I don't like the new gore range on onos, I think it needs to be *slightly* increased, it can be down from what it was, but what it currently is feels too low (also onos speed w/ celerity seems to have taken a nerf as well)
Is it me or does onos hp/armour stop scaling after 1200/600? I didn't seem to notice an increase after a new hive was put up, but maybe I just missed it.
I quite like boneshield by the way, it's definitely a step in the right direction in regards to onos skill mechanics (great for shielding gorges and whatnot), even more so combined with the gore changes. Exos still need some work though, but I don't really know how you can raise their skill ceilingg.
1) Marine Spawn time needs to be increased again
The spammy feel of the game was starting to ease slightly with the increased spawn time and there was finally a small sense of accomplishment with an alien kill. I don't really like the thought of going to back to wave upon wave of mindless marines engaging aliens all over the place. It has never felt tidy, nor satisfying.
2) Please don't make 3CC requirement for W3/A3.
We really don't want to be encouraging more of this "external fortress" type play as it's really damaging the overall flow of the game. It's bad enough as it is that we have speedy armour/health regen armouries at every phase gate (and in publics, turrets as well). The CC is overkill. I understand the logic behind this but I think we need to come at it from a broader perspective and ask whether we like these strongholds in general. I personally think that it is the aliens who have these natural havens that need to stormed and if we encourage marines to copy this, then games aren't going to be as fun or free-flowing. In NS1, outposts consisted of a phasegate and a pack of mines ONLY. They were resilient, not by virtue of spam, but because of marine presence, planning and good commanding - we've dumbed this down a thousand dials.
3) Tech explosions are crying out for a solution. I know people hate the idea of RFK (unreasonably and hypocritically, I think) but it should be explored or at least some alternative posited that genuinely helps. Most solutions I envisage have the positive side-effect of addressing the boring exo-onos war also.
1) Agreed. Now that "No Res While Dead" is gone, there is basically nothing left to really stand as result of a fight, other than a short possibility to do some territory damage.
2) I am undecided about the feature.
Pros:
- Makes room to move Proto Lab to 1 CC, which offers more playstyles and tactics instead of just straight damage/armor upgrades.
- Gives marines a reward for holding more territory. (Not saying that one was needed, though, since the reward thus far was spawn possibility, beacon possibility and Hive denying)
- Aliens can take upgrade levels off marines by destroying CCs. So they have more means to end turtles, similar to how aliens lose significant battle capacities once the lose a Hive.
Cons:
- Marines are required to defend too many points at once.
- They may easily lack the combat advantage that they are required to have against higher lifeforms if a third TP can't be taken.
3) I would hate a feature like RFK that causes bad players to be a burden to their team by making the enemy stronger, though. All MOBA rage stems from that feature, since your own performance won't matter as much anymore when one of your team mates keeps throwing himself in suicide missions, which is actually a valid strategy and should not be discouraged by something like RFK.
One suggestion to fix issue #2:
Make Arms Lab upgrades cost Supply Points. The exact values would need to be found by tweaking, but you could make it so that you could still get W3/A3 on 2 CCs but would not have much spare points left then for a lot of ARCs/MACs/PGs/Turrets. Since a 3rd CC would increase the Supply Cap, there would still be an incentive to really get that third CC up so you can push out more of those supply-capped units. But it would no longer be a hard limit of W3/A3 to a third CC.
1) Marine Spawn time needs to be increased again
The spammy feel of the game was starting to ease slightly with the increased spawn time and there was finally a small sense of accomplishment with an alien kill. I don't really like the thought of going to back to wave upon wave of mindless marines engaging aliens all over the place. It has never felt tidy, nor satisfying.
2) Please don't make 3CC requirement for W3/A3.
We really don't want to be encouraging more of this "external fortress" type play as it's really damaging the overall flow of the game. It's bad enough as it is that we have speedy armour/health regen armouries at every phase gate (and in publics, turrets as well). The CC is overkill. I understand the logic behind this but I think we need to come at it from a broader perspective and ask whether we like these strongholds in general. I personally think that it is the aliens who have these natural havens that need to stormed and if we encourage marines to copy this, then games aren't going to be as fun or free-flowing. In NS1, outposts consisted of a phasegate and a pack of mines ONLY. They were resilient, not by virtue of spam, but because of marine presence, planning and good commanding - we've dumbed this down a thousand dials.
3) Tech explosions are crying out for a solution. I know people hate the idea of RFK (unreasonably and hypocritically, I think) but it should be explored or at least some alternative posited that genuinely helps. Most solutions I envisage have the positive side-effect of addressing the boring exo-onos war also.
I'd have to agree with most of this. I am personally okay with A2/W2 and A3/W3 moving to be all on the 2nd CC. The way to compensate to make marines want the 3rd tech point is to make the third hive sufficiently powerful enough that it is actually a threat that needs to be actively denied. Xenocide is there now with the armory and arms lab changes but Lerks and Gorges still need a lovely T3 or higher biomass in this case (primal scream and web anyone?) and vortex still feels really lackluster. Could honestly just make it a projectile attack that damages armor and only armor. That way it is good for softening things but it cannot kill without following it with swipes (acid rocket throwback).
