be bad in 6v6-9v9 as it is
This is slightly a tangent as we're just dissecting BB and comeback mechanics, instead of arguing for the need of a mechanic.. but if it helps paint the big picture.. *Shrug*
Your comparison falls short imo because it's not as though dealing with that fade didn't also require a minority of your team, be it clicking a research button (a singular person) or two shotgunners.
Moreover, it's not as though that silent rookie who died to a skulk and a gorge in topo and failed to warn the rest of the team of the potential impending BB was the sole person responsible.
Besides the fact that the commander should have the highest situational awareness from staring at a map during the entirety of commanding, every other person has a map, too, *and* even the most rookie of rookies knows to stick together in a group.
I know, I know, "But Iron, according to you isn't this scenario about the average pub games where commanders and the team in general lack said skills such as situational awareness?"
Yes... and in that case if every member of the team fails to prevent a mistake - not just 1/8th of it - then I say the team needs to learn from its clear mistake, much like how it would be from being on A1 until 15 minutes in because no one said anything at all.. (we've all seen it before)
I completely agree with your assessment of the importance of lane control and the onus it places on the marine skill floor.
But i disagree that mistakes shouldn't be able to be exploited by the losing team. Why is it that a skulk rush on your base - which requires coordination - isn't being brought up at all? Many feel it is a legitimate strategy at any point in the round and if you lose to it that you deserved to because of your own mistakes.
So comparing that to BB: the end results are the same, the method to predict it is the same, the ability to counter it is slightly different and more difficult, (due to timing and combat effectiveness) yet one is considered "cheese" and the other legitimate - even though you can down a powernode faster with 5 skulks than you can with 1 gorge biling, and killing 1 gorge is far far easier than 5 skulks.
So is that it? Because the other team mindlessly zerg rushed your base while you were out of position instead of a lone player doing so, it's magically not considered "cheese" anymore and is fairly exploiting a team's mistakes? What about when aliens enact a beacon to isolate Exos that end up out of position from supporting teammates? This exploits the winning marine team's mistake and one player could have achieved that beacon - is this considered "cheese" too?? There are just dozens of examples of exploiting teams' mistakes, so why is it BB receives a different label? I wonder if powernodes were removed, whether anyone's opinion would change..
I sincerely do not believe
1) A team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
2) Your average pub team could be proficient with lerks in mid-late game scenarios against W3 rines who clearly lane adequately
3) Any mechanic or method that does not have a good chance of moderately impacting the winning team's accrued tech (think 2nd Hive) is a comeback mechanic at all, but instead how your team should have been playing the whole round to prevent said advantageous position.
I definitely get your point though - don't just give away a random free win - make the team work for it, and if possible assist getting them "back in the game"..
So long as you agree that more comeback methods are needed - that's my only argument really - and my take is that the losing team generally can't utilize the typical means to secure a victory, so you're left with a very narrow range of methods they might employ in order to "get back in the game", even moreso if exploiting the winning team's mistakes is off the table.
I just despise the average pub rounds resulting in predictable outcomes the strong majority of the time, it makes the game boring at best and frustratingly pointless at worst.
How to fix this? Remove cysting and power requirements from having functional structures. Why? So the marines can UTILIZE the power nodes to protect their back res when they can afford it, allowing them to UTILIZE their advantage. Why? So aliens don't get trapped in an early res hole from placing cysts over and over so later they can UTILIZE their advantage later by cysting their back to protect it and bolster it's strength.
At the same time, these mechanics could be UTILIZED STRATEGICALLY to take advantage of mistakes to try to get you back in the game. Your base should be relatively safe for the first 5-10 minutes (I haven't thought of the exact timeline, but yea).
You seem to want teams to be able to ruin a game with an insta-win. Instead I want them to be able to better defend themselves in the first place. I also want commanding to be more interesting by allowing the commander to bolster PvP WITHOUT using direct PvE. I think whips are dumb, I think sentries are dumb. I think this because they take away from the FPS aspect without adding anything meaningful to the RTS aspect.
ARCs as they are ruin the epic sieging scenarios that used to exist in NS1. Here's some bullet point changes I'd like to see that wouldn't work well without removing the cysting and power requirements i mentioned above
This would increase the situations in which a siege is even possible, since most maps make it virtually useless. Do I also think that Fades need higher effective health to make this reasonable, yes. Do I also think that marines then need more DPS from shotguns, yes. Do I think that lerks need ranged spores more than umbra, yes. Do I think Observatory scans should go back to energy based, instead of res, yes.
