<!--quoteo(post=1848604:date=May 26 2011, 02:42 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ May 26 2011, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1848604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->kuban you seriously not seeing the whole problem with commander vs armory - marines far to independent and do not rely on the commander as they once did. marine and commander must be more united, as they were in ns1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see what you believe is the whole problem with commander vs. armory. I don't agree that it's necessarily a problem, since there are ways to make either path work.
<!--quoteo(post=1847771:date=May 21 2011, 08:37 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ May 21 2011, 08:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1847771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You see, it's a bit hard to tell in between all the lagging, the warping, the stuttering and the crashing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'll do the intellectual thing. Which is to not pass judgement on NS2 until it's actually finished.
Criticising an indie game barely out of alpha is like criticising self-raising flour.
<!--quoteo(post=1848993:date=May 28 2011, 05:15 PM:name=BarerRudeROC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarerRudeROC @ May 28 2011, 05:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1848993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think I'll do the intellectual thing. Which is to not pass judgement on NS2 until it's actually finished.
Criticising an indie game barely out of alpha is like criticising self-raising flour.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't seem intellectual because by that time it will be too late to make constructive suggestions/criticisms
<!--quoteo(post=1848993:date=May 29 2011, 02:15 AM:name=BarerRudeROC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarerRudeROC @ May 29 2011, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1848993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think I'll do the intellectual thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is pulling a straw-man argument? I merely stated the everyday-facts of NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1849021:date=May 29 2011, 08:45 AM:name=wulf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wulf @ May 29 2011, 08:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesn't seem intellectual because by that time it will be too late to make constructive suggestions/criticisms<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 = Complete game NS2 = Beta game
Of course constructive criticism is vital to all up and coming games, but I was making the point that you shouldn't compare a finished game to one barely out of alpha.
I see the constant argument about marine commander relations but in addition to that I'd say my biggest complaints about the game is that both sides are just too similar now. Marines require multiple "hives", though if I recall this might be changing? Marine players have personal res, and Aliens have a commander. I thought one of the best things about NS1 was simply the complete differentness to playing each team. That being said it means I have a lot of problems with the new game because they've been trying to make the teams more similar, and most likely a lot of the things I dislike are just too integrated now to really be changed. The only thing I've really even disliked besides these new similarities is that I am wary of the commanders having build bots and drifters, it makes me feel like the COMMANDER is too independent.
Anyways moral of the story is that I believe builders for commanders could be a bad idea, that having the teams so similar could be a bad idea, and the best way to fix marine independence, if you view it as a problem that is, was the idea that the armory will only supply lower tech guns and the commander gives higher tech. That being said there is a simple remedy to all of our grievances. Mods.
NS2 is suppose to be easily mod-able and thrive on a community of modding, so rather than harassing game developers go harass a modder to start working now so that we can have that special mod to ease our nostalgia of NS1.
<!--quoteo(post=1849291:date=May 31 2011, 03:41 AM:name=Nelerath)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nelerath @ May 31 2011, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see the constant argument about marine commander relations but in addition to that I'd say my biggest complaints about the game is that both sides are just too similar now. Marines require multiple "hives", though if I recall this might be changing? Marine players have personal res, and Aliens have a commander. I thought one of the best things about NS1 was simply the complete differentness to playing each team. That being said it means I have a lot of problems with the new game because they've been trying to make the teams more similar, and most likely a lot of the things I dislike are just too integrated now to really be changed. The only thing I've really even disliked besides these new similarities is that I am wary of the commanders having build bots and drifters, it makes me feel like the COMMANDER is too independent.
Anyways moral of the story is that I believe builders for commanders could be a bad idea, that having the teams so similar could be a bad idea, and the best way to fix marine independence, if you view it as a problem that is, was the idea that the armory will only supply lower tech guns and the commander gives higher tech. That being said there is a simple remedy to all of our grievances. Mods.
