Marines need more defensive capabilities.

13»

Comments

  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1911311:date=Mar 8 2012, 06:32 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 8 2012, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911311"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's no different than egg camping or IP camping.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Annoying and entirely invalidating the rest of the defensive/offensive options when attacking/defending a base?
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
    edited March 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=1911311:date=Mar 8 2012, 10:32 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 8 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911311"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You aren't "attempting to hold" an area if you're phasing into a room which the aliens have already taken control of. That's called "attempting to retake" which should be hard.

    1 alien can't block a phase gate unless you're exploiting the broken collision, which is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fades standing on one side of the gate and blocking you from leaving that side. That is legit and should be left in as such. If you lose control over the exit of your phase gate, then you should have to work to regain control.

    It's no different than egg camping or IP camping.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    once again,
    <i>Who said it was a room aliens have taken control of??</i> i didnt. you could PG to anywhere uncontested across the map or even close like Gap, and <b>what i said still stands true. </b>

    1 alien CAN currently block the PG, i dont know if this is because of broken collision or just a feature they did not consider, doesnt matter though as <b>what i said still stands true.</b>

    you are simply restating over and over "if you lose control" but you aren't actually providing any argument on <b>HOW </b>its a viable option??,<i> and when you make your case please consider the points i've already pointed out previously.</i>

    <b>finally</b>, it sure is different than spawn camping in that:

    A) you can beacon your entire team from anywhere on the map to said location to kill the spawn campers but cant for that lonely PG
    B) you most likely have some MACs or at the very least a commander available to weld and also FIGHT in the nearby area but cant for that lonely PG
    C) you most likely have an established base already and have at least a few turrets/mines unlike the room with that lonely PG
    D) aliens still have some amount of travel time to reach your base, as opposed to that potentially closer, and yes, lonely PG



    <b>Edit</b>: suggestion time... what about being able to beacon to a PG? Beacon has built in trade offs already, and wasting it on a location other than base is another large tradeoff leaving you vulnerable in base w/out beacon,<i> in order to contest that PG/room?</i>
  • Shrike3OShrike3O Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6678Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 12:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 12:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Edit</b>: suggestion time... what about being able to beacon to a PG? Beacon has built in trade offs already, and wasting it on a location other than base is another large tradeoff leaving you vulnerable in base w/out beacon,<i> in order to contest that PG/room?</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That'd be phenomenally powerful in pub play, where one of the biggest problems with a "beacon and gate rush" is the amount of time people will spend screwing around in base before actually gate rushing. I think I'd like to see it associated with an obs (so you'd need a phase AND an obs on the other end to make it happen), or to have it cost TRes to fire off this version of a beacon.

    I'm a big user of multiple CCs and obs, so that I can beacon my entire team all over the map. Makes life really hard on the Kharaa when a fully loaded raiding force blows something out, and is then all the way across the map hitting something else just as hard 20 seconds later.
  • RautapalliRautapalli Join Date: 2010-07-23 Member: 72710Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited March 2012
    Quote from <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=116948&view=findpost&p=1911964" target="_blank">this</a> thread.
    <!--quoteo(post=1911964:date=Mar 11 2012, 01:36 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 11 2012, 01:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><ul><li> unless of course you couldnt phase through because there was a singular fade on the other side swiping, destroying that PG... and this is where beaconing to that PG would become useful, allowing your rines to contest it's destruction.</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    So is this the only reason you want this feature? A SINGLE fade swiping on your PG? There is no way a single fade will be able to do that without exploiting the current collision system that lets players clip inside eachother when teleporting. THAT is not a game mechanic in the first place, it's a mistake in their collision code. Your suggestion is just a workaround for something that should be fixed from the source of the problem anyway.

    When that exploit is fixed, you'd need at least two fades to block the PG properly. And that's 100 pres blocking a single, lonely PG. Why should a single PG that the marine team left there be able to survive that?
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
    edited March 2012
    0o0o this would be a great change, look at this:

    obs currently beacons you to the nearest CC, <u>what if it considered PGs as well in that assessment?</u> that would be the 15 Tres cost right there for an additional nearby Obs, ONTOP of the research cost that potentially could be implemented, ontop of the secondary use and stretching of energy trade off it would incur.

    i believe the many trade offs would offset the potential OP, and it solves many problems: holding ground for marines, PvP instead of turret spam, wasting res on PG etc?