Do I think this would be extremely fun for everyone of all skill levels, fuck yes.
Conversely I guess the argument is why can't marines have a similar mechanic? Well if marines are stuck on one base and is turtling, the aliens WILL have multiple hives and probably enough PvE to make a sneaky assault non viable. I thought I read some where (a long time ago), the alien's goal is to get extra tech points to get into the mid/late game, and the marines are to prevent that. Any time you let aliens on 3 hives for long is almost certain a marine loss, let that be.
Note: this argument doesn't stand when you have fully teched sides (3 hive alien vs. 2 cc marines all on full tech). In that case, it is a matter of strategy and team play to try and weaken your opponent's position (eg. pain train to hive to siege vs. alien's forcing beacon or assaulting multiple locations etc...)
As ironhorse has mentioned already, there's no reason to assume that a 'comeback mechanic' (I'm increasingly disliking that term), can't also be a 'game finisher mechanic'.
They just shouldn't be doing both at once. No mechanic should immediately fully forgive a team that's made mistakes consistently while being unforgiving to a single player or team for their simple mistake.
Last thing you want is Mario party style Bullshit.
Lol are you talking about the awards at the end? Because yea, if you win 19 of 20 minigames, you should probably win if Mario Party was competitive. In which case the awards for random stuff is simply random and shouldn't effect the winner.
You can't compare a zerg rush on base to a gorge bile bombing. One requires a team effort and good coordination and is easy to spot coming (It takes time to get the team together for such a rush - during which there aren't engagements occurring) The other takes a single skulk to get past the marines front line and evolve... Much more difficult to see coming and potentially just as devastating. Even if you get back in time to deal with the gorge(s), they've done a ton of damage to structures (assuming they didn't target the power node) and you'll be sat there for over a minute repairing everything whilst aliens can retake areas of the map.
Personally I don't have an issue with Bilebomb as a mechanic and don't feel it needs to be nerfed... However, I don't like how easy it can be to get deep into marine territory as a skulk before evolving. If you were only able to evolve when on Infestation, it'd come across as much less 'cheesy' as the gorge(s) had to make their way from alien controlled territory into marines base. Either the gorge(s) need support to get past the frontlines from other lifeforms (telegraphing the attack from reduced engagements elsewhere), or the marines have completely failed to cover a lane and deserve to be punished for the mistake.
I don't disagree that the ability to come back from a losing battle is needed, but there's too much focus here on the end-game. It's rare to get to the end-game without the match having already been decided. The early-mid game are far more important, and if you're behind during those stages you've got a real struggle to pull it back.
That said, It would certainly help bring an alien-dominated match to a close if marines had the ability to get out of base (and a reason to try) at the end-game, if only so the aliens could capitalize on the reduced marine presence in base.
I can count on one hand the number of occasions i've been stuck in a marine turtle where I feel we deserved a comeback. Similarly I can count on one hand the number of times i've seen marines win after Xeno is up. It's damn near impossible to push into a room and take out a hive when you've got a couple of skulks blowing up as you bunch up on your way in... So where these complaints of alien end-game tech are coming from I have no idea.. It's just hard to push into marine base when their entire team is inside, which is understandable, and it doesn't help when the aliens sit outside the entrances not allowing marines to escape the room.
Fades are the only lifeform really lacking any useful abilites in such a push.. their third ability slot taken up by "Stab", which in my opinion is absolutely useless. I simply ignore it exists... I'd like to see Vortex make a return, as that can temporarily neutralize Exo's camped in base (or the arms lab).
You clearly believe in merit determining the winner, as do I, so I would assume you would agree that if a winning team gets sloppy, over extends etc, then they should be punished for it, yes?
Well as it stands now basically, in order to determine the winner through *multiple skill sets* there exists many things a team must do correctly, without error. Besides being a more accurate assessment of team skill, this also creates the opportunities to lose to an opponent who couldn't beat you at X, but can at Y.
This design is paramount to ensuring a varied game, both in strategy and skill.
Without it, the winner would be apparent after the first successful engagements / goals, and the round would never be worth playing about beyond that.
It'd be like if the only way basketball was played was by singular standing 3 point free throws - you'd be throwing away all the other many aspects to what makes up a skillful team, to include actual teamwork itself.
Worst of all (besides being dreadfully boring) after a few throws into a leading score, it would seem pointless /demoralizing to try and continue as the losing "team".
All that's being suggested here is improving one area where there really isn't a vulnerability for one team.
Just one subtle mechanic adjustment (FT), by diminishing the impact of increased pub PvE scenarios and decreased coordination, in order to focus on PvP which could allow for a greater chance of varied rounds for the average skilled pub game.