NS2 is suppose to be easily mod-able and thrive on a community of modding, so rather than harassing game developers go harass a modder to start working now so that we can have that special mod to ease our nostalgia of NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the commander sucks... squat over his command chair and show him what he's worth.
<!--quoteo(post=1849291:date=May 30 2011, 11:41 PM:name=Nelerath)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nelerath @ May 30 2011, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marines require multiple "hives", though if I recall this might be changing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time you played the game? ATM marines don't need a 2nd commchair to upgrade the first one.
BTW I like it how commander and Marines are more independent. The commander can now focus on the iportand things like giving orders and sharing medpacks at the frond instead of nursing respawned marines with new equipment. And I also like the MAC, because ... did you ever play a 2 vs 2? You just need a MAC to build stuff (maybe a RT) while the marines go fighting. Besides, I had a game 2 days ago in which no marine listened to my commands. I had 5 Restowers on summit and tried to turretpush into the alien starthive. But it didn't work. even with 10+ turrets in the room because no marine supported the turrets or helped building. Bottom line: you still need the marines.
There are and there will always be players who just go ramb,o no matter how much teamplay is necessary. You can't force them to teamplay.
Make the squad system better and easier to use. Putting people into squads and making them know that they are in a squad will make them think that their commander is good and will help them.
If they think that you are a good commander then they will do as you say because it will help them win the game and individuals and as a team.
Basically:
Improve the way the marine commander handles his troops to allow him to have an easier control over them.
Other marines need a way to show who else is in their squad. If I was told that "Shilorius" was in my squad then I would stick with him. I wouldn't rambo as much as I would.
In conclusion:
Improved squads = Improved team-play.
We still need a way to punish rambos, Shotgun is very strong, hopefully the next build will make it fine.
<!--quoteo(post=1849291:date=May 31 2011, 07:41 PM:name=Nelerath)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nelerath @ May 31 2011, 07:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see the constant argument about marine commander relations but in addition to that I'd say my biggest complaints about the game is that both sides are just too similar now. Marines require multiple "hives", though if I recall this might be changing? Marine players have personal res, and Aliens have a commander. I thought one of the best things about NS1 was simply the complete differentness to playing each team. That being said it means I have a lot of problems with the new game because they've been trying to make the teams more similar, and most likely a lot of the things I dislike are just too integrated now to really be changed. The only thing I've really even disliked besides these new similarities is that I am wary of the commanders having build bots and drifters, it makes me feel like the COMMANDER is too independent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The two teams are still very far from similar.
I mean, youve got ranged vs mostly melee? How is that similar. They cant just engage one another in the same formation thanks to this.
And you're prolly going to mention now that the tech trees are similar? Well that's partly true and who the hell cares: In warcraft 3 Lets take a 1v1 orc vs human. Orc gets grunts, humans get footmen/rifles. Orcs own those so human techs tier2 to get sorcs and priests. Orc needs to tech tier2 for his own counter with wyverns/raiders shamans. Whoever appears to be losing forced to expand/ go t3 to build better units or just simply make more units.
^^ theyre both similar tech trees, but its nothing to complain about. Its like this in every rts game. What i see you trying to say is that this isnt a good idea for ns2 but when we look at the big picture, it is a f**king rts game. Therefor should follow the basic rules/guidelines that apply to most rts games.
I am not saying that they're exactly the same, but you can't deny that they are vastly more similar now than they were before. And it has been awhile since I played the beta, and I've yet to get in a good game to see all the mechanics in action so I don't know how well they work or don't work, I am merely commenting more along the lines of personal preference than saying the game is broken and needs fixing.
I get where you're coming from. It seems to me like the aliens invading the ship would need the territory for techs sake, creating hives and spreading infestation to provide a stable environment/atmosphere for their race to grow, expand, tech up if you will. Marines on the otherhand, I don't get why locations on a spaceship would be required to upgrade. It just seems to be needlessly importing other ideas from other strategy games that wouldn't be 100% relevant to the tsa.
