Perhaps we need to make all walls climbable for marines as it is for skulks... I mean how does the skulk climb walls anyways...
Lets just make all walls like grippable like big grids. Aliens don't hide... they have a freeking tank (ONOS) and heavy attackers (FADES + LERK GAS + BATTLE GORGE).... Where will marines hide!!!
I Propose that the vents be for marines to hide from the aliens!!! This is more realistic anyway considering how weakly marines are armed (Taser :P).
<!--quoteo(post=1719150:date=Jul 24 2009, 06:59 AM:name=briktal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (briktal @ Jul 24 2009, 06:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1719150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:grey--><span style="color:grey"><!--/coloro-->I think it'd be more like if they made the range of siege cannons a little shorter in a patch and map makers just made the hive rooms a little smaller/moved the hive a bit so the old siege areas were in range again. If you don't want heavies in vents, don't let them get at all close to the size of a vent, otherwise the community will be able to adjust. And while you could use that to have all access vents and normal marine only vents, that sort of thing would probably be hard to easily and "immersively" show. It'd probably be best to either let heavies in vents or not let them crouch any significant amount.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a map-maker moved the hive closer so the modified sieges could still hit it, then it would be breaking the game, and people would not play the map, since hopefully the reason the devs would modify the siege range would be to balance them. Map makers typically want their maps to be balanced, and thus played often, so they will make maps according to standards. I fail to see why any map maker would do something like you described, unless this somehow made the map better-- but typically, going AGAINST the devs means the map will not be balanced.
So I rest my case. Making a crouching heavy a little taller than a vanilla marine, and having a vent height standard that ensures only vanilla marines and below can fit in vents, would be upheld in most maps. There is little to no reason for a map-maker to go against the balance of the game. Because think about it, if the game is balanced for that, and a map-maker designs a map with vents big enough for heavies, wouldnt that break the balance of that map? Why would a map-maker knowingly unbalance their map?
<!--quoteo(post=1718202:date=Jul 20 2009, 09:54 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 20 2009, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't. I believe "heavies" (exoskeletons) should be -more- maneuverable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hint: exoskeleton is an <i>external</i> skeleton. A human wearing anything like that would be bigger, and would deffinitely have trouble fitting into tight vents. Beetles and similar animals don't have internal skeletons because external one is enough for them. External skeleton is a part of their body, but a human would have to become bigger unless you subjected him into some kind of scary surgery, removing the outer layers of skin and flesh and replacing them.
I vaguely remember devs saying in a twitter update they're considering dropping heavy armour altogether, because of lack of resources to do it right and because <i>they said it just added more armour points</i>. This is why I'm advocating something as significant as making heavy armour marines unable to crouch or at least bigger. It would create an actual difference in gameplay ! Heavy armour would provide a good advantage, but it would also have limits so it's not strictly better than light armour. There would be reasons to stick to light armour. There are such reasons in Tremulous - light armour marine can crouch, can wear jetpack, or battery pack (more ammo for energy weapons). Also in Tremulous - battlesuits can't have helmet (provides motion tracking).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Working heavy armor back into the tech tree. We had been thinking about <b>removing it for cost reasons</b> but we keep hearing you want it! #fb9:58 AM Jul 22nd from TweetDeck<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This clearly shows that <i>development</i> costs are actual issue, since they can make <i>in-game resource</i> cost of it as much as they want. Now please kindly edit your post, locallyunscene, because it's spreading misinformation.
<!--quoteo(post=1718216:date=Jul 20 2009, 08:39 PM:name=Ninji)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ninji @ Jul 20 2009, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>I personally just don't get it. "Heavy armor" should have a few drawbacks, it has high armor and is slightly slower. Though you may be right Harimau It is a tower of metal if you break down to the bare bone facts. Those facts, no matter how well maneuverable this exoskeleton may be, as how heavy armor is right now dose not compensate for its size. In thin vents where you have very little room to do much more than just crawl as a stock marine, why should a hulking hunk of metal that you refer to as a exoskeleton be able to access a tiny little air vent?
Sir, I honestly don't see the logic in that. Though apparently I'm wrong. Also while that link gave good Ideas about new armor, the armor from Ns1 is what I'm referring to. If this armor is as bulky as before I really feel it is illogical to cram it in a vent and expect to succeed. Its like playing with a child's toy, the one with all the shapes and you have to fit them through. The armor is as good as a circle going into a square, Its way too tight a fit in my opinion.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say they should be able to crouch <i>in vents</i>, just that they should be able to crouch. That's a matter of <i>size</i> <b>not</b> maneuverability. You're confusing the two.
and yes, that link was a suggestion for a visual aesthetic; as well as to <b>justify</b> higher maneuverability. an exoskeleton != a knight's armour. In NS1, the HA was very much simply like a knight's armour.
<!--quoteo(post=1719235:date=Jul 24 2009, 08:48 PM:name=BCSeph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCSeph @ Jul 24 2009, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1719235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If a map-maker moved the hive closer so the modified sieges could still hit it, then it would be breaking the game, and people would not play the map, since hopefully the reason the devs would modify the siege range would be to balance them. Map makers typically want their maps to be balanced, and thus played often, so they will make maps according to standards. I fail to see why any map maker would do something like you described, unless this somehow made the map better-- but typically, going AGAINST the devs means the map will not be balanced.
