<!--quoteo(post=1669466:date=Feb 3 2008, 10:46 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 3 2008, 10:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669466"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->all the competitive teams i ever commanded were disorganized and when i pubcommed (i tried not to) you just have to yell alot at people to place mines. it works<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet one lone gorge can remove ALL the mines that you have placed around your structures with a couple of well placed bile bombs, forcing you to spend more res to replace them just to have them destroyed again. While a turret can at least shoot the gorge a bit!
It comes back to the simple truth that turrets are fantastic in <b>certain </b>circumstances while mines are better in others; namely the early game when you all you have are skulks to deal with. As soon as you get higher life forms, or a second hive, mines go right out the window as their damage/kill rate does not equal the expenditure.
But at the end of the day it does not matter what either of us think, it’s what is done on the servers we play that matters. Now I regularly play games when the Marines don’t use turrets, and/or mines. Some they win, others they lose. With the loses, sometimes if they had just dropped a TF and locked down the hives, they would have won. Others it would have made no difference as the aliens simply played better. Regardless there is no definitive answer on what is valid as it changes from game to game. But at the end of the day the less options you have, the fewer strats you can have.
Now cue your repeat statement with no logical back up:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Regardless there is no definitive answer on what is valid as it changes from game to game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And this, is a good thing. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
yeah except mines are still better than turrets against higher lifeforms. turrets dont kill fades, mines and marines do. even better when hellabeans are present <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY" target="_blank">http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY</a>
bilebomb kills 10 res worth if mines (if all present) while one turret cost 10 res. i guess turrets are better on huge servers but yeah im still not fond of seeing them in ns2
Solution: lower the damage and res cost of mines. Mines are now cheaper and nastier than ever. Or possibly even have an upgrade for mines which allows them to 'charge' once they have already blown up, so they can blow up a second time..?
<!--quoteo(post=1667663:date=Jan 16 2008, 06:23 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 16 2008, 06:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1667663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish they were less "spam-ish" and more upgradeable like TF2 or WC3 Island / Tower Defense maps. A whole mini tech tree just for automated defenses would make me laugh with malicious delight at the poor suckers who would fall prey to my ingeniously engineered defenses. MUHAHAHA! Oh um, right--
Sounds like Tremulous game mechanic. Problem is close quarters are in every map, and huge batteries of them = pwnage.
The problem is, as some have mentioned, they need an Achilles Heel somehow. Bile Bomb and Oni are the current dedicated destroyers of static Aliens, and GL or Shotgun for Marines. The key is to make they useful, but with the right stuff easier to take down.
I personally am a fan of how TF2 turrets have turned out.
@ Leon's video: that fade was dumb: it almost looked like he deliberately stepped into the 4 mines... Was it you playing the fade to make a point of how powerful mines can be? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> I'll agree with you that well placed mine are usually much more cost effective than turrets. The trouble is that it takes a good player to place them and the commander doesn't have direct control where they will go. Hiding mines under PG model (or RT model) is very effective in NS1, but hopefully it won't be possible in NS2. @ x5: Yeah, i'm also for fewer turrets that are more powerful and have more options. @ Spellman23: Yeah, massed amount of turrets would be a problem, so there should be a limit on turrets. Maybe 2-3 per turret factory, or give them a large radius that they have to be away from each other. A counter to tesla turrets would be 3 skulks or a skulk and a fade: all turrets target the first skulk and one-shoot him. While the turrets recharge for a long time, the rest will be able to take down several of the turrets. Tesla turrets wouldn't work in close quarters either due to long warm-up before firing: a fade can blink in, swipe and blink out before they fire.
<!--quoteo(post=1669598:date=Feb 5 2008, 12:21 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Feb 5 2008, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this, is a good thing. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dam straight it is! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1669658:date=Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yeah except mines are still better than turrets against higher lifeforms. turrets dont kill fades, mines and marines do. even better when hellabeans are present <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY" target="_blank">http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY</a>
bilebomb kills 10 res worth if mines (if all present) while one turret cost 10 res. i guess turrets are better on huge servers but yeah im still not fond of seeing them in ns2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice but if I wanted I could also put up a vid of turrets killing FADES/ONOS.
Also the 10 res for mines estimate is low at best. To provide cover for an enitre phase gate you need 4 mines min. Same for obs, AA, RES, IP etc. So to cover your base or hive you need at least 20-40 res. Otherwise you could lose builds. For a hive or segie point you need at least 2 packs min. Also take into account that in a high conflict situation you need to keep replacing those mines. This means you have Marines running around dropping mines and not shooting aliens. On top of that mine placement is done best when your not under pressure so you can place them in sweet spots. The only way your argument would work is if turrents did not do damage to higher life forms but the fact is they do. As a result if a fade is attacking a TF its getting damaged. If a marine phases in or walks around the corner it can finnish off the fade when normaly the fade would pawn the marine. Certainly only a retarded fade/onos would attack a TF solo like and not retreat to get healed. But even if it just means that they softened up the aliens, or slow them down, then they are worth it.
At the end of the day turrens > mines in certain situations (late game, locking down hives), mines > turrets in others (early game, rouge mines on corners, vents).
<b>ON TOPIC:</b> I like the option of fewer turrents but the ability to upgrade them. It would prevent server crashes and reduce the load alot.
I would opt for: Dropping TF, once built a single inbuilt sentry turret pops up in the center of the TF for self defence. This ensures that there are no blind spots due to the reduced number of turrets allowed per TF. This is important due to many rooms having obstacals that may block line of fire. The com then clicks on purchase turrent X times (max four external sentrys, four siege per TF) while that TF is selected, and drops as usuall. These four are linked to that TF, if it dies then they will only keep firing if there is another TF within range which has not maxed out its turrets yet. If so they become linked to that TF. If you want more then you have to drop a second TF.
To upgrade you click on the sentry turret and select your upgrade's: Faster firing rate, more damage, more HP, faster targeting rate, longer range, morph to siege etc
The inbuilt sentry cannot be upgraded.
