Straw Poll Results and MAC Discussion Analysis.
spellman23
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
<div class="IPBDescription">distilled un(?)-biased goodness</div>Now that the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110778" target="_blank">poll</a> has quieted down, we can look at the results and some of the discussion.
First, a huge DISCLAIMER:
This poll is in no way scientific nor should ever be used as proof of the feelings of the community at large. This poll is strongly susceptible to a variety of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias" target="_blank">sampling biases</a>, including small sample bias (about 100 votes out of 16,000 pre-orders), self-selection bias, and the possibility to see other users’ responses before voting yourself. Plus, the forums are mostly filled with olde NS1 players who may be predisposed against change. Coupled onto that were the modifiers which grew the number of choices beyond the simple 3 main choices. As many know, picking a winner in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Single-winner_methods" target="_blank">any voting system with more than 3 choices</a> will come out “unfairâ€.
The original purpose of this poll was to see where the popularity in the forum was since it is difficult to judge based on numbers of posts from a variety of well-spoken individuals on the myriad of threads. I admit I expected the lines to be closer to even, or that option 2 would win out.
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110841&view=findpost&p=1792607" target="_blank">Link to Poll Results and Analysis</a></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><u>Brief Review of the Arguments</u><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The existence of MACs are confirmed. We have been discussing what their role will be in NS2. The question is primarily whether they will be the main builders or not. Let us briefly look at distilled arguments from both sides. I am merely listing the arguments and am trying to not make commentary on strengths nor validity. Links to some highlight posts that really get their point across.
<b>MACs as sole builders</b>
<ul><li>Promotes supply lines that must be protected. Expands the RTS component and helps create more defined battle lines.</li><li>Lets the commander focus on a more pure RTS experience.</li><li>Provides a micro component to the commander to keep the MAC safe.</li><li>Commander interaction with other players to ensure the MAC stays protected, stronger reliance since they are also microing the MAC at the same time.</li><li>Must think ahead for base building to get a MAC there.</li><li>Frees up Marines to go play their FPS component.</li><li>Tension while guarding constantly.</li><li>Standing around pressing e is boring.</li><li>Keeps MACs important, prevent redundancy.</li><li>Let’s test it first and see how it goes. Stop being afraid of change!</li></ul>
Required posts to read:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110803&st=20&p=1792478&#entry1792478" target="_blank">Post 1</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1790533" target="_blank">Post 2</a>
<b>Marines can build as well</b>
<ul><li>Provides a choice for players on the ground to lower their weapon and help “power buildâ€. Tradeoff of extra building speed and security (tension argument).</li><li>Less of a requirement to escort something. General animosity to escort missions.</li><li>MACs will become less pivotal and not the sole target of Aliens. Worry that MACs may become a severe weak point for the Marine team due to vulnerability and AI pathing if only MACs are allowed to build.</li><li>Allows for a single Marine to ninja behind enemy lines without a noisy MAC.</li><li>Players can interact more hands-on with the RTS component and take part in the strategy. MAC only building splits the game into two disjoint components, a RTS game and a separate FPS one that happens concurrently.</li><li>MACs will have other support abilities to keep it relevant and will be the best builder (modifier D).</li><li>It worked in NS1.</li><li>Provides a choice for the commander to purchase a MAC or not (option 3 only).</li><li>Provides a backup choice to will build the building in case the MAC is killed (option 3 only).</li></ul>
Required posts to read:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1791683" target="_blank">Post 1</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1790219" target="_blank">Post 2</a>
First, a huge DISCLAIMER:
This poll is in no way scientific nor should ever be used as proof of the feelings of the community at large. This poll is strongly susceptible to a variety of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias" target="_blank">sampling biases</a>, including small sample bias (about 100 votes out of 16,000 pre-orders), self-selection bias, and the possibility to see other users’ responses before voting yourself. Plus, the forums are mostly filled with olde NS1 players who may be predisposed against change. Coupled onto that were the modifiers which grew the number of choices beyond the simple 3 main choices. As many know, picking a winner in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Single-winner_methods" target="_blank">any voting system with more than 3 choices</a> will come out “unfairâ€.