This idea is not targeted to remedy such an occurrence, and in fact as evidence of this, it would be less effective in those cases compared to a more balanced team.
omg
mind=blown
no but seriously, basic zoning/laning can counter these cheese comebacks ez... thing is that ppl on pubs are afraid of being useful/want to grind kills, so this never happens.
You seem to want to give games variety by giving a stomped team an option to, in my opinion, ruin the game. I want to give games variety by giving teams options to prevent being stomped in the first place.
Nope, I'm just one person seeking discussion on an idea I believe has merit.
No different than if you were doing it.
Dangerous would be like prior balance changes where zero discussion was had and things were implemented because a few individuals believed they knew best...
That's pretty much the opposite of my approach. I'd rather beat an idea into the ground by a gauntlet of zealous fans before assuming it was optimal.
Also please direct me to where I've casted aside discussions?? That's quite the damming claim. To my knowledge I've done nothing but engage, providing rebuttals etc. Unless you are confusing actual debate and counter points as dismissive..
I implore you to engage in the actual discussion as well instead of fear mongering and ad hominems from the sidelines, since you clearly care.
On this page alone, I count 5 posts with substance from Ironhorse. I count 1 post from you, with no substance.
Substance is pretty objective. You can disagree with whether that substance is useful or true - I make no statement about whether I think Ironhorse is correct, but I acknowledge his posts have substance.
In Lamb's comment; it is a claim, with nothing to support that claim. In other words, there's nothing to point to, in case you disagree with him. That is what I refer to as substance. And that is all I request that he adds to his post.
I don't want him to pm me, I want him to post it here, cus he brought it up here.
I still have to disagree with FT buff. As an example. (commenting OP) It first needs the marine to be able to move outside the base.
2 cases in Late game (tier 3):
A/ marine are dominant and ruined every hope for aliens to come back. Last chance would be a tunnel bile bomb rush but one marine is the keeper. The bases are guarded with eyes and ears. No need to have a flame thrower... The marines will just finish it.
B/ Marine are not in a good position. And they are locked in their base. What would do a buffed FT ? I don't know.
1 case in mid game (tier 2) :
It would be easier for the marine to kill a second hive with this FT. It's already difficult to defend in a hive while skulks spawn with no upgrade... It would make things worse IMO.
In all cases it's definitely not a come back for the marines.
The marine will take care of bases and be focused on what's important when they will need a second base to be able to buy... i don't know,... a JP. Trust me they will want to keep that base. It will diminish the Bile bomb magnitude as all is not lost with one base down. After all a CC is cheap compared to a hive. 6 players will be a little short but on public no game is 6vs6. More like 7vs7 to 9vs9.
Give alien some air. It would please any Khammander to see this. I think.
*Make the cyst to "spore" when it's destroyed. Some parameters should be added. If it's not fully grown the spore magnitude is greater (max radius, max damaging). If the cyst is older than 5 minutes (must be tuned with testing) it doesn't do any damage. This would prevent too much pressure on Alien RTs (through cyst) and maybe one day we would fight for 50%/50% map control instead of getting kicks in the teeth just to defend the natural for 7 minutes.
This would be possible only with some of the following:
*Slower a little the Alien economy (-5% ?? ).
*Allow Alien players to re-buy the same lifeforms for a cheaper price. In the mean time the beast should be a little weaker (speed or life). This would make the mid-game longer but far more intense. It won't be unforgiving like it is today. Especially for rookies.
*Make BileBomb a little less accessible (expensive? more biomass?)
What would be the come back mechanic ? It there a need to make a come back when you have a mid-game so intense that when you have to say "it's screwed" you don't feel frustrated ?
I mean the best games i had in NS2 were not the ones i did really good and sh|t. It's the one in which the opponent could deliver a great challenge, and kicked back with clever solutions and stuff. And next it was our turn. and so on.
It was on AFB (24slots). That game lasted close to 1 hour 1/2 with greats players. I don't know what happened that day, everyone from the "sweet brutality social club" was there. Like a death rendez-vous. I was on marine and i saw the alien team drop 5 hives (something like that) during that game. This means no one was able to get on top as long a the 2 teams had resources and no one was willing to let the opponent claim a centimeter.
I don't know if you can imagine that; but 12 Super rascals versus 12 cyborg on TRAM is kind of guaranteed bloodshed at every corner. If the game wasn't recycling corpses, it would have crashed i think. In the end the alien lost. Some bad timing. That little thing that made the difference allowed to end the game. It was Epic.