Each turrent could only get one upgrade (no super turrets).
<!--quoteo(post=1669790:date=Feb 7 2008, 12:10 AM:name=Misere)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Misere @ Feb 7 2008, 12:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Certainly only a retarded fade/onos would attack a TF solo like and not retreat to get healed. But even if it just means that they softened up the aliens, or slow them down, then they are worth it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Up until the latest version of NS Onos were basically anti-structural offense (even more than they are now). One Onos could destroy a TF in under 3 seconds and were able to take down a CC in under 8 seconds if they knew how to use charge properly, but It's been changed now and is totally useless. This may be a bit off topic.. But charge was brutally murdered and caused the Onos to lose most of their endgame effectiveness..
Or in other words removing their counter-attack/stalemate-breaker ability if the marines were caught off guard by a rogue Onos. Many stalemate games I have played were won because I got through the choke points and attacked the marine spawn whilst it was off guard..
Anywho, back to topic; having too many different types of turrets would ruin the game. If there was 4 or so different forms of turret upgrades it would totally destroy the fun of playing the game because you would need to have a bunch of specialized turrets in different places to counter different things.. If you placed a bunch of each of the specialized turrets in one area nothing would be able to get through. Imagine playing on a map with 1 choke point and having a farm of every type of special turret as well as marine support fire.. There would be no way that any Kharaa player would be able to break through.
Turrets are only there to hold back skulks at the beginning of games or to finnish off foolish Fades/Lerks who are fleeing at low hp. If they became something more powerful and feared it would just turn the game to ######.
The possible upgrades would just counter for the reduction in number. There is not point in increaseing the range when the TF is in a small room, more damage would be approprate. Note that you should only be able to select one upgrade, coupled with reduction of total number of turrents your very just worry is mitigrated. NS could even limit the number of turrents to = the number of OC allowed in each area!
WarCraft3 did it right with the 3 types of human towers. Very simple and shiny and balanced.
For NS, currently turrets aren't worth the trouble due to high cost to cover blind spots. The center turret idea sounds nice, but I would implement it with minimal range. Either that or the individual TF would need to cost more.
One interesting turret implementation is the C&C3 Nod turret system. You plunk down the central hub, then place 3 turrets within a certain radius. If the turrets get blown, they eventually rebuild, only way to stop them is to destroy the hub. For NS, instead of auto-rebuild, perhaps you would need a queue of turrets that could then be placed, max numbers setup as mentioned above. However, instead of location being a limiting factor, it's more the maximum number. Currently, turret number per TF is limited by spacing of them. But, it'd be kind cool if we only got, say 3 turrets per TF, and of course require a little spacing, but then could place them relatively anywhere. Place them all on one side to stop attacks but leave the backside open? Block line of fir from others by spreading out? And if they just take the turret, another could pop up later.
Just throwing it out there. Definitely needs some serious refinement.
WC3 did it right with only three upgrades for the towers.. How I think turrets should be improved; Starting off with the normal turret..
<b>LMG Turret</b>: Light damage. Fast rate of fire. Very long range.
Which could go into one of three (or two) upgrades:
1) <b>HMG Turret</b>: Medium damage. Fast rate of fire. Medium range.
2) <b>Rocket Launcher/Laser</b>: High damage. Slow rate of fire. Long range.
3) <b>Flame Thrower</b>: Very high damage. Medium rate of fire. Short range.
Give each one a special property like extra armour damage, immolation or shrapnel and heypresto you got urself better and improved turrets.
Edit: Mind you, I don't support the 'this turret is better against this unit' idea, I just think there needs to be more variety in the types of turrets available. In other words: different turrets for different occasions.
<!--quoteo(post=1669782:date=Feb 7 2008, 03:35 AM:name=afratnikov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(afratnikov @ Feb 7 2008, 03:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@ Leon's video: that fade was dumb: it almost looked like he deliberately stepped into the 4 mines... Was it you playing the fade to make a point of how powerful mines can be? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> I'll agree with you that well placed mine are usually much more cost effective than turrets. The trouble is that it takes a good player to place them and the commander doesn't have direct control where they will go. Hiding mines under PG model (or RT model) is very effective in NS1, but hopefully it won't be possible in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
notice the 'video added' date of dec 2006, sry to burst your bubble. that was from a competitive match also, albeit hellabean is terrible its slowmotion.
<!--quoteo(post=1669902:date=Feb 8 2008, 01:29 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Feb 8 2008, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669902"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I kinda like the whole upgrading turret idea.
WarCraft3 did it right with the 3 types of human towers. Very simple and shiny and balanced.
For NS, currently turrets aren't worth the trouble due to high cost to cover blind spots. The center turret idea sounds nice, but I would implement it with minimal range. Either that or the individual TF would need to cost more.
One interesting turret implementation is the C&C3 Nod turret system. You plunk down the central hub, then place 3 turrets within a certain radius. If the turrets get blown, they eventually rebuild, only way to stop them is to destroy the hub. For NS, instead of auto-rebuild, perhaps you would need a queue of turrets that could then be placed, max numbers setup as mentioned above. However, instead of location being a limiting factor, it's more the maximum number. Currently, turret number per TF is limited by spacing of them. But, it'd be kind cool if we only got, say 3 turrets per TF, and of course require a little spacing, but then could place them relatively anywhere. Place them all on one side to stop attacks but leave the backside open? Block line of fir from others by spreading out? And if they just take the turret, another could pop up later.
Just throwing it out there. Definitely needs some serious refinement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1669932:date=Feb 8 2008, 10:13 AM:name=naggy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naggy @ Feb 8 2008, 10:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WC3 did it right with only three upgrades for the towers.. How I think turrets should be improved; Starting off with the normal turret..
<b>LMG Turret</b>: Light damage. Fast rate of fire. Very long range.