The original purpose of this poll was to see where the popularity in the forum was since it is difficult to judge based on numbers of posts from a variety of well-spoken individuals on the myriad of threads. I admit I expected the lines to be closer to even, or that option 2 would win out.
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110841&view=findpost&p=1792607" target="_blank">Link to Poll Results and Analysis</a></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><u>Brief Review of the Arguments</u><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The existence of MACs are confirmed. We have been discussing what their role will be in NS2. The question is primarily whether they will be the main builders or not. Let us briefly look at distilled arguments from both sides. I am merely listing the arguments and am trying to not make commentary on strengths nor validity. Links to some highlight posts that really get their point across.
<b>MACs as sole builders</b>
<ul><li>Promotes supply lines that must be protected. Expands the RTS component and helps create more defined battle lines.</li><li>Lets the commander focus on a more pure RTS experience.</li><li>Provides a micro component to the commander to keep the MAC safe.</li><li>Commander interaction with other players to ensure the MAC stays protected, stronger reliance since they are also microing the MAC at the same time.</li><li>Must think ahead for base building to get a MAC there.</li><li>Frees up Marines to go play their FPS component.</li><li>Tension while guarding constantly.</li><li>Standing around pressing e is boring.</li><li>Keeps MACs important, prevent redundancy.</li><li>Let’s test it first and see how it goes. Stop being afraid of change!</li></ul>
Required posts to read:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110803&st=20&p=1792478&#entry1792478" target="_blank">Post 1</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1790533" target="_blank">Post 2</a>
<b>Marines can build as well</b>
<ul><li>Provides a choice for players on the ground to lower their weapon and help “power buildâ€. Tradeoff of extra building speed and security (tension argument).</li><li>Less of a requirement to escort something. General animosity to escort missions.</li><li>MACs will become less pivotal and not the sole target of Aliens. Worry that MACs may become a severe weak point for the Marine team due to vulnerability and AI pathing if only MACs are allowed to build.</li><li>Allows for a single Marine to ninja behind enemy lines without a noisy MAC.</li><li>Players can interact more hands-on with the RTS component and take part in the strategy. MAC only building splits the game into two disjoint components, a RTS game and a separate FPS one that happens concurrently.</li><li>MACs will have other support abilities to keep it relevant and will be the best builder (modifier D).</li><li>It worked in NS1.</li><li>Provides a choice for the commander to purchase a MAC or not (option 3 only).</li><li>Provides a backup choice to will build the building in case the MAC is killed (option 3 only).</li></ul>
Required posts to read:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1791683" target="_blank">Post 1</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1790219" target="_blank">Post 2</a>
Comments
You can see the original values at the <a href="http://â€http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110778â€" target="_blank">original thread</a>. These are just some of the gleaned values.
The top three choices with modifiers were 3D (35 votes), 1 (18 votes), and 3 (9 votes). It would appear 3D wins handily.
The choices without modifiers are replicated below:
1: |||||||||| ||||||||
2: |||||||||| |||||
3: |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||
From the people who chose to vote, it appears 3 is the victor. Specifically 3D, which makes the Marines build slower than the MACs. This makes the MAC remain the main builder, but provides the option for Marines.
The most used modifier (besides D) was A: Marines must carry some item to help construct (12 votes). Some seemed to like the idea that Marines had to specialize and buy equipment to be able to help build.
Looking at the 1+2 versus 3 votes, it is 33 to 60. Over half of the votes went into option 3+modifiers. Similarly, 3D is twice as popular as choice 1. The forum-ites seem to really like choice 3(D). Then again, as noted before, the forums are mainly filled with olde NS1 players.
Option 2, while a contender, was mired and divided amongst the modifiers and didn't have a unified choice emerge. That being said, Option 3 actually caused more modifiers to be spawned. There were originally only 4 modifiers, but Option 3 has a vote that includes every single modifier somewhere.
Originally it was a tight race. At the end of 24 hours, I was about to call it a 3-way draw. I think option 3 was ahead, but only by a few votes and mostly due to various modifiers bolstering it up. 3D was behind 1. However, choices 1 and 3D eventually began to pull ahead and people settled seemingly into camps about their choices. This is probably due to people being able to see the results before voting.