But guess what? The alien team didn't felt bad at all. We were debriefing in RR the game like:
-Wow i lost track, 4.. 5 hives?
-Yeah some like that. And i could do one more. with some lerk eggs.
-daaaaam!
I thanked them that for that game as other marine did. I do not believe anyone was frustrated.
- If early game is protected (each team get something)
- If mid game is little longer (more intense)
- The late game will be a formality
If NS2 can provide that kind of game every time... THAT will be something. I'm afraid a FT buff never will.I've always felt the FT should just be more effective as a direct damage weapon, and come up for another way for marines to make comebacks. Ninja phase gates aren't quite the answer because it requires the whole team to phase in to finish off a hive, which puts the marines in serious risk of a base trade scenario. If anything I think ARCs need something to be better in this situation. In NS1 a ninja phase gate was usually accompanied by siege turrets which the marines could camp without significantly risking their base, in NS2 you don't see that anymore.
I don't think people are saying that these rushes shouldn't be exploited out of manners, it's more a case of being a poor example of a comeback mechanic. If you think that this is an adequate comeback mechanic I fear what you might think is a good idea for marine comebacks.
YES these rushes can win you games but if you think winning a game means you always clearly deserved to win, you're looking at comeback mechanics wrong. Comeback mechanics shouldn't be a backdoor rush with the ability to WRECK a base and reduce the deficit between the teams drastically. A comeback mechanic should be able to help teams reduce the rate at which the deficit grows (or snowball grows), in an attempt that having won enough GOOD plays, you might be able to put yourself in a winning position.
1) They don't suddenly develop, they just suddenly CHOOSE to because their backs are against the walls.
2) You're right but that doesn't detract from it being a good comeback mechanic. Lerks synergise very well with every other lifeform. Lerks are very good at making a comeback after 5 minutes if the marines are in control, however when W3 comes out its like a marine comeback mechanic which then reduces the damage to the marine's winning position by lerks. Fades are even better at doing this role later in the game when marines have more tech.
3) If you're going to ignore how teams should have been playing and just implement something that has a huge impact one of two things will happen.
1 - It will be useless because it will be countered easily.
2 - It will be abused relentlessly by high skilled players because they always have a larger impact in games.
That third point brings me to the infamous and highly controversial argument: A good game must be balanced from the top down in terms of skill or you implement mechanics that higher skilled players will abuse more often and with greater success than other players and so will have a higher impact on games and lead to less fun for the worse players.
Which side of the line you stand on that argument, Ironhorse, determines just how dangerous you actually are as a person in power...
@IronHorse The discussions part may have been a long-shot, my intention was not for it to display aggression. Just that a quick view on a few posts gave me the impression that you're just shutting down ideas without giving it complete thought, though I've not read most of the topic.
Felt like nachos covered it pretty well, powerful last sentence.
No-one is implementing changes based in their personal opinions and no-one thinks there ideas would damage the game. That's why the CDT is a team... one that discusses changes amongst themselves, UWE and the community. We're supposed to be having a discussion regarding the changes, not attacking someone because their opinions may differ to your own.
Now if this was a dictatorship, your statement may have some merit, but to label someone as dangerous for having an opinion is ridiculously close minded, Particularity if you feel it's a controversial argument.
"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view."
I'm fully aware of how a team works and how decisions may or may not be made. My fear (and that's what it is, fear) is that someone who is voicing these opinions and who can articulate themselves very well can be incredibly convincing.
He is in a position to influence other members on the CDT, he is in a position to influence UWE, but most importantly he has is in a higher position to influence other members of the community.
A couple of things he has said over this thread are causes for concern. If I can not convince people of these issues by saying something is wrong, explaining why, and give examples then I must also highlight the fact that he can be dangerously convincing and challenge the community to take his words with a pinch of salt.
I have made it clear that I believe most people in NS2 are not intelligent enough to play the game to it's fullest potential. I extend this thought to forums, posts, and arguments. It's not a nice thing to say but I'm in a privileged position of having no power that I can say it. I therefore hope that some people might take the opportunity to reflect and think about everything more clearly and deeply.
Well versed people with an opinion on such a polarising topic is dangerous when you consider the implications of that way of thinking.
If you don't balance for the top, and you balance so that an average 1500 hive skilled player can do his job more effectively, the people at the top of the game will do an even better job because they make better decisions, have better aim, have better reflexes.
If you make it hard for the top, you can encourage synergy and team play which trumps the better players and makes them have less of an impact on the game increasing everyone's enjoyment.