Which could go into one of three (or two) upgrades:
1) <b>HMG Turret</b>: Medium damage. Fast rate of fire. Medium range.
2) <b>Rocket Launcher/Laser</b>: High damage. Slow rate of fire. Long range.
3) <b>Flame Thrower</b>: Very high damage. Medium rate of fire. Short range.
Give each one a special property like extra armour damage, immolation or shrapnel and heypresto you got urself better and improved turrets.
Edit: Mind you, I don't support the 'this turret is better against this unit' idea, I just think there needs to be more variety in the types of turrets available. In other words: different turrets for different occasions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel that these ideas, while crude and un-implementable in the current form, show an overall promise worthy of genuine conseration.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I would personally only like to see static defenses in NS2 as a cheap alternative to dynamic defenses. I see no reason why the job of turrets and ocs can't be replaced completely with AI controlled droids to do a similiar job. I.e. the aliens would have babbler like skulks that could be deployed near hives to provide an early warning system and marines could have a mobile turret droid that could be issued orders to defend a phase gate or hive location. This is more in line with what the_x5 is talking about. I would see a stationary turret as the basic unit on a deep tech tree that would allow for all kinds of variation in intelligence, strength, damage and function. These units should be controllable by the comm or assignable to a squad or marine to assist in a specific objective. The idea of hard counters to such structures would have to be considered in terms of resource cost and production time, but I don't see any reason why it can't be included in the design.
<!--quoteo(post=1672250:date=Mar 6 2008, 12:37 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 6 2008, 12:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel that these ideas, while crude and un-implementable in the current form, show an overall promise worthy of genuine conseration.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, you mean taking an idea straight from another game and trying to plop it into another is crude? =]
I'm sure we'll continue arguing about static defenses even after NS2 comes out.
Ya know, the flamer/machine gun/rocket launcher trio got done in Bioshock. Worked well. The flamer is REALLY annoying at close range, but easy to shoot at distance. Machine gun has distance and accuracy through volume, but medium damage. Rocket launcher has damage and distance, but can be dodged if the splash won't hurt.
Now, slightly mobile, upgradeable turret drones might work, from a game play stance. Have the comm/hive auto-generate 2 drones or so, for defense. Slowly, so when under siege it's not going to help very much, and range limited, so they don't wander far.
The alien thing could be a slow gasbag that fires acid spray/needles/bombs. Human would get flamer/bullets/rockets. According to upgrade choice of course, maybe have them start with the flamer, then choose gun or rocket.
Idea 2: Map-placed defenses. These defenses would work kind of like the rocket turret in Portal, overwhelming force, really really dumb, and a nice laser pointer that you should avoid. And capturable. Start out neutral ("damaged"), and a welder/gorge can be used to fiddle with a protected control panel to flip it to alien/human.
Not central to hive/commander locations, but like a rocket turret facing an outside catwalk giving everyone something to dodge half the time, or a sniper-machine gun forcing people to take cover. Minimal kills, but an inconvenience.
<!--quoteo(post=1672297:date=Mar 6 2008, 06:11 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Mar 6 2008, 06:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1672297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would personally only like to see static defenses in NS2 as a cheap alternative to dynamic defenses. I see no reason why the job of turrets and ocs can't be replaced completely with AI controlled droids to do a similiar job. I.e. the aliens would have babbler like skulks that could be deployed near hives to provide an early warning system and marines could have a mobile turret droid that could be issued orders to defend a phase gate or hive location. This is more in line with what the_x5 is talking about. I would see a stationary turret as the basic unit on a deep tech tree that would allow for all kinds of variation in intelligence, strength, damage and function. These units should be controllable by the comm or assignable to a squad or marine to assist in a specific objective. The idea of hard counters to such structures would have to be considered in terms of resource cost and production time, but I don't see any reason why it can't be included in the design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read this I couldn't help thinking of the little walking sentry bot from Doom3. Yes that is a good possible idea along the lines of what I was talking about, especially if it also expands the tech tree.
(just don't forget it's not <i>really</i> a tech tree unless it has inter-linking nodes)
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1673343:date=Mar 15 2008, 03:56 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 15 2008, 03:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(just don't forget it's not <i>really</i> a tech tree unless it has inter-linking nodes)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd just like to say that I prefer the current NS "pillars" to "trees". Branching nodes tend to specialization which can be death in FPS games IMO. Nothing is worse than feeling ineffective as a player, and although NS is a competitive game I think the decision to not overspecialize technology greatly enhanced its longevity.
<!--quoteo(post=1673462:date=Mar 17 2008, 01:44 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 17 2008, 01:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd just like to say that I prefer the current NS "pillars" to "trees". Branching nodes tend to specialization which can be death in FPS games IMO. Nothing is worse than feeling ineffective as a player, and although NS is a competitive game I think the decision to not overspecialize technology greatly enhanced its longevity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you'd still be very effective at something - otherwise why would you specialize? Just balance it so that GL marines can defend themselves against skulks, not as good as say LMG marines can, but still good enough.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1673475:date=Mar 17 2008, 05:25 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Mar 17 2008, 05:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, you'd still be very effective at something - otherwise why would you specialize? Just balance it so that GL marines can defend themselves against skulks, not as good as say LMG marines can, but still good enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, NS "specialization" happens at the highest level(gl, jetpack, heavy). That's fine, I just want to avoid situations where one team is like "OMG they have X!! We need Y". I'm not talking about regular upgrades like "They have a fade, we need level 2 weps and a couple of shotties" but like "They have an onos, get the antionos missile" or "The aliens upgraded kinetic armor commander, we need the lazer gun attachments".
