ARCs, and their viability.
WildChicken
Join Date: 2004-08-25 Member: 30891Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-08-25 Member: 30891Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Does mapping need to consider siegespots?</div>I've been toying around with ARCs since the cost was reduced, and looking at some of the official maps (and the bread-and-butter of competitive maps, Summit and Veil), it seems to me that ARCs need to be included in the map design process.
Using Summit as an example, there is 1 siege spot for Crossroads and 1 siege spot for Sub that do not require ARCs to practically drive into the hive. Any position where a gorge can realistically bilebomb and retreat to the hive whenever someone starts shooting is not a viable siege location.
If you're in a situation where you need to drive the ARCs into the hive to get any effect, you'll get better results on average just pumping out shotguns with the tres.
Since I like graphics to back up my posts, here is an overview of the closest-range siege spots for all hives on Summit, as well as a close-up of how far into the hive you need to drive ARCs to hit Flight Control:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/vFHrs.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/dLISSh.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
If any of you manage to defend those Flight Control ARCs and kill the hive, I'd say you're already overskilled compared to your opponent and would win regardless.
Crossroads and the Computer Lab entrance to Sub are the only 2 I'd consider laying siege to, unless it was a complete stalemate.
You get similar results if you try to siege anything on Veil. Tram and Docking are better, Mineshaft is still a mess.
So the question I want to pose is, do maps need to take ARCs into account? Should there be any changes made to the way ARCs work, or should they just be a situational tool for certain maps?
Edited for clarity. Also, should this be moved to general discussion? I'm too used to being on I&S mostly.
Using Summit as an example, there is 1 siege spot for Crossroads and 1 siege spot for Sub that do not require ARCs to practically drive into the hive. Any position where a gorge can realistically bilebomb and retreat to the hive whenever someone starts shooting is not a viable siege location.
If you're in a situation where you need to drive the ARCs into the hive to get any effect, you'll get better results on average just pumping out shotguns with the tres.
Since I like graphics to back up my posts, here is an overview of the closest-range siege spots for all hives on Summit, as well as a close-up of how far into the hive you need to drive ARCs to hit Flight Control:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/vFHrs.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/dLISSh.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
If any of you manage to defend those Flight Control ARCs and kill the hive, I'd say you're already overskilled compared to your opponent and would win regardless.
Crossroads and the Computer Lab entrance to Sub are the only 2 I'd consider laying siege to, unless it was a complete stalemate.
You get similar results if you try to siege anything on Veil. Tram and Docking are better, Mineshaft is still a mess.
So the question I want to pose is, do maps need to take ARCs into account? Should there be any changes made to the way ARCs work, or should they just be a situational tool for certain maps?
Edited for clarity. Also, should this be moved to general discussion? I'm too used to being on I&S mostly.
Comments
I would say Flight Control is one of the few rooms in the game that require arcs to enter the same room to hit the techpoint. Usually it's the other way around (that arcs can hit from too far away). At the very least you can hit most techpoints from the adjacent hallway on most maps. Exceptions would be giant rooms like Flight Control, Cargo, Cave. But these techpoints arguably have glaring vulnerabilities to jetpacks, so I think it balances out.
To argue semantics- ARCs themselves are very different than the siege cannons of NS1, they are mobile, they hit extremely hard and they require no player assistance to do so. In this respect I don't think they deserve that much attention from the mappers to make sure they can be used as the oldschool siege weapons everyone likes to pretend they are :P
The consequences of scan tres cost are twofold
1) Res flow. One arc with scanning is easier to obtain and maintain than building two arcs (even though the overall costs most probably end up for all intents the same). However, to get your res investment to an efficiently viable level due to scan costs, you need to inherently risk alot by spamming arcs. Basically, early/mid game arc plays are huge res investments due to low number of arcs, gorge heal (more scans) and the inability to recycle ARCs (unlike siege turrets)
2) Opportunity cost. Spamming arcs is many times more expensive than simply researching grenade launchers, which are just as effective if not more as a siege option. So the only rational reason for getting arcs is when you've maxed everything else out.
Bring scan back to an energy base or decrease scan tres costs, and now we might have viable arc play.
are Attacking Shipping from Logistics or similar situations. (Can you ARC shipping from South Tunnels? That might be a good one...
Having just watched a game where the Marine commander decided to lose marines the game by spamming ARCs into cargo when our
team was unable to even get out of Sub Access... I dunno, they are an expensive tool that isn't that good unless you literally have
nothing else to spend your money on. (The entire team has JP + Gun/Exo) And even then if you are able to afford them in the numbers
required you are probably already going to win.
I say reduce the damage substantially, but double its range. Allow marines to set up shop, and force aliens to react. The damage is low enough that it be countered by gorges with crags...and shades to counter scans and slow down the arc damage.....but it forces aliens to do that or forfeit structures (or of course attack the ARC setup).
Also maps should indeed be designed with sieges in mind as well, it is basic mapping stuff. Some mappers take these rules less serious, I guess <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Pretty sure I've won games against Inversion, 420 and Exertus with my ARC strategy even with Bile Bomb researched.
ARCs are viable for sure, that's not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about mapping, and how much maps are supposed to allow for ARCs to be viable.
Late game, ARCs increase Marine firepower tremendously. When ARCs are defended by Marines with GLs, FTs and JPs, Aliens struggle to even approach the ARCs.
Perhaps Bilebomb is slightly too effective against ARCs. ARC health was already reduced to make them more vulnerable to most alien classes, while BB damage remains very high.
As for the OP I don't think every tech point should be able to get hit by arc's as what tech point you are planning to attack should determine your approach.
A few patches ago it would cancel out scans regardless of timing, which is how I imagine it's intended to work. Just seems buggy now though.
A few patches ago it would cancel out scans regardless of timing, which is how I imagine it's intended to work. Just seems buggy now though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I noticed this, once you manually target with the ARCs they don't lose the target.
Pretty much a waste of resource for the Ink..
And anyways, ARCs are viable on every map. You just have to find sweet spots.
It's all about how well your Marines can hold while you get about 3-4 volleys off. You can get 3-4 ARCs in about 5m or sometimes less/more. I don't need to prove anything to you, I'm just telling you my experience. Take it or leave it.
Not every room is perfect on every map but if your Marines are good shots, you should be able to cover the ARCs pretty easily. As long as you don't just drive them stupidly and not coordinate at all, you should be fine. With Bile Bomb you just shoot the Gorges, they are easy kills when they are exposing themselves to do the Bile. As long as you place the ARCs in a location that forces that.
Server room you basically have to use the Elevator Overlook approach, Cargo just stick them behind the crates, Atrium and FC are pretty easy also. FC is a pretty Marine favored zone and Atrium is easily held from one of the side hallways during the siege.
Truth is ARCs are pretty great, and I like the variety. In NS1, I knew every siege position for every hive, and it was pretty simple to set up shop and take them down.
The way ARCs are now, they are certainly viable in some situations, but not all of them.
It keeps variety. If every map has a Cold Turn for each tech point, then we can guarantee ARC strat as a standard.
Truth is ARCs are pretty great, and I like the variety. In NS1, I knew every siege position for every hive, and it was pretty simple to set up shop and take them down.
The way ARCs are now, they are certainly viable in some situations, but not all of them.
It keeps variety. If every map has a Cold Turn for each tech point, then we can guarantee ARC strat as a standard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just gave me PTSD flashbacks of Cold Turn. Thanks.
Would be cool for sneaky hive drops.