In closing, this has been a very interesting poll. I again state that these results should NOT be taken as facts for the community nor playerbase, and again I am surprised more people didn’t take the option 2 compromise. Seems to give the benefits of both (heavily RTS, escorting/supply lines required, power building, building defenseless tension) with little drawbacks, but maybe that’s just me in my little world.
Personally, I think the poll is relatively uninformative due to the small sample size and sample bias (as you disclosed), however the clear summary of argumentative points is going to be of benefit to make it much easier for the decision makers to decide.
What upsets me most is that very few, if anyone (including UWE), attempted to think of ideas to make MAC-only building work, before prematurely deciding that marines should be able to build again.
Sorry, fixed it.
Byproduct of originally writing this in another program.
Yes, sadly that is true. It feels like a great chance of starting with a fresh game play concept has been lost.
Well, the "marines-must-build"-fanboys hooted the loudest and got heard, lets live with it.
Well, the "marines-must-build"-fanboys hooted the loudest and got heard, lets live with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS was never a shoot-only game, why should they change one of the unique play style to make it a regular FPS? We the "fanboys" as you called us, want to keep the essence of the game. That doesn't mean we don't want some new stuff, or ideas (Infestation, Power Grid, and EVEN MACs are welcome). But if you really feel like grabbing a gun as soon the map starts, and run to kill enemies forgetting base and comm, and you don't feel comfortable with "marines-must-build", then maybe it is not the kind of game for you. Since that is what NS has always been.
PS: In the future, try to avoid "adjectives" to describe people that don't think like you.
True. But as for NS2, this unique playstyle might have been achived by a bot-build game play mechanic as well. This is what a certain faction (like this term better?) in the forums could not imagine .... for whatever reasons....
So we will never try this and will never know. This some of us here mourn, nothing more - nothing less.
<ul><li>Less of a requirement to escort something. General animosity to escort missions.</li><li>Allows for a single Marine to ninja behind enemy lines without a noisy MAC.</li><li>It worked in NS1.</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These three really have no merit. First, if everyone hates escort missions and that's a major reason as to why MACs are being reduced then the mobile sieges should be looked at too. Second, a single marine can't ninja anything behind enemy lines -- the powergrid system prevents that. If the reference is to ninja attacking one of their RTs you don't need a MAC for that. And finally, NS1 is not NS2.
I feel like the animosity and general dislike is based off NS1 gameplay concepts. <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110696&view=findpost&p=1792733" target="_blank">For example, here's someone who adamantly argued against MAC only construction and had no idea maps are more streamlined in NS2.</a> When potentially awesome gameplay ideas are tossed out before they're even tried it's sad. Almost sad enough for me to use an emoticon.
PS: In the future, try to avoid "adjectives" to describe people that don't think like you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regular FPS has ranged vs melee? Regular FPS has territory control, strategies, and upgrade order decided by a player? Regular FPS has resource model or tech trees? No. If you think building was the essence of the game, you've never been involved in a shotgun rush.
Wanna know one regular FPS with ranged vs melee? Ok, AvP (saga).
Anyway, when i say essence, is not only building ability but the mayor points of the game, those that make the game really unique (strategy, comms, aliens/marines-building/welding,etc). Taking out one of those, makes a big difference. Just think if Blizzard took from you the ability to build your base in SC2 and just let you create units to attack, letting the computer the base building. Would it be the same SC you played so much and loved? It still would be a strategy game, but wouldn't be the same right?
PS: Yes, i've been in a shotgun rush, but it only happens once in 15~20 matches. So? What's your point? It's just an strategy you use from time to time, but it's a decision and the build base is another one.
The fact that you think this is a valid comparison just shows how out of touch your opinion is. That's like saying "imagine you play an FPS but the computer shoots your gun" and is in no way relevant to the current conversation.
Marines will be able to build so we'll see if they can add something else to the RTS aspect to compensate for a very diminished MAC role.
I'm confused why do you think MAC role is dimished at all, uses are various and I hate to repeat myself but scouting, building (both guarded / unguarded), and weldering in "squads". Adding building to marines only reduces dependancy on clumsy AI with a fixed routes.
The only reason I'm not in full support of marines helping build is that I know, at some point or another, that I will end up in an argument with a commander about whether or not I should be helping the MAC or on guard. A specialization requirement for the marine would settle this worry for me.
My fear is that allowing marines to build will always trump MACs, assuming the team is competent, will severely reduce the role of the MAC making them a redundant after thought. Why send a MAC, which is weaker than a marine, requires preplanning and attention, and costs resources when a marine walking by can just say "oh hey, can I get this RT?"
Do not assume the team is competent...sometimes it is not...and that does not mean you will lose.
The MAC has not diminished.
Its main purpose in my eyes was to destroy the role of base monkey...and it still has succeeded.
I welcome the MAC and it will be my primary builder.
<!--quoteo(post=1792606:date=Aug 6 2010, 06:42 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Aug 6 2010, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am merely listing the arguments and am trying to not make commentary on strengths nor validity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marines will be able to build so we'll see if they can add something else to the RTS aspect to compensate for a very diminished MAC role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wasn't a comparison... A silly example, maybe. But YOU ARE NOT the one to say if my opinion is valid or not. Since at the end, my opinion stay the same and have a good reason for that. So valid as yours is.
Good then you won't mind my latest idea... I think all MACs should be armed and cover marine builders...in fact they should be the only units that are armed... after all who wants to click mouse 1 all the time ?
That's an opinion, and valid, now if i agree with it or not is another matter. But no one has the right to say your opinion is not valid.
And btw, i want to click mouse 1 as well as E. That's better, in my opinion... :)
On smaller team I think I could always use an extra set of builder hands, as long as the MAC micro works so that I can actually rely on it. There are a plenty of nodes one guy can't cap and it's usually extremely useful to have some extra manpower free on the guns. On bigger games I have no clue. The lower the level of play, the less value MAC would have, I guess.
I'd maybe try to add up to MACs value through some other passive/active abilities so that it's a valuable group member on it's own and it can proceed to build stuff while gets the chance. Rather than sharing the existing group dynamic with MAC and the marines, I'd try to find a way to create MAC a share of it's own value.
I don't know if there's a proper solution to this, but I still feel that cutting down too much from the marine abilities starts to make it a far less diverse game. The situations in general get a lot more monotonic when there's always one bot building and the marines are at guarding positions, it removes the whole situational dynamic out of it. That's in a way pretty harmful to the RTS element too.
Oh please. A person can have an opinion that the world is flat all they want. That doesn't make it a valid opinion, it makes it a stupid one.
I would say most the comments in UWE forums are as "valid" as the flat world, what matters is how you reason / explain why it might be correct.
On that we agree. So here's two reasons why if marines can build freely, MACs become basically useless as a strategic device:
1. An undefended MAC is an eaten MAC.
2. MACs cost resources.
Combine those two things and what you get is people ejecting commanders who build MACs, especially if they try to use it for anything other than the base ######.
After all, if you need a marine to defend it, and marines can build, why is the commander spending the resources on the MAC when he could just send the marine and be spending the resources on upgrades for the whole team, including said marine.
1. An undefended MAC is an eaten MAC.
2. MACs cost resources.
Combine those two things and what you get is people ejecting commanders who build MACs, especially if they try to use it for anything other than the base ######.
After all, if you need a marine to defend it, and marines can build, why is the commander spending the resources on the MAC when he could just send the marine and be spending the resources on upgrades for the whole team, including said marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you yourself are admitting that MAC's are pretty much worthless on their own, especially as the only unit that could build. I mean by your own admittance your saying players will eject coms who build MAC's doesn't this in itself show how much of a burden they would be?
But that is just going off by your opinion, because I know for myself if I was commanding I would use MAC's and I'm pretty sure most people that posses any sort of common sense wouldn't eject me for it.
All in all and I will say this for the last time, ANYTHING, and I repeat, ANYTHING you can do with only MAC's building you can STILL do... key word STILL do with marines being able to build as well. You potentially can play an entire game where marines do nothing but escort and guard the MAC's while they do ALL the building. And if your argument is well that won't happen because marines will build then good, if people are CHOOSING to do it obviously it must be more effective and fun because otherwise, they would have either someone else build or a MAC do it.
So with them adding building in for marines everyone wins, those that don't want it, have the CHOICE to never, ever, ever build, or if they com to never tell or have a marine build a single thing and only use MAC's, simple huh?