Simplicity is what will help encourage newcomers to stay. Complexity is what will encourage vets to stay. When it comes to turrets/OCs I think simplicity is the key. The complexity is already found in countering weapons/tech vs lifeforms. Personally, I would like to see an increased number of turrets and OCs on the map, but not as they are currently established. I don't think we need more types of turrets/OCs, but more uses for them. Currently establishing a TF with three turrets at a bottleneck is usually frowned upon, probably because of its high cost and the ease at which a fade can tear it down (ignoring bilebomb). However, team the TF up with a PG and people become happy. I feel that turrets should not have to be accompanied by a PG to make them a good investment. Locking down bottlenecks (I feel) should be encouraged in NS, but with the expense of turrets it is hard to justify.
Placing turrets and OCs on a variable cost may encourage increased use by removing the feeling of a wasted investment. Before explaining how a system like that may work, please keep in mind that the damage that a turret/oc deals and their HP would need to be changed (or even build time). I do not have hypothetical values for them so pretend that they deal enough damage to deter lower lifeforms (inc. 'nilla 'rines) from passing through an area, but weak enough that a 2-3 man squad can eliminate OCs and 2-3 skulks can take down a TF (or even 2 skulks a turret). On a variable cost system, the more turrets/OCs that are placed in a governing area, the more each subsequent one will cost. For example: The first OC may cost 4 res, the second 7 (again, keep in mind that balancing the effectiveness of the OC's damage, HP, and the cost is a task yet to be done) As for the governing area there are a few options that I can think of...
1.) Whole Map - regardless of where the Turret/OC is placed, the more on the map, the more expensive each T/OC becomes. However, this can cause problems because you either start the "cost ladder" (the rate at which the cost increases for every T/OC) at such a slow rate that T/OCs quickly populate the map or a rate too high that this system defeats the purpose of trying to enourage placing more T/OCs.
2.) Areas of Map - possibly determined by the locations mappers allot, but has the downside that the borders of these areas can be more easily populated with T/OCs
3.) Within Range - with a defined range, the more T/OCs become more expensive as they are placed within the defined range of more T/OCs previously placed. For example, if a gorge wants to place an OC that is 50 units from OC-A and 120 units from OC-B and the defined range is "within 150 units" then the gorge will have to pay the higher cost associated with 3 OCs (ex. 1 costs 3, 2-5, 3-7), so in this example 7 res). Be mindful, that with this system, placing multi TFs within the same defined range grants no bonuses.
4.) TF Association - however, if you want there to be an advantage with building multiple TFs within the same defined range, this could (I suppose) allot you the ability to purchase two turrets as though they were the first one, two as though they were the second, etc... granted that they are placed within the TFs normal build rules. --- cannot apply to OC placement.
#3 & 4 share the same downside, though. Using any of those rules, locking down hives will become even easier. Because the idea is to keep the cost of T/OCs cheaper marines will be able to affordably early on lock down hives. Come to think of it now, aliens should be able to more easily afford to lock down a hive as well with some OCs.
#2 would solve the above problem by increasing the cost of T/OCs within Hive Rooms, but there are still the quirks involved with mapping it and exploiting borders.
At the moment (until people respond) I think #3 would work nicely with OCs and #4 with Turrets, but I need some responses. Also, sorry if I should have started a new thread... but I was just thinking back to this idea when reading this topic.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1673621:date=Mar 19 2008, 12:45 PM:name=Cataclyzm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cataclyzm @ Mar 19 2008, 12:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1.) Whole Map - regardless of where the Turret/OC is placed, the more on the map, the more expensive each T/OC becomes. However, this can cause problems because you either start the "cost ladder" (the rate at which the cost increases for every T/OC) at such a slow rate that T/OCs quickly populate the map or a rate too high that this system defeats the purpose of trying to enourage placing more T/OCs.
2.) Areas of Map - possibly determined by the locations mappers allot, but has the downside that the borders of these areas can be more easily populated with T/OCs
3.) Within Range - with a defined range, the more T/OCs become more expensive as they are placed within the defined range of more T/OCs previously placed. For example, if a gorge wants to place an OC that is 50 units from OC-A and 120 units from OC-B and the defined range is "within 150 units" then the gorge will have to pay the higher cost associated with 3 OCs (ex. 1 costs 3, 2-5, 3-7), so in this example 7 res). Be mindful, that with this system, placing multi TFs within the same defined range grants no bonuses.
4.) TF Association - however, if you want there to be an advantage with building multiple TFs within the same defined range, this could (I suppose) allot you the ability to purchase two turrets as though they were the first one, two as though they were the second, etc... granted that they are placed within the TFs normal build rules. --- cannot apply to OC placement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think 1 and/or a modification of 2 where it's cheap to place T/OC's in hives and heavily trafficked areas(possibly linked to how much infestation is in the area). The ideal would be for T/OC's to be usable without making them spammable. 4 would encourage turrets to be spammed in one area and 3 would encourage OC's to be spammed all over the map, but not near each other.
It(3 and 4) is interesting as it would differentiate the two teams more but OC's aren't really used as static defenses so much as an speedbump/alarm system with the spread out all over the map placement, and I don't think that's your goal.
La ChupacabraJoin Date: 2008-02-25Member: 63729Members
edited March 2008
this really sounds quite complicated... maybe sth simpler, like: OC's, if placed on a dynamic infestation, than it costs X, if outside ID region than it costs X+5, but those additional 5 res was used to make a small ID around the first OC, so every another OC can be placed without the 5res fee...
EDIT:
a different idea, that wouldn't change the price, but would make OC more interesting and possibly more effective
Why chambers need to be placed only on the floor? IF gorges would be still allowed to make OC's (i.e. it will not be assigned to the alien comm) than why not allow OC's (and other chambers) to be planted on the walls etc. apart from being able to make OC's in more places it would be easier to hide SC etc.
chamber would be build on the surface that gorge is pointing with its crosshair in radius of X meters
Make OCs placed on DI more powerful (sunkens), but make siege turrets mobile and deployable anywhere (siege tanks). Also, let GLs fire through walls with their secondary using the siege cannon's sonic function. (limited range, area damage only to structures) That would be optimal because it would add more interesting siege gameplay and would make gls more fun to use.
Quickedit: OCs should be a high tech structure, requiring something along the lines of 2 hives.
In regards to this: <!--QuoteBegin-locally+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locally)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but OC's aren't really used as static defenses so much as an speedbump/alarm system with the spread out all over the map placement, and I don't think that's your goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True. But this <b>is</b> NS2, rather than NS1; it doesn't have to play exactly the same.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1673704:date=Mar 20 2008, 04:47 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Mar 20 2008, 04:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673704"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True. But this <b>is</b> NS2, rather than NS1; it doesn't have to play exactly the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think that really addresses my point though. #3 encourages OCs in whatever form to be spread around the map and not in clusters or WoL's. Unless the OC becomes overpowered they should be pretty easy to pick off one by one, making them less of a static defense and more of a speedbump/warning system. Again, I don't think this is a bad option since it would differentiate the two teams, I'm just saying it's different from the stated goal.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Make OCs placed on DI more powerful (sunkens), but make siege turrets mobile and deployable anywhere (siege tanks). Also, let GLs fire through walls with their secondary using the siege cannon's sonic function. (limited range, area damage only to structures) That would be optimal because it would add more interesting siege gameplay and would make gls more fun to use.
Quickedit: OCs should be a high tech structure, requiring something along the lines of 2 hives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good expansion of ideas. I especially like the GL secondary siege fire. The targeting system for that could be interesting, IMO it should require a target lock to work(either LoS, in rage of obs, scanner sweep)
<!--quoteo(post=1673479:date=Mar 17 2008, 06:10 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 17 2008, 06:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree, NS "specialization" happens at the highest level(gl, jetpack, heavy). That's fine, I just want to avoid situations where one team is like "OMG they have X!! We need Y". I'm not talking about regular upgrades like "They have a fade, we need level 2 weps and a couple of shotties" but like "They have an onos, get the antionos missile" or "The aliens upgraded kinetic armor commander, we need the lazer gun attachments".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that what an RTS plays like anyways? I liked that aspect of NS. It caused your team to have to adapt to new threats or be NATURALLY SELECTED OUT. (i.e.: nature says you are all dead, or to quote TAK, "epic fail.")
<!--quoteo(post=1673627:date=Mar 19 2008, 01:26 PM:name=La Chupacabra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(La Chupacabra @ Mar 19 2008, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this really sounds quite complicated... maybe sth simpler, like: OC's, if placed on a dynamic infestation, than it costs X, if outside ID region than it costs X+5, but those additional 5 res was used to make a small ID around the first OC, so every another OC can be placed without the 5res fee...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or we could really make it simple and make everything binary! Screw floating point numbers, models, complex physics and fine tuning algorithms that make the game well balanced! Heck, let's make it text based! <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:Courier New--><span style="font-family:Courier New"><!--/fonto-->/me = fade; attacks fade with 2d8 knife damaged fade with 9 damage fade damages you with focus swipe lvl 3 for 86 damage fade killed you with swipe<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
... or how about not.
Sorry dude but face it, to achieve closer precision and accuracy in any real world system things won't always come out as neat, tidy and ultra simplified. The cool thing about a game is that the average user doesn't have to know that level of detail (what is known in programming as encapsulation), they will just play the game and say, "Hey UWE did a good job of making it balanced and fun." (*hopefully*)
La ChupacabraJoin Date: 2008-02-25Member: 63729Members
edited March 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1673771:date=Mar 20 2008, 10:13 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 20 2008, 10:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The cool thing about a game is that the average user doesn't have to know that level of detail (what is known in programming as encapsulation), they will just play the game and say, "Hey UWE did a good job of making it balanced and fun." (*hopefully*)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or they will say: Holy *@*@! What the @$@&^$*@ was that?" and go back playing CS. Devs said it in the podcasts couple times that they want to make this game easier to understand / learn by newcomers.
Comments
Yet one lone gorge can remove ALL the mines that you have placed around your structures with a couple of well placed bile bombs, forcing you to spend more res to replace them just to have them destroyed again. While a turret can at least shoot the gorge a bit!
It comes back to the simple truth that turrets are fantastic in <b>certain </b>circumstances while mines are better in others; namely the early game when you all you have are skulks to deal with. As soon as you get higher life forms, or a second hive, mines go right out the window as their damage/kill rate does not equal the expenditure.
But at the end of the day it does not matter what either of us think, it’s what is done on the servers we play that matters. Now I regularly play games when the Marines don’t use turrets, and/or mines. Some they win, others they lose. With the loses, sometimes if they had just dropped a TF and locked down the hives, they would have won. Others it would have made no difference as the aliens simply played better. Regardless there is no definitive answer on what is valid as it changes from game to game. But at the end of the day the less options you have, the fewer strats you can have.
Now cue your repeat statement with no logical back up:
And this, is a good thing. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
bilebomb kills 10 res worth if mines (if all present) while one turret cost 10 res.
i guess turrets are better on huge servers but yeah im still not fond of seeing them in ns2
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-->
I wish they were less "spam-ish" and more upgradeable like TF2 or WC3 Island / Tower Defense maps. A whole mini tech tree just for automated defenses would make me laugh with malicious delight at the poor suckers who would fall prey to my ingeniously engineered defenses. MUHAHAHA! Oh um, right--
<b>vote <!--coloro:#00DD00--><span style="color:#00DD00"><!--/coloro-->yes<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Sounds like Tremulous game mechanic. Problem is close quarters are in every map, and huge batteries of them = pwnage.
The problem is, as some have mentioned, they need an Achilles Heel somehow. Bile Bomb and Oni are the current dedicated destroyers of static Aliens, and GL or Shotgun for Marines. The key is to make they useful, but with the right stuff easier to take down.
I personally am a fan of how TF2 turrets have turned out.
@ x5: Yeah, i'm also for fewer turrets that are more powerful and have more options.
@ Spellman23: Yeah, massed amount of turrets would be a problem, so there should be a limit on turrets. Maybe 2-3 per turret factory, or give them a large radius that they have to be away from each other.
A counter to tesla turrets would be 3 skulks or a skulk and a fade: all turrets target the first skulk and one-shoot him. While the turrets recharge for a long time, the rest will be able to take down several of the turrets. Tesla turrets wouldn't work in close quarters either due to long warm-up before firing: a fade can blink in, swipe and blink out before they fire.
Dam straight it is! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1669658:date=Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Feb 5 2008, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yeah except mines are still better than turrets against higher lifeforms. turrets dont kill fades, mines and marines do. even better when hellabeans are present <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY" target="_blank">http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhKXt45f0LY</a>
bilebomb kills 10 res worth if mines (if all present) while one turret cost 10 res.
i guess turrets are better on huge servers but yeah im still not fond of seeing them in ns2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice but if I wanted I could also put up a vid of turrets killing FADES/ONOS.
Also the 10 res for mines estimate is low at best. To provide cover for an enitre phase gate you need 4 mines min. Same for obs, AA, RES, IP etc. So to cover your base or hive you need at least 20-40 res. Otherwise you could lose builds. For a hive or segie point you need at least 2 packs min. Also take into account that in a high conflict situation you need to keep replacing those mines. This means you have Marines running around dropping mines and not shooting aliens. On top of that mine placement is done best when your not under pressure so you can place them in sweet spots.
The only way your argument would work is if turrents did not do damage to higher life forms but the fact is they do. As a result if a fade is attacking a TF its getting damaged. If a marine phases in or walks around the corner it can finnish off the fade when normaly the fade would pawn the marine. Certainly only a retarded fade/onos would attack a TF solo like and not retreat to get healed. But even if it just means that they softened up the aliens, or slow them down, then they are worth it.
At the end of the day turrens > mines in certain situations (late game, locking down hives), mines > turrets in others (early game, rouge mines on corners, vents).
<b>ON TOPIC:</b>
I like the option of fewer turrents but the ability to upgrade them. It would prevent server crashes and reduce the load alot.
I would opt for:
Dropping TF, once built a single inbuilt sentry turret pops up in the center of the TF for self defence. This ensures that there are no blind spots due to the reduced number of turrets allowed per TF. This is important due to many rooms having obstacals that may block line of fire. The com then clicks on purchase turrent X times (max four external sentrys, four siege per TF) while that TF is selected, and drops as usuall. These four are linked to that TF, if it dies then they will only keep firing if there is another TF within range which has not maxed out
its turrets yet. If so they become linked to that TF. If you want more then you have to drop a second TF.
To upgrade you click on the sentry turret and select your upgrade's: Faster firing rate, more damage, more HP, faster targeting rate, longer range, morph to siege etc
The inbuilt sentry cannot be upgraded.
Each turrent could only get one upgrade (no super turrets).
Up until the latest version of NS Onos were basically anti-structural offense (even more than they are now). One Onos could destroy a TF in under 3 seconds and were able to take down a CC in under 8 seconds if they knew how to use charge properly, but It's been changed now and is totally useless. This may be a bit off topic.. But charge was brutally murdered and caused the Onos to lose most of their endgame effectiveness..
Or in other words removing their counter-attack/stalemate-breaker ability if the marines were caught off guard by a rogue Onos. Many stalemate games I have played were won because I got through the choke points and attacked the marine spawn whilst it was off guard..
Anywho, back to topic; having too many different types of turrets would ruin the game. If there was 4 or so different forms of turret upgrades it would totally destroy the fun of playing the game because you would need to have a bunch of specialized turrets in different places to counter different things.. If you placed a bunch of each of the specialized turrets in one area nothing would be able to get through. Imagine playing on a map with 1 choke point and having a farm of every type of special turret as well as marine support fire.. There would be no way that any Kharaa player would be able to break through.
Turrets are only there to hold back skulks at the beginning of games or to finnish off foolish Fades/Lerks who are fleeing at low hp. If they became something more powerful and feared it would just turn the game to ######.
WarCraft3 did it right with the 3 types of human towers. Very simple and shiny and balanced.
For NS, currently turrets aren't worth the trouble due to high cost to cover blind spots. The center turret idea sounds nice, but I would implement it with minimal range. Either that or the individual TF would need to cost more.
One interesting turret implementation is the C&C3 Nod turret system. You plunk down the central hub, then place 3 turrets within a certain radius. If the turrets get blown, they eventually rebuild, only way to stop them is to destroy the hub. For NS, instead of auto-rebuild, perhaps you would need a queue of turrets that could then be placed, max numbers setup as mentioned above. However, instead of location being a limiting factor, it's more the maximum number. Currently, turret number per TF is limited by spacing of them. But, it'd be kind cool if we only got, say 3 turrets per TF, and of course require a little spacing, but then could place them relatively anywhere. Place them all on one side to stop attacks but leave the backside open? Block line of fir from others by spreading out? And if they just take the turret, another could pop up later.
Just throwing it out there. Definitely needs some serious refinement.
<b>LMG Turret</b>: Light damage. Fast rate of fire. Very long range.
Which could go into one of three (or two) upgrades:
1) <b>HMG Turret</b>: Medium damage. Fast rate of fire. Medium range.
2) <b>Rocket Launcher/Laser</b>: High damage. Slow rate of fire. Long range.
3) <b>Flame Thrower</b>: Very high damage. Medium rate of fire. Short range.
Give each one a special property like extra armour damage, immolation or shrapnel and heypresto you got urself better and improved turrets.
Edit: Mind you, I don't support the 'this turret is better against this unit' idea, I just think there needs to be more variety in the types of turrets available. In other words: different turrets for different occasions.
notice the 'video added' date of dec 2006, sry to burst your bubble. that was from a competitive match also, albeit hellabean is terrible its slowmotion.
WarCraft3 did it right with the 3 types of human towers. Very simple and shiny and balanced.
For NS, currently turrets aren't worth the trouble due to high cost to cover blind spots. The center turret idea sounds nice, but I would implement it with minimal range. Either that or the individual TF would need to cost more.
One interesting turret implementation is the C&C3 Nod turret system. You plunk down the central hub, then place 3 turrets within a certain radius. If the turrets get blown, they eventually rebuild, only way to stop them is to destroy the hub. For NS, instead of auto-rebuild, perhaps you would need a queue of turrets that could then be placed, max numbers setup as mentioned above. However, instead of location being a limiting factor, it's more the maximum number. Currently, turret number per TF is limited by spacing of them. But, it'd be kind cool if we only got, say 3 turrets per TF, and of course require a little spacing, but then could place them relatively anywhere. Place them all on one side to stop attacks but leave the backside open? Block line of fir from others by spreading out? And if they just take the turret, another could pop up later.
Just throwing it out there. Definitely needs some serious refinement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1669932:date=Feb 8 2008, 10:13 AM:name=naggy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naggy @ Feb 8 2008, 10:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WC3 did it right with only three upgrades for the towers.. How I think turrets should be improved; Starting off with the normal turret..
<b>LMG Turret</b>: Light damage. Fast rate of fire. Very long range.
Which could go into one of three (or two) upgrades:
1) <b>HMG Turret</b>: Medium damage. Fast rate of fire. Medium range.
2) <b>Rocket Launcher/Laser</b>: High damage. Slow rate of fire. Long range.
3) <b>Flame Thrower</b>: Very high damage. Medium rate of fire. Short range.
Give each one a special property like extra armour damage, immolation or shrapnel and heypresto you got urself better and improved turrets.
Edit: Mind you, I don't support the 'this turret is better against this unit' idea, I just think there needs to be more variety in the types of turrets available. In other words: different turrets for different occasions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel that these ideas, while crude and un-implementable in the current form, show an overall promise worthy of genuine conseration.
Wait, you mean taking an idea straight from another game and trying to plop it into another is crude? =]
I'm sure we'll continue arguing about static defenses even after NS2 comes out.
Now, slightly mobile, upgradeable turret drones might work, from a game play stance. Have the comm/hive auto-generate 2 drones or so, for defense. Slowly, so when under siege it's not going to help very much, and range limited, so they don't wander far.
The alien thing could be a slow gasbag that fires acid spray/needles/bombs. Human would get flamer/bullets/rockets. According to upgrade choice of course, maybe have them start with the flamer, then choose gun or rocket.
Idea 2:
Map-placed defenses. These defenses would work kind of like the rocket turret in Portal, overwhelming force, really really dumb, and a nice laser pointer that you should avoid. And capturable. Start out neutral ("damaged"), and a welder/gorge can be used to fiddle with a protected control panel to flip it to alien/human.
Not central to hive/commander locations, but like a rocket turret facing an outside catwalk giving everyone something to dodge half the time, or a sniper-machine gun forcing people to take cover. Minimal kills, but an inconvenience.
Read this I couldn't help thinking of the little walking sentry bot from Doom3. Yes that is a good possible idea along the lines of what I was talking about, especially if it also expands the tech tree.
(just don't forget it's not <i>really</i> a tech tree unless it has inter-linking nodes)
I'd just like to say that I prefer the current NS "pillars" to "trees". Branching nodes tend to specialization which can be death in FPS games IMO. Nothing is worse than feeling ineffective as a player, and although NS is a competitive game I think the decision to not overspecialize technology greatly enhanced its longevity.
Well, you'd still be very effective at something - otherwise why would you specialize? Just balance it so that GL marines can defend themselves against skulks, not as good as say LMG marines can, but still good enough.
I agree, NS "specialization" happens at the highest level(gl, jetpack, heavy). That's fine, I just want to avoid situations where one team is like "OMG they have X!! We need Y". I'm not talking about regular upgrades like "They have a fade, we need level 2 weps and a couple of shotties" but like "They have an onos, get the antionos missile" or "The aliens upgraded kinetic armor commander, we need the lazer gun attachments".
When it comes to turrets/OCs I think simplicity is the key. The complexity is already found in countering weapons/tech vs lifeforms.
Personally, I would like to see an increased number of turrets and OCs on the map, but not as they are currently established. I don't think we need more types of turrets/OCs, but more uses for them. Currently establishing a TF with three turrets at a bottleneck is usually frowned upon, probably because of its high cost and the ease at which a fade can tear it down (ignoring bilebomb). However, team the TF up with a PG and people become happy.
I feel that turrets should not have to be accompanied by a PG to make them a good investment. Locking down bottlenecks (I feel) should be encouraged in NS, but with the expense of turrets it is hard to justify.
Placing turrets and OCs on a variable cost may encourage increased use by removing the feeling of a wasted investment. Before explaining how a system like that may work, please keep in mind that the damage that a turret/oc deals and their HP would need to be changed (or even build time). I do not have hypothetical values for them so pretend that they deal enough damage to deter lower lifeforms (inc. 'nilla 'rines) from passing through an area, but weak enough that a 2-3 man squad can eliminate OCs and 2-3 skulks can take down a TF (or even 2 skulks a turret).
On a variable cost system, the more turrets/OCs that are placed in a governing area, the more each subsequent one will cost. For example: The first OC may cost 4 res, the second 7 (again, keep in mind that balancing the effectiveness of the OC's damage, HP, and the cost is a task yet to be done)
As for the governing area there are a few options that I can think of...
1.) Whole Map - regardless of where the Turret/OC is placed, the more on the map, the more expensive each T/OC becomes. However, this can cause problems because you either start the "cost ladder" (the rate at which the cost increases for every T/OC) at such a slow rate that T/OCs quickly populate the map or a rate too high that this system defeats the purpose of trying to enourage placing more T/OCs.
2.) Areas of Map - possibly determined by the locations mappers allot, but has the downside that the borders of these areas can be more easily populated with T/OCs
3.) Within Range - with a defined range, the more T/OCs become more expensive as they are placed within the defined range of more T/OCs previously placed. For example, if a gorge wants to place an OC that is 50 units from OC-A and 120 units from OC-B and the defined range is "within 150 units" then the gorge will have to pay the higher cost associated with 3 OCs (ex. 1 costs 3, 2-5, 3-7), so in this example 7 res). Be mindful, that with this system, placing multi TFs within the same defined range grants no bonuses.
4.) TF Association - however, if you want there to be an advantage with building multiple TFs within the same defined range, this could (I suppose) allot you the ability to purchase two turrets as though they were the first one, two as though they were the second, etc... granted that they are placed within the TFs normal build rules. --- cannot apply to OC placement.
#3 & 4 share the same downside, though. Using any of those rules, locking down hives will become even easier. Because the idea is to keep the cost of T/OCs cheaper marines will be able to affordably early on lock down hives. Come to think of it now, aliens should be able to more easily afford to lock down a hive as well with some OCs.
#2 would solve the above problem by increasing the cost of T/OCs within Hive Rooms, but there are still the quirks involved with mapping it and exploiting borders.
At the moment (until people respond) I think #3 would work nicely with OCs and #4 with Turrets, but I need some responses.
Also, sorry if I should have started a new thread... but I was just thinking back to this idea when reading this topic.
2.) Areas of Map - possibly determined by the locations mappers allot, but has the downside that the borders of these areas can be more easily populated with T/OCs
3.) Within Range - with a defined range, the more T/OCs become more expensive as they are placed within the defined range of more T/OCs previously placed. For example, if a gorge wants to place an OC that is 50 units from OC-A and 120 units from OC-B and the defined range is "within 150 units" then the gorge will have to pay the higher cost associated with 3 OCs (ex. 1 costs 3, 2-5, 3-7), so in this example 7 res). Be mindful, that with this system, placing multi TFs within the same defined range grants no bonuses.
4.) TF Association - however, if you want there to be an advantage with building multiple TFs within the same defined range, this could (I suppose) allot you the ability to purchase two turrets as though they were the first one, two as though they were the second, etc... granted that they are placed within the TFs normal build rules. --- cannot apply to OC placement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think 1 and/or a modification of 2 where it's cheap to place T/OC's in hives and heavily trafficked areas(possibly linked to how much infestation is in the area). The ideal would be for T/OC's to be usable without making them spammable. 4 would encourage turrets to be spammed in one area and 3 would encourage OC's to be spammed all over the map, but not near each other.
It(3 and 4) is interesting as it would differentiate the two teams more but OC's aren't really used as static defenses so much as an speedbump/alarm system with the spread out all over the map placement, and I don't think that's your goal.
EDIT:
a different idea, that wouldn't change the price, but would make OC more interesting and possibly more effective
Why chambers need to be placed only on the floor? IF gorges would be still allowed to make OC's (i.e. it will not be assigned to the alien comm) than why not allow OC's (and other chambers) to be planted on the walls etc. apart from being able to make OC's in more places it would be easier to hide SC etc.
chamber would be build on the surface that gorge is pointing with its crosshair in radius of X meters
Quickedit: OCs should be a high tech structure, requiring something along the lines of 2 hives.
In regards to this:
<!--QuoteBegin-locally+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locally)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but OC's aren't really used as static defenses so much as an speedbump/alarm system with the spread out all over the map placement, and I don't think that's your goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But this <b>is</b> NS2, rather than NS1; it doesn't have to play exactly the same.
I don't think that really addresses my point though. #3 encourages OCs in whatever form to be spread around the map and not in clusters or WoL's. Unless the OC becomes overpowered they should be pretty easy to pick off one by one, making them less of a static defense and more of a speedbump/warning system. Again, I don't think this is a bad option since it would differentiate the two teams, I'm just saying it's different from the stated goal.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Make OCs placed on DI more powerful (sunkens), but make siege turrets mobile and deployable anywhere (siege tanks). Also, let GLs fire through walls with their secondary using the siege cannon's sonic function. (limited range, area damage only to structures) That would be optimal because it would add more interesting siege gameplay and would make gls more fun to use.
Quickedit: OCs should be a high tech structure, requiring something along the lines of 2 hives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good expansion of ideas. I especially like the GL secondary siege fire. The targeting system for that could be interesting, IMO it should require a target lock to work(either LoS, in rage of obs, scanner sweep)
Isn't that what an RTS plays like anyways? I liked that aspect of NS. It caused your team to have to adapt to new threats or be NATURALLY SELECTED OUT. (i.e.: nature says you are all dead, or to quote TAK, "epic fail.")
<!--quoteo(post=1673627:date=Mar 19 2008, 01:26 PM:name=La Chupacabra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(La Chupacabra @ Mar 19 2008, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this really sounds quite complicated... maybe sth simpler, like: OC's, if placed on a dynamic infestation, than it costs X, if outside ID region than it costs X+5, but those additional 5 res was used to make a small ID around the first OC, so every another OC can be placed without the 5res fee...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or we could really make it simple and make everything binary! Screw floating point numbers, models, complex physics and fine tuning algorithms that make the game well balanced! Heck, let's make it text based!
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:Courier New--><span style="font-family:Courier New"><!--/fonto-->/me = fade; attacks fade with 2d8 knife
damaged fade with 9 damage
fade damages you with focus swipe lvl 3 for 86 damage
fade killed you with swipe<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
... or how about not.
Sorry dude but face it, to achieve closer precision and accuracy in any real world system things won't always come out as neat, tidy and ultra simplified. The cool thing about a game is that the average user doesn't have to know that level of detail (what is known in programming as encapsulation), they will just play the game and say, "Hey UWE did a good job of making it balanced and fun." (*hopefully*)
Or they will say: Holy *@*@! What the @$@&^$*@ was that?" and go back playing CS.
Devs said it in the podcasts couple times that they want to make this game easier to understand / learn by newcomers.