Aliens need to acquire more hives and infest the station, marines need to push them out- both battling for resources along the way.
<!--quoteo(post=1849575:date=Jun 2 2011, 05:13 AM:name=wulf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wulf @ Jun 2 2011, 05:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marines on the otherhand, I don't get why locations on a spaceship would be required to upgrade. It just seems to be needlessly importing other ideas from other strategy games that wouldn't be 100% relevant to the tsa.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fictionally: Because the TSA travel light in order to be mobile. They're piggybacking on the local Technology & Power and sort of injecting their own into the mix, and NEED the Power & Technology from the Power/NanoGrid in order to build their own.
Back when the discussions drifted to Tech Points/landmarks that would provide some unique locational bonus (i.e. Communications Tech Point provided better Technology/Upgrades for the Observatory), this concept was reinforced. Alas...
<!--quoteo(post=1849291:date=May 31 2011, 03:41 AM:name=Nelerath)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nelerath @ May 31 2011, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... was the idea that the armory will only supply lower tech guns and the commander gives higher tech. ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that idea. I would only like it if the commander GAVE explicitly to a selected marine an EXO suit.
I hated the drop and grab mechanic of NS1. it was so frustrating when something meant for YOU was just grabbed by anyone.
As a side note for all those people who think marines and aliens are the same. You are not switching sides often enough. (Seriously switch sides a couple times before you decide something is overpowered)
marines = group together and increase the gap between you and the enemy (range range range) aliens = sneak harass and close that gap and then get out and heal...even better when you go heal ...a fresh player takes your place (we all look alike)
Play as marine commander. then play as alien overlord (commander).
play styles are completely different. marine commander gives constant feedback and direction...otherwise he is worthless alien commander builds infrastructure so upgrades unlock and buildings do not fall easily...because you are more spread out with the same headcount.
marine = turtle alien = spread
yep no difference except i have teeth instead of a gun ... i am shorter ... and i walk on ceilings
<!--quoteo(post=1849629:date=Jun 2 2011, 12:02 PM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Jun 2 2011, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->then play as alien overlord (commander).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow. Has anyone else suggested 'Overlord' as the official name for the Alien Commander? Sounds perfect.
<!--quoteo(post=1849628:date=Jun 2 2011, 08:56 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 2 2011, 08:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849628"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fictionally: Because the TSA travel light in order to be mobile. They're piggybacking on the local Technology & Power and sort of injecting their own into the mix, and NEED the Power & Technology from the Power/NanoGrid in order to build their own.
Back when the discussions drifted to Tech Points/landmarks that would provide some unique locational bonus (i.e. Communications Tech Point provided better Technology/Upgrades for the Observatory), this concept was reinforced. Alas...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're piggybacking on the power, but I'm not seeing the tech point. Marines seemed to be more self contained. One thing I liked alot about NS1 when it came out was the proto-lab, it just gave the feel that the marines are (in the fiction surrounding the game) struggling to keep up and researching ways to gain the upper hand.
Landmarks on the otherhand seems like a more fluid and unique (and actually relevant) response to this, but would need to find some sort of widespread integration into the maps. Like does each map have an intelligence/surveillance landmark? Or does one map have the observatory option and another map would have another point to achieve.
"Tech points" just seems pretty generic and under developed as I believe the whole powernode scheme is. The idea of the power scheme is sound and really interesting, but a bit one dimensional at this point
Saint RawJoin Date: 2011-05-18Member: 99414Members
<!--quoteo(post=1849638:date=Jun 2 2011, 07:11 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 2 2011, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow. Has anyone else suggested 'Overlord' as the official name for the Alien Commander? Sounds perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1849642:date=Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM:name=wulf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wulf @ Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Landmarks on the otherhand seems like a more fluid and unique (and actually relevant) response to this, but would need to find some sort of widespread integration into the maps. Like does each map have an intelligence/surveillance landmark? Or does one map have the observatory option and another map would have another point to achieve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that's the issue. One offshoot suggestion to this was to allow only one Tech-providing structure per CC, which is effectively applying the Aliens Tech Tree structure to the Marines. There are a lot of issues with that however (Devs want Marines to typically function in one base to keep cohesion, confines the number of tech tree structures and/or tech points per map, etc.)