So I rest my case. Making a crouching heavy a little taller than a vanilla marine, and having a vent height standard that ensures only vanilla marines and below can fit in vents, would be upheld in most maps. There is little to no reason for a map-maker to go against the balance of the game. Because think about it, if the game is balanced for that, and a map-maker designs a map with vents big enough for heavies, wouldnt that break the balance of that map? Why would a map-maker knowingly unbalance their map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:grey--><span style="color:grey"><!--/coloro-->Why would it break the balance of the map? The map would be designed knowing that heavies would be able to go in those vents. And if people would want to make vents tall enough for the slightly-taller-than-a-marine heavies, nothing is going to stop them. Consider siege maps. I doubt the game is balanced around siege maps, yet tons of them exist and lots of people played them.
I think the point of my siege cannon example was that map makers design some areas based on function. They place a hive and then add some siege locations. They are (generally) designing at least some of those areas knowing that you can siege the hive from there, not just as "a part of the map that happens to be xxx units from the hive." How about a starcraft example. Say you make a map and you have this ridge near a base, designed so that a siege tank on the ridge can just barely hit the gas. Then, there's a patch that (for some reason) just slightly decreases the range of sieged tanks. Would you go "oh, the devs decided that ridge on my map was not balanced, so this change will fix that I guess" or "hmm, I need to move that ridge a unit closer to the gas now"?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Comments
Lets just make all walls like grippable like big grids. Aliens don't hide... they have a freeking tank (ONOS) and heavy attackers (FADES + LERK GAS + BATTLE GORGE).... Where will marines hide!!!
I Propose that the vents be for marines to hide from the aliens!!! This is more realistic anyway considering how weakly marines are armed (Taser :P).
Definately like the idea of heavies not being able to fit in vents!
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a map-maker moved the hive closer so the modified sieges could still hit it, then it would be breaking the game, and people would not play the map, since hopefully the reason the devs would modify the siege range would be to balance them. Map makers typically want their maps to be balanced, and thus played often, so they will make maps according to standards. I fail to see why any map maker would do something like you described, unless this somehow made the map better-- but typically, going AGAINST the devs means the map will not be balanced.
So I rest my case. Making a crouching heavy a little taller than a vanilla marine, and having a vent height standard that ensures only vanilla marines and below can fit in vents, would be upheld in most maps. There is little to no reason for a map-maker to go against the balance of the game. Because think about it, if the game is balanced for that, and a map-maker designs a map with vents big enough for heavies, wouldnt that break the balance of that map? Why would a map-maker knowingly unbalance their map?
Lerk spikes? Really? What century are you in and can I join you? =P
Hint:
exoskeleton is an <i>external</i> skeleton. A human wearing anything like that would be bigger, and would deffinitely have trouble fitting into tight vents. Beetles and similar animals don't have internal skeletons because external one is enough for them. External skeleton is a part of their body, but a human would have to become bigger unless you subjected him into some kind of scary surgery, removing the outer layers of skin and flesh and replacing them.
I vaguely remember devs saying in a twitter update they're considering dropping heavy armour altogether, because of lack of resources to do it right and because <i>they said it just added more armour points</i>. This is why I'm advocating something as significant as making heavy armour marines unable to crouch or at least bigger. It would create an actual difference in gameplay ! Heavy armour would provide a good advantage, but it would also have limits so it's not strictly better than light armour. There would be reasons to stick to light armour. There are such reasons in Tremulous - light armour marine can crouch, can wear jetpack, or battery pack (more ammo for energy weapons). Also in Tremulous - battlesuits can't have helmet (provides motion tracking).
#fb9:58 AM Jul 22nd
from TweetDeck<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://twitter.com/NS2" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/NS2</a>
(emphasis mine)
This clearly shows that <i>development</i> costs are actual issue, since they can make <i>in-game resource</i> cost of it as much as they want. Now please kindly edit your post, locallyunscene, because it's spreading misinformation.
Sir, I honestly don't see the logic in that. Though apparently I'm wrong. Also while that link gave good Ideas about new armor, the armor from Ns1 is what I'm referring to. If this armor is as bulky as before I really feel it is illogical to cram it in a vent and expect to succeed. Its like playing with a child's toy, the one with all the shapes and you have to fit them through. The armor is as good as a circle going into a square, Its way too tight a fit in my opinion.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say they should be able to crouch <i>in vents</i>, just that they should be able to crouch.
That's a matter of <i>size</i> <b>not</b> maneuverability. You're confusing the two.
and yes, that link was a suggestion for a visual aesthetic; as well as to <b>justify</b> higher maneuverability. an exoskeleton != a knight's armour. In NS1, the HA was very much simply like a knight's armour.
So I rest my case. Making a crouching heavy a little taller than a vanilla marine, and having a vent height standard that ensures only vanilla marines and below can fit in vents, would be upheld in most maps. There is little to no reason for a map-maker to go against the balance of the game. Because think about it, if the game is balanced for that, and a map-maker designs a map with vents big enough for heavies, wouldnt that break the balance of that map? Why would a map-maker knowingly unbalance their map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:grey--><span style="color:grey"><!--/coloro-->Why would it break the balance of the map? The map would be designed knowing that heavies would be able to go in those vents. And if people would want to make vents tall enough for the slightly-taller-than-a-marine heavies, nothing is going to stop them. Consider siege maps. I doubt the game is balanced around siege maps, yet tons of them exist and lots of people played them.
I think the point of my siege cannon example was that map makers design some areas based on function. They place a hive and then add some siege locations. They are (generally) designing at least some of those areas knowing that you can siege the hive from there, not just as "a part of the map that happens to be xxx units from the hive." How about a starcraft example. Say you make a map and you have this ridge near a base, designed so that a siege tank on the ridge can just barely hit the gas. Then, there's a patch that (for some reason) just slightly decreases the range of sieged tanks. Would you go "oh, the devs decided that ridge on my map was not balanced, so this change will fix that I guess" or "hmm, I need to move that ridge a unit closer to the gas now"?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
~~Sickle~~