Static Defenses, and The Achilles Heel Mechanic
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Face it: static defenses add a unique and important element to NS. They're a pain and usually not important when good players are playing, but without them a lot of the game's depth dissapears simply because they allow certain threats that would otherwise not be possible.
So consider branching out with more options for automated defenses, but the main point I'm making is that they should each have a hard counter. Whereas a good player with a shotgun doesn't have an "answer", anything automated should for sure. I think that might lend to a more and dynamic environment, rather than just being deathmatch with objectives.
So consider branching out with more options for automated defenses, but the main point I'm making is that they should each have a hard counter. Whereas a good player with a shotgun doesn't have an "answer", anything automated should for sure. I think that might lend to a more and dynamic environment, rather than just being deathmatch with objectives.
Comments
Id like static defenses to be a more viable tactic even one servers full of more competent players because they add to the rts element. But how could this be done with out turning the game into a slogging match?
Simply increasing their power or lowering their cost?
With the achilles heel mechanic. You build a hard counter to a given structure so that the opposing team can disassemble it if they take the time to do it. This allows you to trade a surplus of building materials for a time buffer on the opposing team later in the game.
You'd upgrade <b>that</b> tower to more specialised towers, which are generally more powerful - which either have a hard counter, or a big trade-off, eg. a lot more health (OR maybe damage), but a lot less range/firing speed - this might be the closest thing to the original tower and a 'direct' upgrade, while the others (with hard counters) are branches and specialisations.
perhaps you could have an (intelligent, in that it can recognise an enemy and somehow aim at it) electric/tesla tower, which would shock aliens that come by, it would have a rather short range, and you might build them together in batteries, to increase their output and range in 'combined' strikes.
you could also have a 'sticky' tower, that you could place on walls or the ceiling; but i don't see that being an upgrade of the generic tower i mentioned at the top, but perhaps its own tower with its own upgrades.
actually, 'sticky' buildings might, in general, be more suited to the alien side, but i think the marine side could do with some sticky structures - they've done it with mines at least.
Yes, top teams don't use turrets or electrification at all - yet they can be quite effective in pub games! NS1 pub games and clan games play out VERY differently, so it might be OK if NS2 also has buildings/abilities/spells etc that might be good for pub games, but useless in clan games and vice versa (does it make sense?).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So consider branching out with more options for automated defenses, but the main point I'm making is that they should each have a hard counter. Whereas a good player with a shotgun doesn't have an "answer", anything automated should for sure. I think that might lend to a more and dynamic environment, rather than just being deathmatch with objectives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This feels like stating the obvious, but here it goes... There is no hard counter (like rock beats scissors) to shotgun, but the shotgun cost 10 res, which means that res didn't go into upgrades or buildings. Turret's hard counter is onos, while bile bomb counters electrified structures... plus, there are soft counters as well: use 50 res on TF and 4 turrets, and it means marines don't get upgrades/weapons. The aliens can simply avoid the area and build a hive elsewhere. The turrets work quite well against uncoordinated aliens, but when they know what they're doing, turrets are easily countered. I don't want to launch a NS1 discussion, so just kindly tell me where i'm wrong and move on <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Radix, by giving turrets a hard counter, are you trying to make turrets a viable option in clan games, make them easier to counter in pub games, or both? (Or do i misunderstand you completely?)
As i see it, turrets are a big part of NS1 dynamic environment already: they dictate what areas are open and which are protected and these areas can change throughout a game. What do you mean when you say "just being deathmatch with objectives"? - where did the team game go?! Are you referring to pub games?
Another idea: man-able stationary gun
Commander builds a stationary gun, which is used by a marine to fire. It requires a TF and costs res.
Use: Works very similar to stationary guns in HL2: improves firepower, partially protects the gunner, but the gun can't turn completely. It won't cut off part of a map completely, but would let one marine keep a busy area clear.
Counter: Spore, flanking.
What do you think of this idea?
Why do they have to be static? Could we do some sort of mobile defenses in a similar fashion as the weld bot perhaps?
Just an idea, don't know what its worth or how it would be fun and balanced to implement, but I'm just throwing it out there for discussion's sake.
Bile bomb isn't either, because you aren't guaranteed to have the second hive in a realistic situation.
I'm not talking about "a way to beat a static defense". That has nothing to do with the achilles heel mechanic I'm suggesting. <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->What I mean is, a highly-accessible weakness would be built into every static defense<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and that all an alien would need to do is attack it from that angle (say for a simplistic example that a given turret only had a 40 degree static firing cone).
The point is that static defenses should act as <i>augmentations</i> to the marines, not as <i>extensions</i> of their territory.
Wolverine: I don't agree with the concept of a drivable turret on the grounds that it reduces the skill in the game for no benefit besides novelty.
i dunno about limiting the firing cone to anything that small though......
Bile bomb isn't either, because you aren't guaranteed to have the second hive in a realistic situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying, you accept that onos and bile bomb are hard counters to turrets/electrify? I agree that they're not always possible to get. Hope we can both agree that aliens do have a middle/late game hard-counters to turrets.
Please define "hard counter," explain what you you dislike about NS1 turrets, and what type of game you are referring to: pub or competitive NS?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not talking about "a way to beat a static defense". That has nothing to do with the achilles heel mechanic I'm suggesting. <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->What I mean is, a highly-accessible weakness would be built into every static defense<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and that all an alien would need to do is attack it from that angle (say for a simplistic example that a given turret only had a 40 degree static firing cone).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Crating a cone of fire does not necessarily create a hard counter opportunity: simply place the turret in a corner or have multiple turrets cover each other. Again, please explain what you mean by "Achilles Heel Mechanic" in more detail. How can you talk about a "highly-accessible weakness would be built into every static defense" without talking about a way to exploit that weakness - "a way to beat it?" - it doesn't make sense. Please explain.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is that static defenses should act as <i>augmentations</i> to the marines, not as <i>extensions</i> of their territory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take your quote meaning that you want the role of turrets to change from "securing" a location to supporting marines. Hence, turrets on their own would be extremely vulnerable without marine support - is that close to what you want the Achilles Heel Mechanic to accomplish?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wolverine: I don't agree with the concept of a drivable turret on the grounds that it reduces the skill in the game for no benefit besides novelty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with Radix. Interestingly, Charlie and Max did discuss movable sieges in an old podcast. One RTS i played, <a href="http://pc.ign.com/objects/010/010250.html" target="_blank">Metal Fatigue</a>, also had movable turrets and defense, but they were rather useless. Movable defenses is a tough concept to create and balance.
I think the idea is that you don't want to waste defenses (and resources) on an area that doesn't need or no longer needs defending. <b>That's</b> something beyond mere novelty.
I can't really think of any specific hard counters, but I was thinking it would be something along the lines of a rock-paper-scissors system.
As for specialisations, upgrades, branching-off, and so on, of generic towers, or a number of different towers with specialties, I'm all for it.
NO WAY! OC's do not equal Mines. Mines can be blown up, are a one use item, and are pretty useless against higher life forms on full health. So if you kill off turrents you would have to kill off OC's as well as aliens would be able to sercure areas on the map and marines would not.
If you want to waste res on turrents when you don't need them thats your loss. Often when playing with a team that does not cover the map well you are forced to use turrents. It allows you to cover your rear and concentrate on the front.
We already have achilles heels in the current system.
Turrents
Take out the turrent factory they stop working
Bile boom can be fired in a arc to take out the TF without the gorge getting hit even once.
If left unguarded for long a Onos can take down almost any nest.
OC's
If you come to a conner you can shoot the OC without getting hit yourself.
Nades, throw them around the corner
and then there is the old <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/siege.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::siege::" border="0" alt="siege.gif" />
Idea of the century.
I still think you should be able to do -something- with turrets you don't need. :/ Recycle, or re-place.
If you want to waste res on turrents when you don't need them thats your loss. Often when playing with a team that does not cover the map well you are forced to use turrents. It allows you to cover your rear and concentrate on the front.
We already have achilles heels in the current system.
Turrents
Take out the turrent factory they stop working
Bile boom can be fired in a arc to take out the TF without the gorge getting hit even once.
If left unguarded for long a Onos can take down almost any nest.
OC's
If you come to a conner you can shoot the OC without getting hit yourself.
Nades, throw them around the corner
and then there is the old <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/siege.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::siege::" border="0" alt="siege.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did I say they equal each other? They are the only static defenses worth keeping. Aliens shouldn't rely too much on static defense, because they have the ability to move quickly across the map. OC's create a distraction/warning/setup for ambushes and a mediocre defense against JP's.
4x mines = 10 res, 1 turret = 10 res(also requiring a tf and time to build it). Just serves as a frustration. Electrification costs too much res and gets dominated by fades/gorge tandems, hive two, an onos, etc and screws over marine tech timing. Mines are not worthless against lifeforms, turrets are (were you serious about that? How many times have you seen a fade die to turrets? More often you're going to see a fade hit some mines and get blasted down near the mines or while he is escaping). You can place mines where they are difficult to spit, under edges of a phase gate or on the hitbox of an rt. Mine kills are going to gain res more effectively than turrets (unless you get a team full of down syndrome skulks continually rushing a turret lockdown). This may not be true for your 15v15 games but I'm hoping NS2 isnt balanced for cluster###### 32 player games as some people want it to be.
ocs and mines are the only ones that should be kept.
Take a hive room. If an alien is able to use an "Achilles heel" to take out the defenses on its own, what's the point of even building them in the first place? I'm sure that there's some crafty ways to place the turrets, but currently, I think they're fine as is. The only change I think I would want to see would be more powerful turrets (damage upgrades, basically...minor ones.) and the ability for high-level alien life forms (fades while blinking, onos) to knock them over. They could still shoot, but would be limited until replaced by a marine.
Of course, there would have to be a counter on both sides, but...you get the idea.
mines = kill skulks without marines being present in the area.
mines = more efficient than turrets in factors of time, space, power, and utility.
<!--QuoteBegin-Leon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This may not be true for your 15v15 games but I'm hoping NS2 isnt balanced for cluster###### 32 player games as some people want it to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's been said that balancing will be able to occur at all server sizes simultaneously.
- Turrets are good in pub games, but worthless in competitive games.
- Mines are are good in competitive games, but less useful in pub games.
It depends on how skilled the players are. Do you need a further explanation or is that enough?
NS2 has a chance to make turrets useful in competitive games.
I take it your post was serious, Radix, and I will respond to it in that way.
<!--quoteo(post=1669268:date=Feb 1 2008, 08:19 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Feb 1 2008, 08:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669268"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no reason you have to allow small-firing-cone turrets to be built in corners, or to point at each other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a fundamentally bad approach: in solving one problem, you introduce many new potential problems. One good reason for not placing this limitation, and you're aware of it, is common sense. Another problem is that it would make turret placement very complicated, because there would be so many rules you'd have to keep in the head. In time, players will find ways to exploit even this rule and learn to use turrets so as to counter this particular Achilles Heel Mechanic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You would balance them exactly how you balance everything else in every good game that's ever been made - throw out common sense about how they "should" work and make them <i>fun</i>. Once that's done bs-explain it away with nanites and whatnot after the fact. Your playerbase will thank you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the goal of any game is to make it FUN. The way you make a fun game is never by throwing out common sense. Games are most often balanced by carefully tweaking different characteristics: a weapon is too powerful, so you decrease damage or increase spread or adjust something else. Even magic is made so it makes sense: yes, the med packs appear out of nowhere, but they appeared where the commander clicked and they look like health kits - it makes sense. Using nanites as an explanation on how exactly the medpacks were materialized is unnecessary - we all know it's a game.
Please explain what you mean by "Achilles Heel Mechanic" in detail and define "hard counter" - that would allow the discussion to move forward.
Another possible turret weakness: require a warm up period for turrets to fire. When they see a target, turrets wait 1 sec before they start firing (would you call that an Achilles Heel? Would fast speed and mass attack be "hard counter"?)
Mines are good, no matter the game size.
It's like you won't accept the idea as is - specialised towers with greater firepower/abilities but likewise, greater disadvantages - which, I think, is a good idea. You KNOW what he means; you just don't know how it might work (and confuse that for a lack of understanding of the concept itself). And it seems no one else knows how it might work either. But rather than trying to move the topic forward - by finding possible examples of how that idea might work - we've turned to squabbling about <b>definitions</b> and <b>mines</b>.
btw turrets are just as bad in competitive games as they are in public games. the problem is no public commander drops mines and when they placed on the ground or on structures they are done so ineffectively.
You didn't, I doubt that even crossed your mind and that was the point.
Don't get me wrong, I love mines. However, a sniping gorge, or a 2 hive gorge, 3 hive fade can kill them without even getting close. An onos can charge through them, and out again before getting taken down. They are gone forever and require more res to replace.
Turrents just require the occasional weld
<!--quoteo(post=1669264:date=Feb 1 2008, 06:42 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 1 2008, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669264"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->mines = deal extra damage along with the marines in the area usually to higher lifeforms.
mines = kill skulks without marines being present in the area.
mines = more efficient than turrets in factors of time, space, power, and utility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turrents also = deal extra damage along with the marines in the area usually to higher lifeforms.
Turrents also = kill skulks without marines being present in the area.
mines are not always more efficient than turrets in factors of time, space, power, and utility.
It all depends on your team, numbers, res flow etc.
You CAN"T say one way or the other as I have seen games when you are right, and I have seen them when you are wrong.
Take home message: Leave them in, if there is a problem with they way they are used then structure the game around getting the players to use them correctly. Less choices mean less strats!
If this is what is meant by Achilles Heel Mechanic, i can move forward with it. I would also like turrets to have more specialized options.
I guess the way the turret system could work is: the commander builds a TF and chooses the type of turrets he will build around it. It would be very expensive (or even impossible) to build different types of turrets in one place.
Ok here are some turret ideas:
<u>Armor piercing turret</u>. It deals high damage to armor, but little damage to health. This would be great against fades and onos. Skulks, lerks and lifeforms supported by gorges' healing would be its weakness.
<u>Laser turret</u>. This turret has unlimited range and great accuracy, but deals little damage. This turret would be great against skulks and lerks and to cover large areas, but it would be weak against fades and Onos, who have a lot of health.
<u>Tesla coil-type turret.</u> A slow-firing turret that deals a lot of damage. It would take quite a bit of time to warm up before firing and then a long cooldown to fire again. It would be great against single targets, but groups of aliens would easily overwhelm it.
<u>Gatling turret</u>. This turret starts shooting slowly, but speeds up the longer it shoots (Additionally, when it shoots, its turn rate could be slowed down). This turret would be at its best when under massed attack. The counter to it would be repeated harassment and withdrawal (as well as circle strafing an unsupported turret.)
What do you think of these ideas?
<!--quoteo(post=1669412:date=Feb 3 2008, 12:49 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 3 2008, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, we've turned to the fact that overuse of static defense makes gaming stale. If you're going to use static defense in a game, make it intuitive and cost effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an important topic of discussion, which you haven't explored in detail yet (instead, you ended up explaining how mines are useful). Present your arguments on this. Certainly, getting rid of all marine static defenses would help reduce turtling, but i don't think it's the only option. Consider how the turret system could be improved.
On intuitiveness: To me, turrets seem to work intuitively in NS1 - what is the problem there?
On cost effectiveness: It is obvious that a good, experienced player will outsmart a static defense much easier and more successfully than a new player. Plus, spending resources to upgrade an ace marine players is much more useful than to upgrade a noob. I hope it's obvious that static defenses will vary in cost effectiveness depending on level of play. What i'm basically saying: there may not be a way to make the turrets effective in both pub and competitive play and it doesn't have to be a goal either. (Though i sure hope that turrets will play a role in competitive NS2)
How are turrets useful in NS1 (Mines vs Turret debate continued)
<!--quoteo(post=1669412:date=Feb 3 2008, 12:49 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 3 2008, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->btw turrets are just as bad in competitive games as they are in public games. the problem is no public commander drops mines and when they placed on the ground or on structures they are done so ineffectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I strongly disagree with this. In pub games commanders have tried to rely on their team and give them weapons, upgrades and mines, but it often doesn't work because they're uncoordinated. On the other hand, placing turrets in a hive room does a good job in fending off lone uncoordinated alien attacks. I bet many new commanders have thought "oh what is that mine?" then dropped it and some marine placed them in a corner. After not getting any kills, the comm makes the (under the circumstances <i>correct</i>) conclusion that mines are useless and doesn't drop them again. On the other hand, after he places turrets, he sees that they can keep an area for a long time and makes (again correct) the conclusion that they work.
Have you commanded disorganized marine teams, Leon? Marines that don't listen to you? A lot of commanders don't speak up and don't order marines what to do in the first place - instead they just place buildings and research. The only way these commanders can win is by slowly securing new areas using turrets.