    <b>Edit</b>: @ Rautapalli
    thats just an example. 4 skulks costing NO RES can stop marines from even contesting the loss of their source of mobility/15 Tres without exploiting anything! and that PG would be down in <b>SECONDS</b>
    if the intended purpose of that thing is mobility for marines to counter the inherent mobility advantage of aliens, why make it so non viable of an option? consider my points i've already explained in the previous pages to include leaving one marine, or any man power stationary and static as well as turret and robo cost versus map control momentum on par with aliens and you will see that viability of the PG needs help somehow - its just far too easy to push back marines this way <b>(and the exploitable collision problems are just highlighting this issue as i said above considering a couple of skulks)</b> would you really be opposed to testing out my suggestion first?
    (i'm sure we can LUA this in somehow, wheres a modder when you need one?)
  • RautapalliRautapalli Join Date: 2010-07-23 Member: 72710Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited March 2012
    Anything will be down in seconds if you let 4 skulks attack it at the same time. That extra obs will be down in about 2-3 seconds and the PG quickly after that.

    Why do the marines need to have an forward PG in a unprotected area without it being a risky move? They should be focused on locking up any potential hive locations and place the PG there, the maps are rather small and the marines can reach their destination almost as fast from that forward base as they would by using that unprotected PG. Difference being that placing defenses around it would not be such a waste now, since that location is much more important than just a quick forward PG.
  • GORGEousGORGEous Join Date: 2012-02-19 Member: 146762Members, NS2 Map Tester
    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->once again,
    <i>Who said it was a room aliens have taken control of??</i> i didnt. you could PG to anywhere uncontested across the map or even close like Gap, and <b>what i said still stands true. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    If one skulk is standing still on your phase gate, uncontested, then aliens have taken at least temporary control of that area.

    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1 alien CAN currently block the PG, i dont know if this is because of broken collision or just a feature they did not consider, doesnt matter though as <b>what i said still stands true.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    If 1 alien is truly blocking getting you stuck in the phase gate, then that is because of the broken collision. 1 alien should only be able to block one side of the phase gate. And a shield on the first marine through will keep the marine long enough to move out the other side.

    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you are simply restating over and over "if you lose control" but you aren't actually providing any argument on <b>HOW </b>its a viable option??,<i> and when you make your case please consider the points i've already pointed out previously.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    How what is a viable option? Losing control? You lose control when you a) leave an area undefended or b) the defense dies.

    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>finally</b>, it sure is different than spawn camping in that:

    A) you can beacon your entire team from anywhere on the map to said location to kill the spawn campers but cant for that lonely PG
    B) you most likely have some MACs or at the very least a commander available to weld and also FIGHT in the nearby area but cant for that lonely PG
    C) you most likely have an established base already and have at least a few turrets/mines unlike the room with that lonely PG
    D) aliens still have some amount of travel time to reach your base, as opposed to that potentially closer, and yes, lonely PG<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Here we're comparing a lone phase gate against an entire marine base. Obviously the phase gate should be easier to kill. My point was that skulks can camp IPs just like they can camp phase gates. Sure, there are more defenses in a base, but that is because it's your base. The amount of defenses are tied to how much you've invested in the area. (ie 1 phase gate versus ips, com chair, obs, commander). Now consider if you built two turrets or put a few mines around your phase gate. You've invested more in defense, thus your phase gate is more secure.

    <!--quoteo(post=1911914:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Mar 10 2012, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Edit</b>: suggestion time... what about being able to beacon to a PG? Beacon has built in trade offs already, and wasting it on a location other than base is another large tradeoff leaving you vulnerable in base w/out beacon,<i> in order to contest that PG/room?</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    This is just a get out of jail free card for marines to regain their phase gate after they lose it. I don't see the fairness here. Aliens win a fight (contested or not) at a forward area; why should marines be able to retroactively retake this area with a beacon? Phase gates are powerful enough without being able to use the strongest defensive ability marines have.
Sign In or Register to comment.