RFK does have valid points against it but I feel like the biggest concerns are the potential "snowballing" and feeding. However, this can be somewhat alleviated with diminishing returns on a player if he gets killed too much. Especially now that we have res values tuned to allow non-float values (ie the x10 change) it would be easier to find less harsh RFK numbers. This is something that needs to be approached with serious caution however as it can cause more harm than good if implemented haphazardly. (Which is why I never play on the Voogru servers since they put that hidden server mod on, because it is so poorly implemented)
One suggestion to fix issue #2:
Make Arms Lab upgrades cost Supply Points. The exact values would need to be found by tweaking, but you could make it so that you could still get W3/A3 on 2 CCs but would not have much spare points left then for a lot of ARCs/MACs/PGs/Turrets. Since a 3rd CC would increase the Supply Cap, there would still be an incentive to really get that third CC up so you can push out more of those supply-capped units. But it would no longer be a hard limit of W3/A3 to a third CC.
Thats a horribly complicated idea which doesnt solve anything. W3/A3 need to be on the 2nd CC at a maximum, requiring marines to hold 3 TP to get those upgrades only worsens snowballing, and overly punishes a marine team that proves unable to hold a majority of the map. I really get the idea that many people here do not understand how the game progresses in terms of tech and aggression... If you make both teams advance through the game using tech point control as the primary requirement, then you effectively need to balance their ability to hold and control the map similarly at a certain stage. Currently there is massive imbalances in that balance, and its part of the core gameplay advances for aliens. Changing that is realistically not something that can or even should be considered, as it would completely destroy fade play, and encourage the exact kind of boring turtle base camping games we want to prevent... Its almost like everyone forgot how NS1 played for years in pubs and now plays NS2 and wants to encourage the exact kind of bad playstyles we had for years in NS1.. Should just uncap turrets so you can build 10 in every room again.
Regarding RFK and its effects, people can disagree with it all they want its a major part of MOBA games, and those games have no shortage of players. RFK may be a target of rage at newer/bad players, but in its absence people will just use another flaw to criticize those players anyways, RFK is not the cause of the complaining. Thats already quite obvious with the bashing that occurs in NS2.
Forcing symmetry in an asymmetric game is the exact wrong approach.
In other words, each side most needs what they are least able to get. If so, then that is a very very good thing, and UWE should find ways to accentuate that conflict.
I don't think there's any risk at all of NS2 becoming asymmetrical game, so I don't see that as a good reason to veto a change. It makes sense from a game design perspective that territory and resources are equally im portant to both teams, seeing as those are the most fundamental objectives of the game.
I don't think something making more sense is an adequate criteria for good game design. If anything, the beauty has always been in the asymmetry of it all and one could very well argue that it can make just as much sense for one side to be the rapid-expansion one vs one being the one having to deny said expansion. As dragon pointed out, just because marines wouldn't need TPs for their own tech doesn't mean it's not equally important for them as it is for aliens.
The way I see it, marines have just as much interest in denying aliens hive as aliens have in acquiring them, as such the importance of map control for both sides is present. The problem with 5 tp maps though is that marines can never realistically hope to deny aliens a second hive, unless it's a stomp. And once aliens hit 2 hives they can reach their endgame potential more or less. So what definitely needs to happen is the third hive needs to become more important. (Whether or not this should be at the expense of the second is a seperate matter to discuss) Right now aliens are FAR too comfy on 2 hives, they really don't need a third, this when now marines DO need a third with how important armour and weapon upgrades are. I think moving A/W3 to 2 tp only while at the same time increasing the importance of third hive (and actually giving aliens an edge on that third hive, making it equally important for marines to deny) is THE way to go.
Personally I think it's more fun to want to expand because it makes you stronger than to want to sit on the bases so they can't have them. It's certainly easier for most players to understand why the third base is important. Aliens always know why they want that third hive to go up. Marines don't have any "selfish" reasons to care about having more than two bases though which I think is a problem.
Onos are bloody useless. They take three shots to kill an A2 Marine and they miss most of the time since their range is barely passed its own collision mesh. Less health and the new Jetpack and chase them down to a stupid degree. I don't much see the point of them but to act as a bullet sponge.
For general Skulk, Carapace is still the best thing ever and Marines hitting all the time is getting tiring.
Marines don't have any "selfish" reasons to care about having more than two bases though which I think is a problem.
I don't think it's a problem; I think it's great.
Failing to secure the third tech point even though "you don't need it" is a strategic mistake that marines can make which will cost them the game. That's a good thing. We need more opportunities for strategic mistakes that can cost the team that makes them the game.
@Xdragon - are you actually playing the mod often? I'm not against w3/a3 at 2CC, but I think you're rather exaggerating the need for marines to have w3/a3 to win(public). Thats just not the case at all from my experience so far in the mod (I'm not taking vanilla into account).
The trace & bullet size change are making aliens go down quicker than ever, especially skulks. Even as a fade I've noticed damage being absorbed at a faster rate than vanilla.
I have probably played the mod more than anyone here, except sewlek of course .
I dont think you understand what Im saying - Marines generally will push for W3/A1 (or 2/2) by about the 10-12 minute mark. They would need to secure 3 CCs (with phasegates) to even consider that now, which is a massive setback in both costs and time. Generally speaking marines are on a forced clock, if they do not pressure aliens hard enough in the beginning of the game, they will generally loose once fades come out. If your stuck on 1/1 when the fades start popping at 8 minutes, your going to be in a world of hurt. Considering you would be looking at 750+ resources just to take and hold 2 CCs at that point, thats a massive investment for a team already on a tight time clock. I really think most people here mistake early game marine map control for 'controlling' tech points, which is totally different.
Thats a horribly complicated idea which doesnt solve anything. W3/A3 need to be on the 2nd CC at a maximum, requiring marines to hold 3 TP to get those upgrades only worsens snowballing, and overly punishes a marine team that proves unable to hold a majority of the map.