<!--quoteo(post=1849642:date=Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM:name=wulf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wulf @ Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of the power scheme is sound and really interesting, but a bit one dimensional at this point<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113568" target="_blank">Try this out.</a>
Comments
I see what you believe is the whole problem with commander vs. armory. I don't agree that it's necessarily a problem, since there are ways to make either path work.
That is my opinion.
I think I'll do the intellectual thing.
Which is to not pass judgement on NS2 until it's actually finished.
Criticising an indie game barely out of alpha is like criticising self-raising flour.
Which is to not pass judgement on NS2 until it's actually finished.
Criticising an indie game barely out of alpha is like criticising self-raising flour.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't seem intellectual because by that time it will be too late to make constructive suggestions/criticisms
Which is pulling a straw-man argument? I merely stated the everyday-facts of NS2.
NS1 = Complete game
NS2 = Beta game
Of course constructive criticism is vital to all up and coming games,
but I was making the point that you shouldn't compare a finished game to one barely out of alpha.
Anyways moral of the story is that I believe builders for commanders could be a bad idea, that having the teams so similar could be a bad idea, and the best way to fix marine independence, if you view it as a problem that is, was the idea that the armory will only supply lower tech guns and the commander gives higher tech. That being said there is a simple remedy to all of our grievances. Mods.
NS2 is suppose to be easily mod-able and thrive on a community of modding, so rather than harassing game developers go harass a modder to start working now so that we can have that special mod to ease our nostalgia of NS1.
Anyways moral of the story is that I believe builders for commanders could be a bad idea, that having the teams so similar could be a bad idea, and the best way to fix marine independence, if you view it as a problem that is, was the idea that the armory will only supply lower tech guns and the commander gives higher tech. That being said there is a simple remedy to all of our grievances. Mods.
NS2 is suppose to be easily mod-able and thrive on a community of modding, so rather than harassing game developers go harass a modder to start working now so that we can have that special mod to ease our nostalgia of NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the commander sucks... squat over his command chair and show him what he's worth.
When was the last time you played the game?
ATM marines don't need a 2nd commchair to upgrade the first one.
BTW I like it how commander and Marines are more independent.
The commander can now focus on the iportand things like giving orders and sharing medpacks at the frond instead of nursing respawned marines with new equipment.
And I also like the MAC, because ... did you ever play a 2 vs 2? You just need a MAC to build stuff (maybe a RT) while the marines go fighting.
Besides, I had a game 2 days ago in which no marine listened to my commands. I had 5 Restowers on summit and tried to turretpush into the alien starthive. But it didn't work. even with 10+ turrets in the room because no marine supported the turrets or helped building.
Bottom line: you still need the marines.
There are and there will always be players who just go ramb,o no matter how much teamplay is necessary.
You can't force them to teamplay.
Make the squad system better and easier to use. Putting people into squads and making them know that they are in a squad will make them think that their commander is good and will help them.
If they think that you are a good commander then they will do as you say because it will help them win the game and individuals and as a team.
Basically:
Improve the way the marine commander handles his troops to allow him to have an easier control over them.
Other marines need a way to show who else is in their squad. If I was told that "Shilorius" was in my squad then I would stick with him. I wouldn't rambo as much as I would.
In conclusion:
Improved squads = Improved team-play.
We still need a way to punish rambos, Shotgun is very strong, hopefully the next build will make it fine.
The two teams are still very far from similar.
I mean, youve got ranged vs mostly melee? How is that similar. They cant just engage one another in the same formation thanks to this.
And you're prolly going to mention now that the tech trees are similar? Well that's partly true and who the hell cares:
In warcraft 3 Lets take a 1v1 orc vs human.
