Are you excited for 1.2?

[Critters]

Yes, that would be you.

wait...i don't get it......what?

[Nux]

As fun as I found taking down human bases with dretches, I do think it's wise to stop it from happening. Since aliens can swarm all the corners of the map at the start, whereas humans are restricted to defending each other in tight groups (when played tactically) it's fair that only they should have the ability (and incentive) to attack the alien base at the start (when evos and credits are low or zero).

This is fair because the aliens can still focus on killing their attackers for points (and thus the ability to attack their base). Mainly, rushing was always easier, swifter and more hard hitting as alien against human and so left a severe lack of balance in the initial game.

EDIT: This, I will mention, is one of few changes I completely agree with so far. I've yet to be persuaded about others such as the new decon system, the new luci and so on.

[Ezra]

I'm not exsited because Trem 1.2 will got Unlagged...

[+ OPTIMUS +]

You say something ezra (hi and welcome back btw)..., and i just realised it yesterday.

i played 1 vs 1 (only dretch vs rifle for frags) with a guy on the European dev server, and despite the slow regeneration rate and the minus 5 hp of the dretch, we both won with the alien side.
just some minutes earlier i mass drived mid-air dretches on a 1.1 server, so i guess there was not much problem with our aim (somewhere around average).

so, aiming was strange a bit, and we didn'T lag at all (both 50-60 ping). i didn'T feel this difference at the USA server and my lag was smoothed there, but the lowping-elitist european players would lose their swiftness maybe if this unlagged mode would stay.
but ofc it requires further tests, if u (anyone) see me in-game let's go and practice there to see.

[Lava Croft]

I'm not exsited because Trem 1.2 will got Unlagged...

Which you can easily turn off, so your argument is flawed.

@OPTIMUS: The Euro MGdev server has unlagged turned off.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

hehe, so I wonder  then if it's 'ON' on the MG dev EU actually :-D

[Lava Croft]

hehe, so I wonder  then if it's 'ON' on the MG dev EU actually :-D

I do not compute.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

oh, sry, i didn't see it at first, now i was surprised it wasn't an [EDIT].

[benmachine]

@OPTIMUS: The Euro MGdev server has unlagged turned off.

I didn't know that.
Doesn't make any sense though. Several of the weapons and classes have been rebalanced because of unlagged, e.g. the chaingun is less powerful, the tyrant's claw length and marauder's claw width have been reduced.

[Nux]

I'm hearing a lot of people saying changes have been made because of deconning; camping; spamming; feeding; lagging. I for one hope these aren't the actual reasons for the proposed gameplay changes.

To remove deconning
[1]Clever but drastic: Remove the base building ability.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Combine deconning with building, such that deconners are forced to only temporarily disrupt (like they always did) and as a result make base moving stupidly easy. [We're picking this?]
[3]Sensible alternative: Don't play with deconners or learn how to deal with them.

To remove camping
[1]Clever but drastic: Remove the base element.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Make the base less safe to stick around. [Are we going with that one?]
[3]Sensible alternative: Don't play with campers or learn how to deal with them.

To remove spamming
[1]Clever but drastic: Remove the shooting feature.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Turn all weapons into mass drivers (exaggeration) by speeding up projectiles and/or lengthening reload times. [Is this what we choose?]
[3]Sensible alternative: Don't play with spammers or learn how to deal with them.

To remove feeding
[1]Clever but drastic: Remove the team points system.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Make all weapons so easy to use that your basic noob will have no choice but to own with them. [shall I tick this one?]
[3]Sensible alternative: Don't play with feeders or learn how to deal with them.

To remove lagging
[1]Clever but drastic: Remove the real-time aspect.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Give the lagging party the benefit of the doubt, so that not just them but all have a distorted perspective [unlagged anyone?]
[3]Sensible alternative: Don't play with laggers or learn how to deal with them.

In general
[1]Clever but drastic: Turn tremulous into something else entirely.
[2]Foolish but less drastic: Remove a characteristic of the game that people can't be bothered to adapt to.
[3]Sensible alternative: Take it as a challenge and live with it.

[1] Can be good but would go against a lot of progress
[2] Can be good too, but screws with an already loved game
[3] I'm currently in favour of as it has no chance of adding unfamiliar problems.

Better the devil you know.

EDIT: Thanks for spell checking the topic title. Now how about changing 'for' to 'about'.

[Slayer.]

[3]Sensible alternative: Take it as a challenge and live with it.

That's the most important thing about Trem. Actully nevermind just not for trem but for all games. There are way too may Flamers and Griefing in video games. If you lose big deal Live With It.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

Nux+Slayer just owned the developement team <.<

[David]

If you say so.
I think all nux did was show his total lack of knowledge of what's been / being done

[+ OPTIMUS +]

but he is right that the game that many guys were almost addicted to, is going to change. safer moving, lower hp aliens, optimizing for unlagged... theese features will make the gema easier for new players ( i guess a big part of the changes are aiming this ), but the old ones will have to face that all they achieved are turning to be doubtfully effective in the next release ;-)

[Slayer.]

If they do release 1.2 big deal. Some people may even make a classic 1.1 Mod. But even if 1.2 does release. We will just learn to get good at it and play 1.2 like 1.1.

[Critters]

Not to be a party pooper but i don't this that is going to happen. Even as good as i am with alien, now it is way to easy, way too easy. I used to be the best hummie but now im not. I still know how to build a base tho. With 1.2 no matter how many turrets you have they don't shoot really.

[kevlarman]

Not to be a party pooper but i don't this that is going to happen. Even as good as i am with alien, now it is way to easy, way too easy. I used to be the best hummie but now im not. I still know how to build a base tho. With 1.2 no matter how many turrets you have they don't shoot really.

that just means that you don't know how to build.

[whitebear]

*nods*
Those turrets can be made deadly or they can be wasted by using trem 1.1 common base layouts.

[blood2.0]

this is how to get rid of camping keep 1.1 turrets but make them sometimes shoot humans in the base this way camping is suicide. i cant mod but if you did that the camping problem would be fixed. Plus i cant stand the speed of lusi's in 1.2 they are even when they are base rushing but when they camping humans are invisible. i really liked lusi's  as humans and as aliens but in 1.2 they are just a noob weapon.   

[techhead]

Uhh, you might be thinking of Tremx with those invisible humans.

[Nux]

If you say so.
I think all nux did was show his total lack of knowledge of what's been / being done

All I did was give possible remedies to these key problems. In doing so I was suggesting that any minor change (a change which doesn't break a core aspect of the game) is just as likely to cause new problems as it is to alleviate old ones. I give the view that familiar problems are preferable to new ones.

In all of this, I've not said that these are the actual reasons for the changes. Only that I hope they aren't.

So how can this be an indication that I know nothing about what has been/is being done? Maybe you could tell me these aren't the reasons for any changes. If deconning, camping, spamming, feeding or lagging have been reasons for changes, would you give me a picture of what has been changed and how it solves the problem?

If on the other hand you just feel like professing ignorance on my part with no detail as to how you came to that conclusion, perhaps you'd be better off stewing in your own private enlightenment.

[tuple]

Well Nux, you just indirectly called everyone working on the 1.2 changes foolish.  Are you now going to be surprised when they don't speak to you in a thoughtful manner, when you haven't choosen to do so?

A lack of common civility is really lacking on these boards.  Can't we all just get along? 

Incidently, people blow all of this out of proportion.  Auto HTTP downloads is what's important.

[Nux]

I'd argue that I've been quite thoughtful in what I've said. The 'foolish' description is a straight forward way of expressing my distaste for it. If I had ONLY stated that it were foolish, I'd be giving no better an argument than the response I've had. Yet I haven't only stated it; I've given reasons and explored alternatives which can be commented upon.

Now, what interests me is that you've inadvertently answered my question. By taking offence to the 'foolish' option it seems to me that [2] must be the choice you're going with. So long as you're seeing everything in it's proper context, am I to understand these ARE the reasons for the changes you have made?

Please understand that I've all the willingness in the world to talk about this rationally and civilly. I do agree with some changes and look forward to seeing the development team make an even greater game out of it.

[David]

Some of the more wrong things you said:

Make the base less safe to stick around. [Are we going with that one?]

Its easier to take a 1.1 base, but build 1.2 style and its just as strong.  Standing on a turret like a retard will get you killed, but thats a good change IMO.

Turn all weapons into mass drivers (exaggeration) by speeding up projectiles and/or lengthening reload times. [Is this what we choose?]

If all = lucy, then sure.

Make all weapons so easy to use that your basic noob will have no choice but to own with them. [shall I tick this one?]

Two teams.  'Own' is, I assume, a relitive term.  Do the math.

Give the lagging party the benefit of the doubt, so that not just them but all have a distorted perspective [unlagged anyone?]

eh?

[Nux]

Some of the more wrong things you said:

Make the base less safe to stick around. [Are we going with that one?]

Its easier to take a 1.1 base, but build 1.2 style and its just as strong.  Standing on a turret like a retard will get you killed, but thats a good change IMO.

Turn all weapons into mass drivers (exaggeration) by speeding up projectiles and/or lengthening reload times. [Is this what we choose?]

If all = lucy, then sure.

Make all weapons so easy to use that your basic noob will have no choice but to own with them. [shall I tick this one?]

Two teams.  'Own' is, I assume, a relitive term.  Do the math.

Give the lagging party the benefit of the doubt, so that not just them but all have a distorted perspective [unlagged anyone?]

eh?

Well firstly I'd like to thank you for addressing my points in detail.

Its easier to take a 1.1 base, but build 1.2 style and its just as strong.  Standing on a turret like a retard will get you killed, but thats a good change IMO.

Does this mean the base is safe, but the people in it aren't? (relatively speaking)
I'd argue that the base being dangerous to aliens at all is cause for camping it. The only disadvantage I see to staying in the base is the difficulty in moving around (you can't dodge as easily). Yet it is the very people who can't dodge anyway who usually choose to camp. Also, given the new optimal base layout (spread out) there is more space to dodge in (for the people who can) and since they used to leave the base because it was too cramped now have less incentive to leave it.

I propose that the camping problem is a natural consequence of having a race that doesn't have ranged attacks versus a race that does and also has a base to use the ranged attacks from.

If all = lucy, then sure.

I said 'all' because you can still spam with other weapons. It's just not as easy. I said 'exaggeration' after all.

As for the sped up luci, when I used it I was astonished by how damn easy it was to kill things with it. I think you've truly made the devil cannon and this is not the devil I know. NOT a welcome change.

Two teams.  'Own' is, I assume, a relitive term.  Do the math.

How about I use an extreme example to illustrate this point. Imagine a game where the only weapon was a button that, when pressed, kills any enemy you like instantly. In this example you might note that the chance of winning or losing a game is 50/50. That sounds fair.

Of course it isn't fun at all. I propose that the fun in a game is the development of skill in the use of tools in the game. I feel as though there is a balance to be struck between how easy they are to pick up for starters, and how much room there is for improvement. Tremulous guns are already quite easy to use for beginners. I don't think they need to be any easier.

eh?

That's just a complaint about the use of unlagged. I snuck that in there for personal reasons. You may ignore it as it's a subject that's been talked to death. Suffice to say, it's a good thing for people who aren't me.

[tuple]

Sorry, I'll speak more directly.  Someone disagreeing with you does not make them foolish.  Thinking it does makes you foolish.

Notice I said everyone working on 1.2.  I am not working on 1.2.  Oh gawd the assumptions...

[Nux]

I described the [2] solution as foolish. If you don't think the [2] solution is foolish, that doesn't make you a fool. If you   have a problem with me calling it foolish then explain to me why it isn't.

Please don't side track the discussion. I could take your offence to the rather soft term 'foolish' to mean you're sensitive to the subject of my post.

Let me state here and now that to take part in this discussion and to oppose me in my views does not make you a fool. I'd be happy to withdraw the use of the term 'foolish' and replace it with 'unfavourable' or 'Choice I personally have little faith in'. This though would still be a phrasing that you may oppose and might like to focus on discussing while side stepping the topic at hand.

I admit I thought you were working on 1.2. I didn't however say you were in my post. I only proposed that you were going with that choice, to mean 'the choice you'd pick' and you may very well know of the reasons for the 1.2 changes better than I do. If someone who IS working on 1.2 could join in I'd appreciate it.

[whitebear]

I described the [2] solution as foolish. If you don't think the [2] solution is foolish, that doesn't make you a fool. If you   have a problem with me calling it foolish then explain to me why it isn't.

why don't you tell us in detail how come it is so foolish? You are not the kind of person I would gladly waste my time discussing how foolish is it to extend some feature to solve problems around it.

[Nux]

'how come it is so foolish?'?

Which 'it' are we referring to? In each of the 'unfavourable' (as I said I would phrase it from now on) options I gave hints as to what problem it might cause.

[2]Foolish but less drastic: Combine deconning with building, such that deconners are forced to only temporarily disrupt (like they always did) and as a result make base moving stupidly easy. [We're picking this?]

This, I thought, was clear enough. The new build system doesn't solve the deconning problem (the reason many have given for it's introduction) and also makes base building a little too easy (in my opinion). Also in my opinion, the notion of a structure vanishing with no builder next to it is crazy. What could be called 'remote deconning' looks silly because there's no indication what just made the structure vanish (whereas the ckit pointing at it in the original system serves as enough of a hint). Particularly, I don't see it as fair that the mara who secured the node from being deconned in a move should have his prize vanish from beneath him.

[2]Foolish but less drastic: Make the base less safe to stick around. [Are we going with that one?]

Does this mean the base is safe, but the people in it aren't? (relatively speaking)
I'd argue that the base being dangerous to aliens at all is cause for camping it. The only disadvantage I see to staying in the base is the difficulty in moving around (you can't dodge as easily). Yet it is the very people who can't dodge anyway who usually choose to camp. Also, given the new optimal base layout (spread out) there is more space to dodge in (for the people who can) and since they used to leave the base because it was too cramped now have less incentive to leave it.

I propose that the camping problem is a natural consequence of having a race that doesn't have ranged attacks versus a race that does and also has a base to use the ranged attacks from.

The more you make this change effective, the less you need the base at all. If you have the turrets do a bad job of protecting humans, then how can they still be good at protecting the base? This problem is more about balance and I'm optimistic that improvements could be made. That said, I don't think you're going to eliminate camping this way. New players will still be safer in the base than out. You could very easily end up contributing to the feeding problem.

[2]Foolish but less drastic: Turn all weapons into mass drivers (exaggeration) by speeding up projectiles and/or lengthening reload times. [Is this what we choose?]

As for the sped up luci, when I used it I was astonished by how damn easy it was to kill things with it. I think you've truly made the devil cannon and this is not the devil I know. NOT a welcome change.

This change will detract from some of the variation of weapons in the game and/or make more powerful weapons more potent than is in my opinion fair.

[2]Foolish but less drastic: Make all weapons so easy to use that your basic noob will have no choice but to own with them. [shall I tick this one?]

How about I use an extreme example to illustrate this point. Imagine a game where the only weapon was a button that, when pressed, kills any enemy you like instantly. In this example you might note that the chance of winning or losing a game is 50/50. That sounds fair.

Of course it isn't fun at all. I propose that the fun in a game is the development of skill in the use of tools in the game. I feel as though there is a balance to be struck between how easy they are to pick up for starters, and how much room there is for improvement. Tremulous guns are already quite easy to use for beginners. I don't think they need to be any easier.

This change could make the game less interesting for long term players. My fear is that too much emphasis is being put on balancing public games (full of new players) and not enough thought is going into the minority of 'experienced' matches.

[2]Foolish but less drastic: Give the lagging party the benefit of the doubt, so that not just them but all have a distorted perspective [unlagged anyone?]

I personally don't like how a faulty or slow connection is 'trusted' as much as a fast/clean connection. I can see how it can be liked though so I won't bring it up again.

[gareth]

this thread is rapidly turning into the "when is 1.2 coming out" thread. you would save yourself a lot of bother to realise that not only will 1.2 will never come out, but the crappy mgdev changes that every hates because they are "too stupid" is not 1.2 but just a mod which less people play then tremx.