Did you even read and understand the idea I was proposing? Let me break it down to you then:
Each CC is worth 100 Supply Points.
Marine costs:
Armory - 5 Supply
Robotics Factory - 5 Supply
Phase Gate - 10 Supply
MAC - 5 Supply
ARC - 10 (?) Supply
Sentry - 15 Supply
Let's assume the upgrades would cost:
W1/A1 - 20 Supply each
W2/A2 - 25 Supply each on top of the previous 20
W3/A3 - 30 Supply each on top of the previous 45
So getting level 3 of all upgrades would take up a total of 150 Supply for the marines.
Assume the marines have only 1 CC. Then they could get with their 100 Supply budget:
W1 = 20 total
A1 = 40 total
W2 = 65 total
A2 = 90 total
Armory = 95 total
MAC = 100 total
Not all that desirable but manageable. If marines would spare themselves the A2, they could spend the 25 free Supply on 2x Phase Gates and another MAC or forward Armory, for instance.
Now a 2 CC situation, so marines have 200 Supply:
The first 100 could be like in the table above. Then we secure the new base with Armory and PG link.
2x PG = 120 total
Armory = 125 total
W3 = 155 total
A3 = 185 total
The remaining 15 could be used for 1x ARC, more MACs, another PG, maybe another Armory… you get the idea.
It would definitely be possible to get all level 3 upgrades on 2 CCs this way, but it would be desirable to get another CC to establish more map control and to enforce an ARC push.
This system would of course require another change: the marine commander would need to be able to disable an Arms Lab upgrade of his choice again, so he has the flexibility to react to the loss of a CC or to try to push with ARCs despite having purchased an upgrade already.
The upgrades in the Arms Lab would thus be in an active or inactive state once researched and the commander could change that state whenever he likes by basically directing "Supply Power" to the upgrade or taking it away again.
Such a management would actually open some new strategies for the commander. He could research W2/A2 first for a cost of 90, then disable A2 and research W3 instead. When the marines are in danger, he could switch out W3 for A2 again to give them some more durability and later switch W3 back in when they are about to attack a lot of alien structures or plan to kill an Onos without caring for their own survival. Maybe he also switches W3 and W2 for A3, if he wants to keep his team alive for a longer duration when they purchased weapons.
Of course are those considerations in the case where the marines have only 1 CC and no other structures that cost Supply.
On 2 CCs, he could also disable A3 when he attempts to make an attack on a Hive and purchase 3 more ARCs for the gained Supply points in return.
Turrets should possibly become cheaper with this system, though. Otherwise there would not be much of a reason to use them at all when your Supply is that much lower and more valuable due to the upgrades than in the current implementation.
Marines don't have any "selfish" reasons to care about having more than two bases though which I think is a problem.
I don't think it's a problem; I think it's great.
Failing to secure the third tech point even though "you don't need it" is a strategic mistake that marines can make which will cost them the game. That's a good thing. We need more opportunities for strategic mistakes that can cost the team that makes them the game.
You say that as if there aren't a lot of those as it is. I think it's a good thing for objectives like "you need to control territory" to be communicated by the game design as clearly as possible. That's how you make the game approachable. The strategy is in how you accomplish those goals.
I really like Crushak's idea. Seems like it would give introduce a lot more variety in how games are played out. It will be difficult to to determine the appropriate amounts of supply each building or unit will cost though. But I suppose that's part of an RTS's balance.
The reason it increases snowballing is because it makes marine comebacks all but impossible (they were already quite difficult). If you get slightly behind, you will stand absolutely NO chance when fades come out, simply because of the massive power increase aliens get from that...
but the 3rd CC requirement is really what my problem is. Those upgrades in no way match up to the 3rd alien abilities
The only way it could possibly increase snowballing is because of a current imbalance of making aliens @ 2 hives to be competitive with T3 marines - which can be easily adjusted. Values can be tweaked, its not concrete, either timing or impact of upgrades etc. There's many options!
The argument to not have tech tied to TPs because aliens have broken /non competitive upgrades @ T3 is just silly, imo. Just fix whats broken. (regardless)
If you do not actively hold the 2nd CC, you cannot progress far into the midgame, its basically instantly game over once fades come out.
That's already how it is for aliens? If they don't actively hold their 2nd hive they will not progress far into the mid game?? Leapless skulks and blinkless fades will be over once JPs come out.
The asymmetry of aliens gaining strength with map control and marines gaining strength with time worked very well in NS1, and there is no reason to attempt to re-invent it, especially in a way which actually makes snowballing way, way worse. With aliens having health that scales with biomass, they can perfectly counter the increasing strength of marine upgrades. .
So you're for less varying strategies, having marines fill a certain role, instead of both teams playing both all roles?
Alien need hives to scale, as you said, which makes comebacks for marines easier than it does for aliens, as there's more vulnerable locations spread out on the map - as opposed to one safely guarded structure in rine's home base.
Having anything tied to a 3rd techpoint is unrealistic to me. The only time you are ever holding 3 techpoints is when the game is no longer in contest but in the process of ending.
Agree with the observation BUT unfortunately its only because what holding 3 TPs has traditionally meant: Enough extra res to deny the enemy team, or extra expansion for the sake of closing in for the kill.
In other words this observation is made from vanilla, which has different mechanics, and i don't think you'd find the same experience in BT, as not many would say games are "in the process of ending" when marines get T2. (sure it happens often, but its not an indicator as a 3rd TP is.)
Its equivalent to saying "There's not much need to get 3 hives" .. well that's based off of vanilla again and not accounting for the new biomass - its accurate - it just doesn't reflect BT mod imo.