Orc gets grunts, humans get footmen/rifles. Orcs own those so human techs tier2 to get sorcs and priests.
Orc needs to tech tier2 for his own counter with wyverns/raiders shamans.
Whoever appears to be losing forced to expand/ go t3 to build better units or just simply make more units.
^^ theyre both similar tech trees, but its nothing to complain about. Its like this in every rts game. What i see you trying to say is that this isnt a good idea for ns2 but when we look at the big picture, it is a f**king rts game. Therefor should follow the basic rules/guidelines that apply to most rts games.
This notion that the two sides are so similar now only exists on paper and not in actual practice.
I get where you're coming from. It seems to me like the aliens invading the ship would need the territory for techs sake, creating hives and spreading infestation to provide a stable environment/atmosphere for their race to grow, expand, tech up if you will. Marines on the otherhand, I don't get why locations on a spaceship would be required to upgrade. It just seems to be needlessly importing other ideas from other strategy games that wouldn't be 100% relevant to the tsa.
Aliens need to acquire more hives and infest the station, marines need to push them out- both battling for resources along the way.
Fictionally: Because the TSA travel light in order to be mobile. They're piggybacking on the local Technology & Power and sort of injecting their own into the mix, and NEED the Power & Technology from the Power/NanoGrid in order to build their own.
Back when the discussions drifted to Tech Points/landmarks that would provide some unique locational bonus (i.e. Communications Tech Point provided better Technology/Upgrades for the Observatory), this concept was reinforced. Alas...
I like that idea.
I would only like it if the commander GAVE explicitly to a selected marine an EXO suit.
I hated the drop and grab mechanic of NS1.
it was so frustrating when something meant for YOU was just grabbed by anyone.
As a side note for all those people who think marines and aliens are the same.
You are not switching sides often enough.
(Seriously switch sides a couple times before you decide something is overpowered)
marines = group together and increase the gap between you and the enemy (range range range)
aliens = sneak harass and close that gap and then get out and heal...even better when you go heal ...a fresh player takes your place (we all look alike)
Play as marine commander.
then play as alien overlord (commander).
play styles are completely different.
marine commander gives constant feedback and direction...otherwise he is worthless
alien commander builds infrastructure so upgrades unlock and buildings do not fall easily...because you are more spread out with the same headcount.
marine = turtle
alien = spread
yep no difference except i have teeth instead of a gun ... i am shorter ... and i walk on ceilings
Wow. Has anyone else suggested 'Overlord' as the official name for the Alien Commander? Sounds perfect.
Back when the discussions drifted to Tech Points/landmarks that would provide some unique locational bonus (i.e. Communications Tech Point provided better Technology/Upgrades for the Observatory), this concept was reinforced. Alas...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're piggybacking on the power, but I'm not seeing the tech point. Marines seemed to be more self contained. One thing I liked alot about NS1 when it came out was the proto-lab, it just gave the feel that the marines are (in the fiction surrounding the game) struggling to keep up and researching ways to gain the upper hand.
Landmarks on the otherhand seems like a more fluid and unique (and actually relevant) response to this, but would need to find some sort of widespread integration into the maps. Like does each map have an intelligence/surveillance landmark? Or does one map have the observatory option and another map would have another point to achieve.
"Tech points" just seems pretty generic and under developed as I believe the whole powernode scheme is. The idea of the power scheme is sound and really interesting, but a bit one dimensional at this point
Hyvemind.
Yeah, that's the issue. One offshoot suggestion to this was to allow only one Tech-providing structure per CC, which is effectively applying the Aliens Tech Tree structure to the Marines. There are a lot of issues with that however (Devs want Marines to typically function in one base to keep cohesion, confines the number of tech tree structures and/or tech points per map, etc.)
<!--quoteo(post=1849642:date=Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM:name=wulf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wulf @ Jun 2 2011, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of the power scheme is sound and really interesting, but a bit one dimensional at this point<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113568" target="_blank">Try this out.</a>
Definitely should be taken into consideration by UW