VS mode locked to normal

**-RaYne-** · 12-06-08, 12:14 PM

Im sorry. What i meant by infected not meant to kill, i meant like going toe to toe. Like TDM style, which i stated that is not the job of infected. Yes, the infected are supposed to do the killing but in a tactical way when the horde is distracting. I should have re-phrased that but i hope you understand what i mean to say now.

**Kaizoku** · 12-06-08, 01:58 PM

I can't accept your premise, I just can't accept that the infected aren't suppose to try to kill the survivors outright, but instead are suppose to road block them as much as they can and *hopefully* (luckily) make them make a mistake. All hunters can do is a direct attack, and the best places for cover and attacks are choke points such as alleys. And if you get 7-10 co-ordinated attacks off involving 3 or 4 of the survivors, they're doing it wrong.

I can't accept the premise that the survivors are somehow suppose to somehow have an advantage while being swarmed and pestered by 4 other players.

**RobotJesus** · 12-06-08, 01:59 PM

OP made a lot of good points.

I agree that the horde isnt supposed to be the main point of damage, but i will say, even on normal, 1 guy alone surronded by a lot of zomibes takes great hits. 2 damage per hit, probably about 2-3 seconds in between hits, a mob of 15 does about 10dps. If left unchecked for 5 seconds or so, thats an easy down.

I do think though that they need to up the tank health a bit, and make fire actually do damage to him though in VS. I think Valve needs to make more of a disticntion between Vs and Coop, like they did with the melee spam (btw OP, you cant spam melee in vs like you can in coop, it has severe diminishing returns, a good group can spam melee, but not an individual.)

I do have one major problem though, and that for those of us you dont own servers, we cant change the difficulty to advanced or expert even if everyone wants to. I played a game with friends only on expert and it was a blast, ridiculously difficult for both teams as survivors, but it was fun. Im willing to make the sacrifice though to stop cheaters from ruining others fun.

**Kaizoku** · 12-06-08, 02:04 PM

The option should be there legally by vote, there would be no way it could be abused, and if you don't like the difficulty vote on, just leave. I really don't see why the difficulties were removed, I see *absolutely nothing* to gain from locking the difficulty, and instead, you lose out on other fun difficulties.

And a person singled out by a horde, surrounded, can still melee them off indefinitely with diminishing bashing. I've seen it, and I've done it. A horde does absolutely nothing unless a smoker is choking them, or a hunter is on them, and because of how easy it is to thwart them, you only get 5-6 hits in in an ideal situation on one person. In normal mode that's only 10-12 hp on one person, and maybe 2-6 on everyone else with all boss infected attacking at once.

**-RaYne-** · 12-06-08, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kaizoku

I can't accept your premise, I just can't accept that the infected aren't suppose to try to kill the survivors outright, but instead are suppose to road block them as much as they can and *hopefully* (luckily) make them make a mistake. All hunters can do is a direct attack, and the best places for cover and attacks are choke points such as alleys. And if you get 7-10 co-ordinated attacks off involving 3 or 4 of the survivors, they're doing it wrong.

I can't accept the premise that the survivors are somehow suppose to somehow have an advantage while being swarmed and pestered by 4 other players.

First of all, there is no hope or luck involved. If the survivors make a mistake, it was based off their knowledge and skill. They made the decision, not luck. Secondly, if you can't accept that the job of infected is to slow or down the survivors, then don't play because that's what the game is about.

This is not Team death match, it's a survival game and whoever survives the best, wins. The job of infected is to keep them from surviving. How? Puke on them, jump then, pull them or use a tank. If the horde distracts and your team acts fast enough, then i promise you will get the kills. But if your too slow, then you wont get them.

If the infected killed survivors TDM style, the game would be like expert vs which is impossibly difficult and frustrating considering you get less than 5 minutes of play per map with a good team.

Lastly, choke points and doorways are the worst to attack survivors. If a survivor is in an alley and a horde comes, they get 2 defending the from, 2 defending the back and as soon as someone gets jumped or pulled, they know where you are. So dont tell me that those are the best places cuz it's not true. Open places are the best because survivors almost always disperse since they dont know where to go and dont have time to coordinate a defense.

If you can't accept that premise, dont play the game.
--

Originally Posted by Kaizoku

The option should be there legally by vote, there would be no way it could be abused, and if you don't like the difficulty vote on, just leave. I really don't see why the difficulties were removed, I see *absolutely nothing* to gain from locking the difficulty, and instead, you lose out on other fun difficulties.

And a person singled out by a horde, surrounded, can still melee them off indefinitely with diminishing bashing. I've seen it, and I've done it. A horde does absolutely nothing unless a smoker is choking them, or a hunter is on them, and because of how easy it is to thwart them, you only get 5-6 hits in in an ideal situation on one person. In normal mode that's only 10-12 hp on one person, and maybe 2-6 on everyone else with all boss infected attacking at once.

First of all, if the game was too difficult, the games would be over way too fast. As it is now, both the survivors and the infected have an EQUAL chance to win. On advanced as many people said, it would make it a bit more challenging to the survivors but not too challenging and i agree, but i think what valve is trying to do is make it more PvP and less horde vs player.

I would much rather set an ambush and work hard to get my kills than have a horde of zombies do it for me. If you think the infected are so under powered, why is it that i can manage to win many of the games i play as them? Don't attribute it to playing with good people. I play with randoms 90% of the time and 100% of that time im using my mic communicating. If you did the same, maybe you would get the same outcome as me.

**liq3** · 12-06-08, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Kaizoku

The option should be there legally by vote, there would be no way it could be abused, and if you don't like the difficulty vote on, just leave. I really don't see why the difficulties were removed, I see *absolutely nothing* to gain from locking the difficulty, and instead, you lose out on other fun difficulties.

Please tell me one other multiplayer game that pits people against each other where you can change the difficulty.

The thing they gain from locking it to normal, is people were joining servers that weren't on normal, and many people would then leave those servers (myself included), thus ruining the game on those servers, and wasting the time of those who left.

Also, fun is subjective. I myself only find normal fun. Both other difficulties give infected far too much of an advantage.
--

Originally Posted by Kaizoku

"As it is now, both the survivors and the infected have an EQUAL chance to win"

Valve has stated the survivors have better chances of winning than the infected, assuming equal skill.

...Time to quote the dev commentary. Please note, that normal is the difficulty they are talking about (made obvious by them locking VS to normal).

"Rather them aiming for a 50-50 shot of the survivors escaping. Now we are aiming for a shorter more intense experience, where the survivors are unlikely to make it to the end. Their goal is simply to get further then the other team did." - Dev commentary

**Kaizoku** · 12-06-08, 03:37 PM

Please tell me another multiplayer game with an AI director and a full npc cast where a difficulty would even modify anything. Also, I've yet to see any multiplayer game where both sides did not have equivalent "classes", even when there are signifigant differences between two sides classes they are always made like puzzle pieces to fill the same roles. Even further, name a multiplayer game where you can play both sides of a battle, and one is intentionally weaker than the other.

Don't approach me like I can't treat this like another multiplayer game, then attempt to use other multiplayer games as a counter-argument to my ideas.

"Also, fun is subjective"
Also, this is subjective "Both other difficulties give infected far too much of an advantage."

That's your opinion, which you did not back up with anything concrete or convincing.

I myself find advanced fun. "people were joining servers that weren't on normal, and many people would then leave those servers" Maybe people you play with, but anyone I played with preferred advanced, why should one or the other group be favored when a well implimented difficulty system in the lobby would serve both groups? Why remove the option to have the other difficulties, when it can be included in a way that does not alienate one or the other group?

I see no reason to remove the other difficulties. If someone can come up with a good and solid reason to not have a difficulty slider int he lobby room, I'll listen.