The only arguments i've seen so far in here are "Asymmetry is cool" and "Weak mechanics on Aliens that have been broken for a long time dictates that we shouldn't make this change."
Both of which i find extremely insufficient for a reason.
One is subjective and plays no dire mechanical or functional role in economy or resource model, and traditionally has only hampered progress with balance, - and the other is skirting around a problem that should be fixed regardless.
Do you see my point yet? :-P
The only reasons that have been provided so far are ones that are assuming no adjustments or fixes can be made.
Broken/non viable mechanics or the game being balanced so far in X method is not a good reason to keep said broken mechanics or methods!
Of course you would adjust!
For those that are missing the benefits of tying tech to TPs and increasing homogeneity in the resource model I will list them and to save you time asking, by also providing the reasons why:
Longer early game / More gradual progression towards the lategame. (Takes longer to cover that much ground and to hold it is more difficult, delaying tech)
More room for errors and thus much greater potential for comebacks (Harder to hold, so its easier for the other team to knock you back down)
LESS snowballing occurs due to so many chances for comebacks (unlike whats been proposed in here, which would be if no adjustment was made between T2 values)
Turtling is gone once and for all. (A3/W3 isn't in a singular location now, you require map control to scale in power, as aliens will as well. Single bases are incredibly weak)
More intuitive, easy to communicate. (Both teams need X amount of map control to be at X level. Aliens have how many hives? That means your team should have that many CCs too in order to be competitive.)
Magnitudes easier to balance (Not talking about winrates, but actual balance through a proper foundation instead of trial and error for years on end)
More varied strategy and no more "locked in roles" (Marines don't have to play beat the clock/ deny game, anymore - both teams have to play offense and defense in an exact equal amount, neither is locked in for one specific role or strategy.)
I don't think something making more sense is an adequate criteria for good game design. If anything, the beauty has always been in the asymmetry of it all .
Game design - and more specifically economic models and resource systems - are better designed by numbers and logic than by something as subjective and immeasurable as "art" or "beauty" - or worse something as abstract and all encompassing as "asymmetry". I love asymmetry (obviously) but you can justify anything with that buzzword, and it still won't make it balanced.
And just like any RTS, asymmetry is accomplished through playstyle and gameplay interaction mechanics... while equal access to tech and resources is paramount to balance.
This all being said, it'd be just fine in the meantime (while alien T3 abilities get reworked to become a requirement to remain competitive lategame) with making A2/W2 and A3/W3 on 2 CC's only.. its better than nothing.
skulks can get leap on 1 hive and fades have blink on 1 hive... While its obviously much more difficult it is by no means impossible... Its like you make up these problems then offer solutions that don't even fix them.
As for the rest of your post, your doing exactly what you did in all your previous posts during the beta - trying to wordsmith things into sounding attractive, when really your just masking the truth about WHY those methods don't work. Quite frankly after having played NS1 and NS2 since release, I cannot imagine playing it in a way where both sides play the same. Having marines and aliens play exactly the same would completely ruin the interesting aspects of this game, and quite frankly, would make this a game that I would never play again. Gone would be the dynamic of knowing when to push, when to hold, and when its strategically better to sacrifice a location. Everything would just be a mindless zerg of secure 3 TPs and hold those RTs, and then you win. As for EVERY single benefit you list, NOT one of them has to do with tying marine upgrades to techpoints.
Longer early game is the direct result of simply increasing the costs to tech up.
More room for mistakes only comes from the decreased power of each tier of upgrade - spread tech out - IE the first point.
The third point is the same as the second.
Turtling will NEVER be fixed if your going to have a game that still has 'comeback' potential, so thats just a blatant lie. You can minimize it via tech strengths but it will always be possible when the entire enemy team is locked in a single location.
More intuitive is a poor choice/opinion, but honestly there are parts that are not. Its confusing for marines to unlock weapon/armor upgrades only for tech points, when aliens get more health, more upgrades and more abilities.
As for making balance easier, thats hardly true because each side will still tech at different rates (unless you harmonize that, which has nothing to do with TPs linked to upgrades). As for symmetry being needed for balance, that is laughable at best, I challenge you to find imbalance in the NS1 style which was even more varied than NS2. Every single imbalance you could point to from NS1 is 10x worse in NS2, something which I also pointed out in beta, which you hastly 'cast aside' as NS2 was not released.
Quite frankly, I dont understand why you bash my posts. You try to make similar tech trees sound better by saying you would fix all the other problems and things would be great... Where if you fixed those problems with what we have now it would work fine.. and the asymmetric nature of tech progression would work fine and be balanced.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2013
@xDragon : whoa buddy, calm down there. The insults and claiming i "bash" your posts are way off the mark. I simply disagree.
Can one not disagree and provide a counter argument to you? .... If you aren't ready to have your posts responded to idk why you post?
I'll ignore the ad hominems and baseless accusation of masking what methods dont work (and again your lack of explanation of why exactly) or even your subjective opinions of asymmetry design and move right on to what matters:
the subject of tech tying.
You'd still know when to push or when to hold: you'd be competing with the enemy's current standing, just as you do currently. (see my list above where i mention matching the other team to be competitive.)
Again, It would have more variance than current gameplay, where you and others in here like @xarius have stated the roles that are played out where marines are more concerned with denying aliens a 2nd TP than they are securing one, until later in the game. Perhaps you dont see it, but your choices are limited in comparison to a homogeneous system where both have the same exact push pull requirements.
Costs aren't the only factor influencing the pacing of the game with tied tech!! You aren't factoring in Time, or physical ground that must be covered by players, or the higher probability of losing forward bases delaying you - I'm sure theres more to factor in too.
More room for comebacks come from spread out tech, yes, thats what i said, why are you repeating this?
Yes, snowballing is lessened by more spread out tech, again, why repeat this as if you are debating it?
Yes turtling could still occur with large player skill gaps between teams, but with equal teams I'd like to see a marine team successfully turtle against a 3 hive alien team, when rines have A1/W1.
Also, comebacks do not equate to turtling??? If you gain more ground as a turtling rine, you've successfully started to come out of turtling.. since turtling is defined by surviving off a single base for a duration of time, as you so accurately stated.
It does make balance incredibly easier, as it comes with the notion of identical tech rates, from the same cause : the winning condition of map control.
I didn't say symmetry is needed for balance. But i did say "in an RTS having equal access to tech and resources is paramount to balance." The methods you go about ensuring equal access or resources can obviously vary.
Sure, you can also fix some of the problems in other methods.. i didnt say you couldn't? But tying tech to TPs does have it's instant advantages that i listed above, some that aren't available without it, or at the very least without creating wholly new mechanics and features. (most notably the advantage of comebacks and more varied strategy)
Counter arguments are fine, completely dismissing a post because of a single difference not so much, especially when you ignore things that I said should be fixed, and then act like changing something completely unrelated fixes those other problems by association. I bring up those points because they are all things NOT fixed by the tech point change, that you make out to sound like are.
TLDR Resource income is enough of a reason for map control. Dont force both teams to play defensively because they need to safeguard tech.
@xdragon so you favour 40hp and 10% damage over jetpacks?
i don't like the CC requirement, nor the current jetpack cost if it's meant to be a replacement for upgrades. but the one-base jetpack seems like the most straightforward way to gimp turtling marines without destroying their comeback potential - as the jetpack gives way more options than the extra 40hp + 10% damage.
imo the thing which sucks most about marine turtling, and the reason it's boring for aliens, is that it requires absolutely no skill to kill with onos, nor does it require skill to kill with fade when you hide behind an onos, nor does it require skill to spam spores all over the place behind an onos. the addition of jetpacks will really make breaking a turtle less mundane and bring skill back.
it's gonna be kinda hard to shake the 'must get max upgrades' feeling though... 3 base marine is typically alien concede time, ergo A3/W3 may as well not be there.
i'd still really love to see an increase in dropped weapon/equipment duration - and allow jetpacks to be dropped on death. i want there to be more strategic focus around reclaiming/blocking/destroying the dropped items.
No, I think you should be able to get all tech on 1 TP like NS1, but wouldnt be opposed to W3/A3 on the 2nd CC (with jetpacks and exos on 1 CC). This assumes exos actually get fixed, otherwise they should take 4 CCs.
I'd rather have the old NS1 system where marines can tech up without depending on TPs. Added a little more variety to the gameplay. I don't want the two teams to play exactly the same, just with different attack methods. I rather liked how the objectives were different for each team in NS1.
I'd rather have the old NS1 system where marines can tech up without depending on TPs. Added a little more variety to the gameplay. I don't want the two teams to play exactly the same, just with different attack methods. I rather liked how the objectives were different for each team in NS1.
In NS1 there were no TPs though, only hive rooms. NS2 made a conscious design decision to make both teams use tech points for bases, and I think a corollary of that is that multiple bases should be important for both teams. It feels wrong that the marine main base is built around a tech point but when they take an expansion they could leave the tech point empty the whole game and not even care.
Untying stuff from TPs won't make marine tech anything similar to what it was in NS1. It's such a different game with pres and techpoints.
When I played the balance mod for 10++ hours I didn't have any problem with arms lab upgrades being tied to tech points, though I don't think a 3rd CC should be a requirement for anything for marines. I'd like to see either 3/3 tied to 2nd chair or 3 upgrades (ie 1-2, 3-0, or 2-1) on one CC with the remaining 3 available on second CC.
I also think JPs exosuits should go back to requiring 2 CC
very much against being forced to hold CCs to maintain weapon and armor ups. I can already see people wanting to turtle more purely for the risk of losing W3 or A3 in the process of trying to take a hive. Frankly I quite enjoy some of the asyemtical features of the game, just because one team has it one way does not mean the other team has to have it he same way as well. besides, aliens lose abilities NOT upgrades at hive lost. that's just as equivelant as marines losing the ability to have jetpacks and exos at second CC loss. it's the loss of abilities that should be ties to tech points, not the upgrades themselves. if aliens lose upgrades due to hive lost that's due to poor insite on what the most endangered hive would be during a match or poor upgrade structure placement in general. if anything you want to balance it. allow aliens to redrop upgrade chambers (at cost) and re designate them as cara and silence etc (at cost) much like marines have the ability to rebuild an arms lab even after they've lost it regardless if they've lost CC locations or not. but if you want to go that round might as well separate out the arms labs as one armor and one weapons arms lab (cheapen the cost of either and lower the HP of each individual arms lab) and treat it like an alien structure... build an arms lab, designate it either as armory or weapons lab then it becomes that structure until it's destroyed. so it requires two structures to have both weapons and armor just like aliens.
Marines don't have any "selfish" reasons to care about having more than two bases though which I think is a problem.
I don't think it's a problem; I think it's great.
Failing to secure the third tech point even though "you don't need it" is a strategic mistake that marines can make which will cost them the game. That's a good thing. We need more opportunities for strategic mistakes that can cost the team that makes them the game.
You say that as if there aren't a lot of those as it is. I think it's a good thing for objectives like "you need to control territory" to be communicated by the game design as clearly as possible. That's how you make the game approachable. The strategy is in how you accomplish those goals.
I think the objective is pretty clearly communicated simply by knowing that aliens get powerful upgrades from the third hive. Once you know that, it's not hard to realize that marines should stop them from getting the third hive. Putting some extra candy there for the marines is unnecessary - a good strategist will know what to do, and a bad strategist will figure it out after a few losses.
No to any CC requirements for upgrades imo. Fix the fundamentals, not the symptoms. e.g. remove armour healing, remove glancing bite and additional range, fix shotgun, higher upgrade costs, higher ammo/med costs, higher spawn times etc (most of which are already addressed). Good assymetry in this regard is possible and has been achieved in the past - there isn't much reason to go for quick and easy solutions to 'turtle power'. Especially at this point when we have a balance mod that is much closer to NS1 than NS2 has ever been.
There's enough 2 CC spam in pub that they don't need more encouragement. Nanoshield on 2 CC should be enough design incentive to discourage 2CC. I don't think we should add random mechanics that lower gameplay options, devalue spectator enjoyment by forcing more defensive play during the early to mid game, and encourage essentially bad and thoughtless play. New players already drop 2nd CC and quite easily figure out gameplay objectives in their own way, so i don't see the need to essentially force tutorials on competitive play. It might be just bearable enough not to be overly noticeable at max 2 CC requirement, but the unwanted systematic problem with this idea becomes obvious when you talk about 3 CC. I don't see the benefit of this change outweighing the cost.
Things don't always go to plan and you will lose your 2nd TP eventually after a certain ammount of equally skilled 6 v 6 games, pidgeonholing you more and more into predictably pressing for a TP as the game goes on. Strategy and play becomes less about the exciting stuff of marines killing hives (the backbone of NS), and more about 'how do we get our stuffz'. It's just not healthy for both teams to have this forced defensive gameplay objective - at the very least one should be the aggressor, one the defender aka 2nd hive engagements. Imo gameplay should be a dynamic artform, not immovable blocks of 'clearly defined' territory and wars of attrition.
If we want to talk about this from the perspective of what UWE has consistently communicated they value in NS2, we'll also see that tying additional command chairs to upgrades is most likely the wrong move. The mechanic is simply not immersive or compatible with marine technology lore. It doesn't make much sense for marines to progress organically like with a hive system, when their structures are mechanical/efficient, not biological. This change breaks the immersion for me, and I think I would find it hard to pretend like i'm actually there. /seriousface
Marines generally will push for W3/A1 (or 2/2) by about the 10-12 minute mark. They would need to secure 3 CCs (with phasegates) to even consider that now, which is a massive setback in both costs and time. Generally speaking marines are on a forced clock, if they do not pressure aliens hard enough in the beginning of the game, they will generally loose once fades come out.
This is how it is in vanilla right now. And I hate it. Thank god it's only a real problem in comp games. But than you know exactly when the game is decided. And that is boring as hell. I hope sewlek can come around those "if fades (with 2 hives) come up marines lose"-problem. And create a fair battle-field even in the mid- and end-game.
On the topic: I played yesterday 2 rounds on a full server:
slower teching at both teams feels more tactical. I like it.
the Res*10 is irritating for me. Sure, I can adapt, but I found it easier to handle the smaller numbers. Maybe change it to xx.x instead of xxx.
skulk movement feels really... different. Need to play more with it.
3 CC dependency felt not this important.
€dit: I will add my opinion to the TP-dependency discussion.
I understand the arguments of both sides but I'm not sure who is right. Having more freedom in strategy sounds good to me. Being forced in "attacker" and "defender" roles not so much. But I can't say what A3/W3 bound to the 3rd TP will lead to. But I agree, that binding tech to the number of CCs feels unfitting.
What does it want to achieve:
Create the need for marines to capture / hold TechPoints.
Lessen the possibility of marines turtling on one base.
We all want comebacks to be possible. But we don't want turtles. So the slippery slope needs to be flat until mid-game but gets really steep in the end-game. So even small mistakes end the game quickly.
One way to achieve this, would be to demand 2 TPs for marines in the mid-game to be competitive.
Someone posted a similar idea already in this thread: What if we unleash the CCs from Tech-Points? The ArmsLab and ProtoLab would require to be built on a Techpoint instead.
marines have a good enough reason to hold tech point locations - to stop aliens getting them.
however, with the standard map topology, there's never a fierce battle over the 5th and final tech point. it always goes to the team with slightly superior skill/coordination by default.
therefore it always creates a greater snowball effect, as long as it's tied to the most powerful upgrades.
Comments
I quite like boneshield by the way, it's definitely a step in the right direction in regards to onos skill mechanics (great for shielding gorges and whatnot), even more so combined with the gore changes. Exos still need some work though, but I don't really know how you can raise their skill ceilingg.
1) Agreed. Now that "No Res While Dead" is gone, there is basically nothing left to really stand as result of a fight, other than a short possibility to do some territory damage.
2) I am undecided about the feature.
Pros:
- Makes room to move Proto Lab to 1 CC, which offers more playstyles and tactics instead of just straight damage/armor upgrades.
- Gives marines a reward for holding more territory. (Not saying that one was needed, though, since the reward thus far was spawn possibility, beacon possibility and Hive denying)
- Aliens can take upgrade levels off marines by destroying CCs. So they have more means to end turtles, similar to how aliens lose significant battle capacities once the lose a Hive.
Cons:
- Marines are required to defend too many points at once.
- They may easily lack the combat advantage that they are required to have against higher lifeforms if a third TP can't be taken.
3) I would hate a feature like RFK that causes bad players to be a burden to their team by making the enemy stronger, though. All MOBA rage stems from that feature, since your own performance won't matter as much anymore when one of your team mates keeps throwing himself in suicide missions, which is actually a valid strategy and should not be discouraged by something like RFK.
One suggestion to fix issue #2:
Make Arms Lab upgrades cost Supply Points. The exact values would need to be found by tweaking, but you could make it so that you could still get W3/A3 on 2 CCs but would not have much spare points left then for a lot of ARCs/MACs/PGs/Turrets. Since a 3rd CC would increase the Supply Cap, there would still be an incentive to really get that third CC up so you can push out more of those supply-capped units. But it would no longer be a hard limit of W3/A3 to a third CC.
I'd have to agree with most of this. I am personally okay with A2/W2 and A3/W3 moving to be all on the 2nd CC. The way to compensate to make marines want the 3rd tech point is to make the third hive sufficiently powerful enough that it is actually a threat that needs to be actively denied. Xenocide is there now with the armory and arms lab changes but Lerks and Gorges still need a lovely T3 or higher biomass in this case (primal scream and web anyone?) and vortex still feels really lackluster. Could honestly just make it a projectile attack that damages armor and only armor. That way it is good for softening things but it cannot kill without following it with swipes (acid rocket throwback).
RFK does have valid points against it but I feel like the biggest concerns are the potential "snowballing" and feeding. However, this can be somewhat alleviated with diminishing returns on a player if he gets killed too much. Especially now that we have res values tuned to allow non-float values (ie the x10 change) it would be easier to find less harsh RFK numbers. This is something that needs to be approached with serious caution however as it can cause more harm than good if implemented haphazardly. (Which is why I never play on the Voogru servers since they put that hidden server mod on, because it is so poorly implemented)
Regarding RFK and its effects, people can disagree with it all they want its a major part of MOBA games, and those games have no shortage of players. RFK may be a target of rage at newer/bad players, but in its absence people will just use another flaw to criticize those players anyways, RFK is not the cause of the complaining. Thats already quite obvious with the bashing that occurs in NS2.
Forcing symmetry in an asymmetric game is the exact wrong approach.
- Res is more important to marines.
- Tech points are more important to aliens.
- Marines are better at taking tech points.
- Aliens are better at taking res towers.
In other words, each side most needs what they are least able to get. If so, then that is a very very good thing, and UWE should find ways to accentuate that conflict.Personally I think it's more fun to want to expand because it makes you stronger than to want to sit on the bases so they can't have them. It's certainly easier for most players to understand why the third base is important. Aliens always know why they want that third hive to go up. Marines don't have any "selfish" reasons to care about having more than two bases though which I think is a problem.
For general Skulk, Carapace is still the best thing ever and Marines hitting all the time is getting tiring.
Failing to secure the third tech point even though "you don't need it" is a strategic mistake that marines can make which will cost them the game. That's a good thing. We need more opportunities for strategic mistakes that can cost the team that makes them the game.
The trace & bullet size change are making aliens go down quicker than ever, especially skulks. Even as a fade I've noticed damage being absorbed at a faster rate than vanilla.
I dont think you understand what Im saying - Marines generally will push for W3/A1 (or 2/2) by about the 10-12 minute mark. They would need to secure 3 CCs (with phasegates) to even consider that now, which is a massive setback in both costs and time. Generally speaking marines are on a forced clock, if they do not pressure aliens hard enough in the beginning of the game, they will generally loose once fades come out. If your stuck on 1/1 when the fades start popping at 8 minutes, your going to be in a world of hurt. Considering you would be looking at 750+ resources just to take and hold 2 CCs at that point, thats a massive investment for a team already on a tight time clock. I really think most people here mistake early game marine map control for 'controlling' tech points, which is totally different.
Did you even read and understand the idea I was proposing? Let me break it down to you then:
Each CC is worth 100 Supply Points.
Marine costs:
Armory - 5 Supply
Robotics Factory - 5 Supply
Phase Gate - 10 Supply
MAC - 5 Supply
ARC - 10 (?) Supply
Sentry - 15 Supply
Let's assume the upgrades would cost:
W1/A1 - 20 Supply each
W2/A2 - 25 Supply each on top of the previous 20
W3/A3 - 30 Supply each on top of the previous 45
So getting level 3 of all upgrades would take up a total of 150 Supply for the marines.
Assume the marines have only 1 CC. Then they could get with their 100 Supply budget:
W1 = 20 total
A1 = 40 total
W2 = 65 total
A2 = 90 total
Armory = 95 total
MAC = 100 total
Not all that desirable but manageable. If marines would spare themselves the A2, they could spend the 25 free Supply on 2x Phase Gates and another MAC or forward Armory, for instance.
Now a 2 CC situation, so marines have 200 Supply:
The first 100 could be like in the table above. Then we secure the new base with Armory and PG link.
2x PG = 120 total
Armory = 125 total
W3 = 155 total
A3 = 185 total
The remaining 15 could be used for 1x ARC, more MACs, another PG, maybe another Armory… you get the idea.
It would definitely be possible to get all level 3 upgrades on 2 CCs this way, but it would be desirable to get another CC to establish more map control and to enforce an ARC push.
This system would of course require another change: the marine commander would need to be able to disable an Arms Lab upgrade of his choice again, so he has the flexibility to react to the loss of a CC or to try to push with ARCs despite having purchased an upgrade already.
The upgrades in the Arms Lab would thus be in an active or inactive state once researched and the commander could change that state whenever he likes by basically directing "Supply Power" to the upgrade or taking it away again.
Such a management would actually open some new strategies for the commander. He could research W2/A2 first for a cost of 90, then disable A2 and research W3 instead. When the marines are in danger, he could switch out W3 for A2 again to give them some more durability and later switch W3 back in when they are about to attack a lot of alien structures or plan to kill an Onos without caring for their own survival. Maybe he also switches W3 and W2 for A3, if he wants to keep his team alive for a longer duration when they purchased weapons.
Of course are those considerations in the case where the marines have only 1 CC and no other structures that cost Supply.
On 2 CCs, he could also disable A3 when he attempts to make an attack on a Hive and purchase 3 more ARCs for the gained Supply points in return.
Turrets should possibly become cheaper with this system, though. Otherwise there would not be much of a reason to use them at all when your Supply is that much lower and more valuable due to the upgrades than in the current implementation.
You say that as if there aren't a lot of those as it is. I think it's a good thing for objectives like "you need to control territory" to be communicated by the game design as clearly as possible. That's how you make the game approachable. The strategy is in how you accomplish those goals.
The only way it could possibly increase snowballing is because of a current imbalance of making aliens @ 2 hives to be competitive with T3 marines - which can be easily adjusted. Values can be tweaked, its not concrete, either timing or impact of upgrades etc. There's many options!
The argument to not have tech tied to TPs because aliens have broken /non competitive upgrades @ T3 is just silly, imo. Just fix whats broken. (regardless) That's already how it is for aliens? If they don't actively hold their 2nd hive they will not progress far into the mid game?? Leapless skulks and blinkless fades will be over once JPs come out. So you're for less varying strategies, having marines fill a certain role, instead of both teams playing both all roles?
Alien need hives to scale, as you said, which makes comebacks for marines easier than it does for aliens, as there's more vulnerable locations spread out on the map - as opposed to one safely guarded structure in rine's home base.
Agree with the observation BUT unfortunately its only because what holding 3 TPs has traditionally meant: Enough extra res to deny the enemy team, or extra expansion for the sake of closing in for the kill.
In other words this observation is made from vanilla, which has different mechanics, and i don't think you'd find the same experience in BT, as not many would say games are "in the process of ending" when marines get T2. (sure it happens often, but its not an indicator as a 3rd TP is.)
Its equivalent to saying "There's not much need to get 3 hives" .. well that's based off of vanilla again and not accounting for the new biomass - its accurate - it just doesn't reflect BT mod imo.
The only arguments i've seen so far in here are "Asymmetry is cool" and "Weak mechanics on Aliens that have been broken for a long time dictates that we shouldn't make this change."
Both of which i find extremely insufficient for a reason.
One is subjective and plays no dire mechanical or functional role in economy or resource model, and traditionally has only hampered progress with balance, - and the other is skirting around a problem that should be fixed regardless.
Do you see my point yet? :-P
The only reasons that have been provided so far are ones that are assuming no adjustments or fixes can be made.
Broken/non viable mechanics or the game being balanced so far in X method is not a good reason to keep said broken mechanics or methods!
Of course you would adjust!
For those that are missing the benefits of tying tech to TPs and increasing homogeneity in the resource model I will list them and to save you time asking, by also providing the reasons why:
And those are the ones i can think of right now..
Game design - and more specifically economic models and resource systems - are better designed by numbers and logic than by something as subjective and immeasurable as "art" or "beauty" - or worse something as abstract and all encompassing as "asymmetry". I love asymmetry (obviously) but you can justify anything with that buzzword, and it still won't make it balanced.
And just like any RTS, asymmetry is accomplished through playstyle and gameplay interaction mechanics... while equal access to tech and resources is paramount to balance.
This all being said, it'd be just fine in the meantime (while alien T3 abilities get reworked to become a requirement to remain competitive lategame) with making A2/W2 and A3/W3 on 2 CC's only.. its better than nothing.
As for the rest of your post, your doing exactly what you did in all your previous posts during the beta - trying to wordsmith things into sounding attractive, when really your just masking the truth about WHY those methods don't work. Quite frankly after having played NS1 and NS2 since release, I cannot imagine playing it in a way where both sides play the same. Having marines and aliens play exactly the same would completely ruin the interesting aspects of this game, and quite frankly, would make this a game that I would never play again. Gone would be the dynamic of knowing when to push, when to hold, and when its strategically better to sacrifice a location. Everything would just be a mindless zerg of secure 3 TPs and hold those RTs, and then you win. As for EVERY single benefit you list, NOT one of them has to do with tying marine upgrades to techpoints.
Longer early game is the direct result of simply increasing the costs to tech up.
More room for mistakes only comes from the decreased power of each tier of upgrade - spread tech out - IE the first point.
The third point is the same as the second.
Turtling will NEVER be fixed if your going to have a game that still has 'comeback' potential, so thats just a blatant lie. You can minimize it via tech strengths but it will always be possible when the entire enemy team is locked in a single location.
More intuitive is a poor choice/opinion, but honestly there are parts that are not. Its confusing for marines to unlock weapon/armor upgrades only for tech points, when aliens get more health, more upgrades and more abilities.
As for making balance easier, thats hardly true because each side will still tech at different rates (unless you harmonize that, which has nothing to do with TPs linked to upgrades). As for symmetry being needed for balance, that is laughable at best, I challenge you to find imbalance in the NS1 style which was even more varied than NS2. