Timings are a balance question. You cannot argue about balance with the help of data that shows average values on pubs. You are ignoring 99% of the important factors.
The other point is, the mechanic of exos themselves are just bad, especially railgun. The first thing that should be thought about is how to make exos gameplay better, or atleast railguns gameplay.
Just remove dual railguns and MAYBE buff the single railgun damage or fire rate just a bit. Dual railgun is ridiculously unwieldy for most players and is the reason why the double shot exists anyways.
TP-wise, I'd have to agree with IronHorse. I have always liked tying a bit of the end-game marine tech to a second cc, it makes alien pushes more interesting and, like IronHorse said, would allow Alien game-ending tech to be nerfed a bit. Likewise, I have always been against hard timers for round progression.
I've never understood the argument that they shouldn't do that to make marines more asymmetrical, it sounds so stupid. What's the point of making it "artificially" more asymmetrical if it doesn't contribute to the game experience?
MephillesGermanyJoin Date: 2013-08-07Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
edited May 2017
@The_Welsh_Wizard what kind of data is he supposed to base his opinion then? competitive? I don't know if you have noticed but compmod differs too much from vanilla already to take data for vanilla ns2 from there.
Oh and while I agree that exo gameplay should be more fun for both sides, I can't think of a single way to make that happen tbh.
Either make exos into heavy armor equivalents, with a lot less firepower, less armor, smaller in statue, meddable, able to phase, and less expensive or make exos a TRES tech like arcs, where the marine commander drops them exclusively, but all marines get beaconed out of their suit.
(can't edit this in for some reason)
The heavy armor exo would be safer for the aliens to kill, while having more mobility and the ability to get medpacks.
The TRES exo version would mostly remain the same, but one forced beacon during a hive push should be enough to take out the exo. You would just have to force one beacon and kill the empty exos, while the exo pilot himself doesn't get screwed over by the beacon, losing his PRES.
MephillesGermanyJoin Date: 2013-08-07Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
tbh against a decent exo player with support this is the only way you can deal with anyway. A Wobby railgun with with 2 herakles as support (maybe a bad example to take those specific players but you'll get the point) is not something you can easily deal with so you have to get rid of the heraklesses first (with a beacon) and then ther still need to be enough aliens at hive to crush the exo. So you need a large number of aliens to be a threat for the base and a large number of aliens to kill the exo. When the beacon happens the exo would run away closer towards the PG in a position where it is even harder to kill him until he has support again. So the TRES idea wouldn't rly change much here.
But how about we agree to a point on how exo should be gameplay wise and how we want players to deal with them.
Personally the thing that I dislike most about exos is the fact that I can't dodge bites and swipes. Instead we have a unit that tanks everything and imo tanking is not as engaging as dodging.
@The_Welsh_Wizard what kind of data is he supposed to base his opinion then? competitive? I don't know if you have noticed but compmod differs too much from vanilla already to take data for vanilla ns2 from there.
Oh and while I agree that exo gameplay should be more fun for both sides, I can't think of a single way to make that happen tbh.
The point that you even need a comp mod says enough about the current state of vanilla. Making comp mod vanilla would be a good start.
Also you can have every data assist you, but you cannot point out a single data and use it as a sole reason to change balance. Public meta is completely flawed and Public play is full of randomness. Also you Must not forget this is an RTS game, having marine Tier 3 tech coming up at the same time as alien Tier 3 is non sense.
I could say: Marines get weapons 3 much faster than aliens get third hive, so should we reduce hive cost to 20?
@Vetinari: That is a problem of meta, not a problem of gameplay Design. However it might be a problem of how the game teaches alien gameplay (or that it doesn't teach it). But maybe if aliens could get to base Rush more often, it would teach marines map and lande awareness automatically.
I like the idea of making Exos heavy armor the most. At best you would also remove minigun and railgun and simply make them buy whichever marine weapon they want to carry. At the very best you would remove armor upgrades completely and make different armors researchable that marines have to buy with pres, but I know many people would not like that.
tbh against a decent exo player with support this is the only way you can deal with anyway. A Wobby railgun with with 2 herakles as support (maybe a bad example to take those specific players but you'll get the point) is not something you can easily deal with so you have to get rid of the heraklesses first (with a beacon) and then ther still need to be enough aliens at hive to crush the exo. So you need a large number of aliens to be a threat for the base and a large number of aliens to kill the exo. When the beacon happens the exo would run away closer towards the PG in a position where it is even harder to kill him until he has support again. So the TRES idea wouldn't rly change much here.
Correct, the aliens can not deal with exos. Even if you outnumber the exos 1:3, there is still a high chance of losing life forms. So, if the exo's are not meant to be fought against safely, then there should be a way to deal with them without fighting them at all.
Currently, the only safe play against exos is base trading, which is boring and not practical in public play.
The TRES change does change much. Sure, the exo will move back, but even if he sees the beacon coming beforehand and moves directly to the pg, it would still require only one or two aliens to kill the suit when the marines are beaconed back and then need to phase again.
In any case, the whole exo meta would be more forgiving for both sides. It would be less of an all-in kind of thing.
... we have a unit that tanks everything and imo tanking is not as engaging as dodging.
And this is exactly why XOs are popular on pub games. Low-mid players are perfectly happy with an iron suit that makes them feel invulnerable (but only lulling them into a sense of false security x)
That's perfectly reasonable, though personally I'd rather fly around with a JP and dodge aliens.
Late-game tanking for marines is necessary imo, but i do agree that it should be spiced up a bit.
How about... allowing exos to use purchased grenades? But with the caveat that it cannot be thrown, only triggered. Used grenades would "explode" at the origin of the exo. The most useful thing that i can think of would be using a pulse grenade to stop the aliens from chowing on you for a few sec. But cluster and nerve nades would be quite useful too.
But that would mean exos have to use armoury to buy stuff.. which is not implemented atm. Or, you would simply have to leave your suit to buy nades, which would also negate xo grenade spam.
The point that you even need a comp mod says enough about the current state of vanilla. Making comp mod vanilla would be a good start.
Also you can have every data assist you, but you cannot point out a single data and use it as a sole reason to change balance. Public meta is completely flawed and Public play is full of randomness.
Balancing around competitive play is what led to extremely difficult to use Lerks and Fades in the first place (...I have been told by @BeigeAlert , sorry for dragging you into this, I know you hate balance discussions), which created the shitty pub meta we have right now. You would only make the problem worse.
Also you Must not forget this is an RTS game, having marine Tier 3 tech coming up at the same time as alien Tier 3 is non sense.
I could say: Marines get weapons 3 much faster than aliens get third hive, so should we reduce hive cost to 20?
Yes, but it is also an FPS. You have to consider the gameplay of the grunts, too.
@Vetinari: That is a problem of meta, not a problem of gameplay Design. However it might be a problem of how the game teaches alien gameplay (or that it doesn't teach it). But maybe if aliens could get to base Rush more often, it would teach marines map and lande awareness automatically.
No, it's a problem with skill differences and design, see first point.
And I think you'll be the first to complain when more pub games will be won or lost by rushes.
... we have a unit that tanks everything and imo tanking is not as engaging as dodging.
And this is exactly why XOs are popular on pub games. Low-mid players are perfectly happy with an iron suit that makes them feel invulnerable (but only lulling them into a sense of false security x)
That's perfectly reasonable, though personally I'd rather fly around with a JP and dodge aliens.
Both Meph and trixx raise very important points here. Imo tanky exos for pub are a good thing. Compmod can always find their own balance.
Explains current pubmeta (aka onos plosion) rly well tbh
I know... I'm not too happy about it either, but you gotta make do with what you have (for now) Most of the (low-mid) players respond rather well to coordinated pushes when wearing a suit.
Maybe the intercom is louder in an exo? x)
MephillesGermanyJoin Date: 2013-08-07Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
I wonder if, hypothetically, onos get nerfed to the ground, if fades and lerks will be more frequent then... (not saying that this is a good idea)... nah this will probably derail this thread too much anyway. But yeah when I come back to bicsums ideas I would like to see the TRES only exos. While I also like the idea of the heavy armor, I think the probability of that going through is not very high.
The point that you even need a comp mod says enough about the current state of vanilla. Making comp mod vanilla would be a good start.
Also you can have every data assist you, but you cannot point out a single data and use it as a sole reason to change balance. Public meta is completely flawed and Public play is full of randomness.
Balancing around competitive play is what led to extremely difficult to use Lerks and Fades in the first place (...I have been told by @BeigeAlert , sorry for dragging you into this, I know you hate balance discussions), which created the shitty pub meta we have right now. You would only make the problem worse.
Since I started playing this game (4 years ago), the game was at no point balanced around high level competitive play. Hence comp mod. Also when I look at NS1, even though the controls may be a bit different, the general concept of lerks and fades don't seem to have changed much. I have serious doubts your statement that balancing around comp play has anything to do with the difficulty of learning lifeforms is true. Also, you are not considering this game has huge skill disparities on both sides. A marine is also very difficult to use properly. A rookies ability to play lerk or fade should be measured in an environment in which he plays in a rookie team versus a marine rookie team.
Also I don't hate balance discussoins, but I believe 99% of NS2 players are not competent enough to judge balance, me included. But it is still good if everyone thinks about balance and explains his issues he thinks he is experiencing. The problem I have is, many people often give balance proposals in which they have ideas about changing the gameplay or mechanics of the game to alter balance, but I think you should never do that.
Also you Must not forget this is an RTS game, having marine Tier 3 tech coming up at the same time as alien Tier 3 is non sense.
I could say: Marines get weapons 3 much faster than aliens get third hive, so should we reduce hive cost to 20?
Yes, but it is also an FPS. You have to consider the gameplay of the grunts, too.
The fundamental of the game is RTS. That is because it is a res game. That means you MUST be able to get advantage out of doing a better a better job of gathering resources than your opponent. That advantage should only be a potential though, a potential that must be used properly.
By trying to make both sides always get to the same tier tech at the same time, you are proposing removing the fundamentals of the RTS aspects of the game. I know I am exaggerating here, but this is the direction IronHorse is trying to head to. FPS aspects are only the mechanical aspects of the troops in the game. You must not lose the perspective of the RTS view.
And this is not a personal affront versus IronHorse, I know sometimes it might look like that. People like different parts about the game. IronHorse wants the things in the game he dislikes having a smaller impact, and I want the same, but I dislike different things. This is the same for every other player. And the reason why you need a well documented and thoughtout game design philosophy before even starting to really work on the game and should stay forever. Something like that doesn't exist (or doesn't exist anymore maybe) and if it does, it is not being used. I believe that is a part of the problem why the game updates on gameplay become more and more random. Sure, there is the goal to increase rookie retention, but it doesn't say anything about gameplay design rules.
@Vetinari: That is a problem of meta, not a problem of gameplay Design. However it might be a problem of how the game teaches alien gameplay (or that it doesn't teach it). But maybe if aliens could get to base Rush more often, it would teach marines map and lande awareness automatically.
No, it's a problem with skill differences and design, see first point.
And I think you'll be the first to complain when more pub games will be won or lost by rushes.
I think aliens don't go base nearly often enough. I do not complain about base rushes, I complain about aliens wasting all game long their pres on gorges and sneaky tunnels, no matter the game state or situation. This has also led to the thinking that no matter what you do as aliens, you either win with a base rush or you lose. People don't use it as a strategic choice, but because they think it is what they are supposed to be doing as aliens.
... we have a unit that tanks everything and imo tanking is not as engaging as dodging.
And this is exactly why XOs are popular on pub games. Low-mid players are perfectly happy with an iron suit that makes them feel invulnerable (but only lulling them into a sense of false security x)
That's perfectly reasonable, though personally I'd rather fly around with a JP and dodge aliens.
Both Meph and trixx raise very important points here. Imo tanky exos for pub are a good thing. Compmod can always find their own balance.
I disagree pub and comp balance should be different. I believe balance should be different for different playercounts though. Also I don't think the problem with exos lies in their tankyness, it lies in their playstyle. I mean I promote the option being able to purchase heavy armor in general.
Since I started playing this game (4 years ago), the game was at no point balanced around high level competitive play. Hence comp mod.
No, the game is not balanced for comp. But as far as I've been told, the people responsible for balancing right now have a comp mindset and are pushing in that general direction.
Also when I look at NS1, even though the controls may be a bit different, the general concept of lerks and fades don't seem to have changed much. I have serious doubts your statement that balancing around comp play has anything to do with the difficulty of learning lifeforms is true.
The thing is that Lerks and Fades are really fragile and expensive, and allow no room for mistakes. When you realize you fucked up you are already dead. Couple this with a high res investment into these lifeforms and the high effectiveness of skulks->Onos and the bigger room for mistakes on Onos and the general pubber won't pick up Lerk and Fade all that often.
Also, you are not considering this game has huge skill disparities on both sides. A marine is also very difficult to use properly.
Yes, but you get unlimited free marines. Like skulks. Like skulks they are also pretty effective without expensive upgrades. (Shotguns)
They are also more intuitive to pick up for the average player.
A rookies ability to play lerk or fade should be measured in an environment in which he plays in a rookie team versus a marine rookie team.
This is sadly an ideal that we can never apply to practical situations.
Also I don't hate balance discussoins
No, beige does, sorry I wasn't clear there.
The fundamental of the game is RTS. That is because it is a res game. That means you MUST be able to get advantage out of doing a better a better job of gathering resources than your opponent. That advantage should only be a potential though, a potential that must be used properly.
Yes, the fundamentals of NS2 are RTS, but that doesn't mean you can just throw everything else out of the window. FPS is an important part of this game and you have to keep it in mind.
By trying to make both sides always get to the same tier tech at the same time, you are proposing removing the fundamentals of the RTS aspects of the game. I know I am exaggerating here, but this is the direction IronHorse is trying to head to. FPS aspects are only the mechanical aspects of the troops in the game. You must not lose the perspective of the RTS view.
But we're not actually advocating for artificially making tech available at the same time. The game should just remain fun at all stages, and the key to that is not allowing the power disparity to become too big.
I disagree pub and comp balance should be different.
In this thread I have seen two incompatible thoughts. One is that NS2 has been balanced around pub games, which is the problem. The other is that NS2 has been balanced around comp games, which is the problem. This is an age old argument in NS2. Neither is entirely correct, and both have a bit of truth to them. The discussion needs to move beyond comp vs pub. If it can not, this discussion already ended.
BeigeAlertTexasJoin Date: 2013-08-08Member: 186657Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
At this point in NS2's life... every. single. decision we consider is tested against "will this help new players learn the game?" "will new players find this enjoyable", or more generally just "will this be good for new players?".
In this thread I have seen two incompatible thoughts. One is that NS2 has been balanced around pub games, which is the problem. The other is that NS2 has been balanced around comp games, which is the problem. This is an age old argument in NS2. Neither is entirely correct, and both have a bit of truth to them. The discussion needs to move beyond comp vs pub. If it can not, this discussion already ended.
At this point in NS2's life... every. single. decision we consider is tested against "will this help new players learn the game?" "will new players find this enjoyable", or more generally just "will this be good for new players?".
At this point in NS2's life... every. single. decision we consider is tested against "will this help new players learn the game?" "will new players find this enjoyable", or more generally just "will this be good for new players?".
That is useful information for this thread. Any suggestions for railguns must help rookies, and preferably make the exo better for all skill levels.
At this point in NS2's life... every. single. decision we consider is tested against "will this help new players learn the game?" "will new players find this enjoyable", or more generally just "will this be good for new players?".
That is useful information for this thread. Any suggestions for railguns must help rookies, and preferably make the exo better for all skill levels.
Ugh the problem with these statements is that it is rare that people think about the "victims" of these mechanics, I.e. The alien lifeforms this will affect (particularly rookies using which lifeform), so you make it easier for railguns to be used but harder on rookie aliens.
This is why you balance from the top down to reduce the abuse rookies get by the better players.
Honestly a lot of complaints coming from lower skilled players about "balancing around comp" or high level play is like voting against your self interest.
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 May 2017
I've said this before multiple times, but I'll say it again because I think it helps establish common ground between the opposing camps that Nordic pointed out:
I've seen it said for many years now that public game data cannot be reliably used as a metric. I humbly disagree and feel this is naive and akin to putting blinders on. When designing for a game involving varying skill ranges, at a minimum you must account for two things
What CAN happen (skill ceiling)
What WILL happen (average, and potentially a major percentage of your playerbase)
If those two factors have a large gap between them in terms of frequency of occurrence - often due to very high skill ceilings - then failing to account for both, will bring negative outcomes.
Ignoring the first one creates exploitable scenarios for the more skilled, generally creating unenjoyable experiences for the masses who cannot compete, and often widening the skill gap, sometimes just through uncommunicated game knowledge or unintended interactions.
Ignoring the second one is often ignoring the strong majority of player experiences. So what if player A can do X, Y, and Z if 99% of your customers cannot? What if X,Y, and Z are the meat and potatoes of your design, does that mean your design is doomed to apply only to those few players?
You must account for both data sets, imho.
With that being said, that data I pulled from was not exclusively pub games @The_Welsh_Wizard , that is from all NS2+ games.
I realize that's not ideal because it's not isolating comp from pub, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
MephillesGermanyJoin Date: 2013-08-07Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
When I propose changes the first thing I think is "Is it fun using it?" and the second thought is "Is it fun encoutering it". I prioritize fun over balance since this generally adresses all players. Main question for me is "what is fun?".
I know fun for me are fancy movement mechanics that allows you to outplay your opponent with movement alone. If you need to put some time in it to actually master then it is even better.
This is for me though, I'd rly like to know what the average pubber considers fun.
The marines research exos:
What can happen:
The marine players mindfully buy exos, taking into account the fact that every additional exo leaves your economy and base more vulnerable.
What will happen:
The marine players buy exos, because they're researched and they have res.
The aliens spot an exo train:
What can happen:
The aliens go for the back res, stall the exos and rush the marine base when the exos are out of position.
What will happen:
The aliens keep throwing lifeforms at the exos trying to defend. Often times lifeforms are traded for exos.
Most engagements are all-ins for either the aliens or the exo, because as alien, you reach the point of no return before you reach the exo, even if the exo isn't in the greatest position.
I think the exo gameplay is not good at any point of the skill spectrum and is only fun for an expirienced exo pilot against a non-strategical alien team.
At this point in NS2's life... every. single. decision we consider is tested against "will this help new players learn the game?" "will new players find this enjoyable", or more generally just "will this be good for new players?".
Please do remember to also account for "will veterans benefit much more than new players?". Anything helpful for new players, the better players can abuse further. I look at the hitbox change and the bite/swipe cone change and then I look at the average pub player and I despair. Hardly any improvement at all. They barely crack 15% for marines if that. While the top players hardly drop below 30% now.
I don't care that it was "for better hit reg". That may be true, but it is also a balance issue.
Anyway, regarding 2 TPs for exos, I sincerely hope not. I dread the days of comms holding bad pgs in TPs. Please no. Not unless you want marine win rate to drop further.
Requiring Marines to have build additional bases to reach their full potential goes against the core of NS which is alien expansion denial.
Not to mention in early NS2 that restriction was removed due to the inclusion of 4 techpoint maps.
That is not the core. It's just been that way since 250.
The core is map control, for both teams, not specifically and exclusively denying aliens. In fact the original design pillars and documents make this very clear.
That perception of simply denying aliens arose from the artificial timer that came from dealing with the byproduct that came from said untying.
Lastly, the decision to untie it never had anything to do with the number of tech points on a map.
I'm all for discussing the merits of either approach.. (it's rarely been done) so long as the history and reasoning behind the decisions are clear for everyone, so we're not chasing ghosts.
Comments
The other point is, the mechanic of exos themselves are just bad, especially railgun. The first thing that should be thought about is how to make exos gameplay better, or atleast railguns gameplay.
TP-wise, I'd have to agree with IronHorse. I have always liked tying a bit of the end-game marine tech to a second cc, it makes alien pushes more interesting and, like IronHorse said, would allow Alien game-ending tech to be nerfed a bit. Likewise, I have always been against hard timers for round progression.
I've never understood the argument that they shouldn't do that to make marines more asymmetrical, it sounds so stupid. What's the point of making it "artificially" more asymmetrical if it doesn't contribute to the game experience?
Oh and while I agree that exo gameplay should be more fun for both sides, I can't think of a single way to make that happen tbh.
The heavy armor exo would be safer for the aliens to kill, while having more mobility and the ability to get medpacks.
The TRES exo version would mostly remain the same, but one forced beacon during a hive push should be enough to take out the exo. You would just have to force one beacon and kill the empty exos, while the exo pilot himself doesn't get screwed over by the beacon, losing his PRES.
But how about we agree to a point on how exo should be gameplay wise and how we want players to deal with them.
Personally the thing that I dislike most about exos is the fact that I can't dodge bites and swipes. Instead we have a unit that tanks everything and imo tanking is not as engaging as dodging.
The point that you even need a comp mod says enough about the current state of vanilla. Making comp mod vanilla would be a good start.
Also you can have every data assist you, but you cannot point out a single data and use it as a sole reason to change balance. Public meta is completely flawed and Public play is full of randomness. Also you Must not forget this is an RTS game, having marine Tier 3 tech coming up at the same time as alien Tier 3 is non sense.
I could say: Marines get weapons 3 much faster than aliens get third hive, so should we reduce hive cost to 20?
@Vetinari: That is a problem of meta, not a problem of gameplay Design. However it might be a problem of how the game teaches alien gameplay (or that it doesn't teach it). But maybe if aliens could get to base Rush more often, it would teach marines map and lande awareness automatically.
Correct, the aliens can not deal with exos. Even if you outnumber the exos 1:3, there is still a high chance of losing life forms. So, if the exo's are not meant to be fought against safely, then there should be a way to deal with them without fighting them at all.
Currently, the only safe play against exos is base trading, which is boring and not practical in public play.
The TRES change does change much. Sure, the exo will move back, but even if he sees the beacon coming beforehand and moves directly to the pg, it would still require only one or two aliens to kill the suit when the marines are beaconed back and then need to phase again.
In any case, the whole exo meta would be more forgiving for both sides. It would be less of an all-in kind of thing.
And this is exactly why XOs are popular on pub games. Low-mid players are perfectly happy with an iron suit that makes them feel invulnerable (but only lulling them into a sense of false security x)
That's perfectly reasonable, though personally I'd rather fly around with a JP and dodge aliens.
Late-game tanking for marines is necessary imo, but i do agree that it should be spiced up a bit.
How about... allowing exos to use purchased grenades? But with the caveat that it cannot be thrown, only triggered. Used grenades would "explode" at the origin of the exo. The most useful thing that i can think of would be using a pulse grenade to stop the aliens from chowing on you for a few sec. But cluster and nerve nades would be quite useful too.
But that would mean exos have to use armoury to buy stuff.. which is not implemented atm. Or, you would simply have to leave your suit to buy nades, which would also negate xo grenade spam.
A-men Brother!
Balancing around competitive play is what led to extremely difficult to use Lerks and Fades in the first place (...I have been told by @BeigeAlert , sorry for dragging you into this, I know you hate balance discussions), which created the shitty pub meta we have right now. You would only make the problem worse.
Yes, but it is also an FPS. You have to consider the gameplay of the grunts, too.
No, it's a problem with skill differences and design, see first point.
And I think you'll be the first to complain when more pub games will be won or lost by rushes.
Both Meph and trixx raise very important points here. Imo tanky exos for pub are a good thing. Compmod can always find their own balance.
Explains current pubmeta (aka onos plosion) rly well tbh
I know... I'm not too happy about it either, but you gotta make do with what you have (for now)
Maybe the intercom is louder in an exo? x)
Also I don't hate balance discussoins, but I believe 99% of NS2 players are not competent enough to judge balance, me included. But it is still good if everyone thinks about balance and explains his issues he thinks he is experiencing. The problem I have is, many people often give balance proposals in which they have ideas about changing the gameplay or mechanics of the game to alter balance, but I think you should never do that. The fundamental of the game is RTS. That is because it is a res game. That means you MUST be able to get advantage out of doing a better a better job of gathering resources than your opponent. That advantage should only be a potential though, a potential that must be used properly.
By trying to make both sides always get to the same tier tech at the same time, you are proposing removing the fundamentals of the RTS aspects of the game. I know I am exaggerating here, but this is the direction IronHorse is trying to head to. FPS aspects are only the mechanical aspects of the troops in the game. You must not lose the perspective of the RTS view.
And this is not a personal affront versus IronHorse, I know sometimes it might look like that. People like different parts about the game. IronHorse wants the things in the game he dislikes having a smaller impact, and I want the same, but I dislike different things. This is the same for every other player. And the reason why you need a well documented and thoughtout game design philosophy before even starting to really work on the game and should stay forever. Something like that doesn't exist (or doesn't exist anymore maybe) and if it does, it is not being used. I believe that is a part of the problem why the game updates on gameplay become more and more random. Sure, there is the goal to increase rookie retention, but it doesn't say anything about gameplay design rules.
I think aliens don't go base nearly often enough. I do not complain about base rushes, I complain about aliens wasting all game long their pres on gorges and sneaky tunnels, no matter the game state or situation. This has also led to the thinking that no matter what you do as aliens, you either win with a base rush or you lose. People don't use it as a strategic choice, but because they think it is what they are supposed to be doing as aliens.
I disagree pub and comp balance should be different. I believe balance should be different for different playercounts though. Also I don't think the problem with exos lies in their tankyness, it lies in their playstyle. I mean I promote the option being able to purchase heavy armor in general.
No, the game is not balanced for comp. But as far as I've been told, the people responsible for balancing right now have a comp mindset and are pushing in that general direction.
The thing is that Lerks and Fades are really fragile and expensive, and allow no room for mistakes. When you realize you fucked up you are already dead. Couple this with a high res investment into these lifeforms and the high effectiveness of skulks->Onos and the bigger room for mistakes on Onos and the general pubber won't pick up Lerk and Fade all that often.
Yes, but you get unlimited free marines. Like skulks. Like skulks they are also pretty effective without expensive upgrades. (Shotguns)
They are also more intuitive to pick up for the average player.
This is sadly an ideal that we can never apply to practical situations.
No, beige does, sorry I wasn't clear there.
Yes, the fundamentals of NS2 are RTS, but that doesn't mean you can just throw everything else out of the window. FPS is an important part of this game and you have to keep it in mind.
But we're not actually advocating for artificially making tech available at the same time. The game should just remain fun at all stages, and the key to that is not allowing the power disparity to become too big.
I think this view is out of touch with reality.
Yeah I know some names that are responsible for that and I trust them that they do a good job.
Fair enough. I must have misunderstood, then.
That is useful information for this thread. Any suggestions for railguns must help rookies, and preferably make the exo better for all skill levels.
Ugh the problem with these statements is that it is rare that people think about the "victims" of these mechanics, I.e. The alien lifeforms this will affect (particularly rookies using which lifeform), so you make it easier for railguns to be used but harder on rookie aliens.
This is why you balance from the top down to reduce the abuse rookies get by the better players.
Honestly a lot of complaints coming from lower skilled players about "balancing around comp" or high level play is like voting against your self interest.
I've seen it said for many years now that public game data cannot be reliably used as a metric. I humbly disagree and feel this is naive and akin to putting blinders on.
When designing for a game involving varying skill ranges, at a minimum you must account for two things
If those two factors have a large gap between them in terms of frequency of occurrence - often due to very high skill ceilings - then failing to account for both, will bring negative outcomes.
Ignoring the first one creates exploitable scenarios for the more skilled, generally creating unenjoyable experiences for the masses who cannot compete, and often widening the skill gap, sometimes just through uncommunicated game knowledge or unintended interactions.
Ignoring the second one is often ignoring the strong majority of player experiences. So what if player A can do X, Y, and Z if 99% of your customers cannot? What if X,Y, and Z are the meat and potatoes of your design, does that mean your design is doomed to apply only to those few players?
You must account for both data sets, imho.
With that being said, that data I pulled from was not exclusively pub games @The_Welsh_Wizard , that is from all NS2+ games.
I realize that's not ideal because it's not isolating comp from pub, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
I know fun for me are fancy movement mechanics that allows you to outplay your opponent with movement alone. If you need to put some time in it to actually master then it is even better.
This is for me though, I'd rly like to know what the average pubber considers fun.
What can happen:
The marine players mindfully buy exos, taking into account the fact that every additional exo leaves your economy and base more vulnerable.
What will happen:
The marine players buy exos, because they're researched and they have res.
The aliens spot an exo train:
What can happen:
The aliens go for the back res, stall the exos and rush the marine base when the exos are out of position.
What will happen:
The aliens keep throwing lifeforms at the exos trying to defend. Often times lifeforms are traded for exos.
Most engagements are all-ins for either the aliens or the exo, because as alien, you reach the point of no return before you reach the exo, even if the exo isn't in the greatest position.
I think the exo gameplay is not good at any point of the skill spectrum and is only fun for an expirienced exo pilot against a non-strategical alien team.
Please do remember to also account for "will veterans benefit much more than new players?". Anything helpful for new players, the better players can abuse further. I look at the hitbox change and the bite/swipe cone change and then I look at the average pub player and I despair. Hardly any improvement at all. They barely crack 15% for marines if that. While the top players hardly drop below 30% now.
I don't care that it was "for better hit reg". That may be true, but it is also a balance issue.
Anyway, regarding 2 TPs for exos, I sincerely hope not. I dread the days of comms holding bad pgs in TPs. Please no. Not unless you want marine win rate to drop further.
Not to mention in early NS2 that restriction was removed due to the inclusion of 4 techpoint maps.
That is not the core. It's just been that way since 250.
The core is map control, for both teams, not specifically and exclusively denying aliens. In fact the original design pillars and documents make this very clear.
That perception of simply denying aliens arose from the artificial timer that came from dealing with the byproduct that came from said untying.
Lastly, the decision to untie it never had anything to do with the number of tech points on a map.
I'm all for discussing the merits of either approach.. (it's rarely been done) so long as the history and reasoning behind the decisions are clear for everyone, so we're not chasing ghosts.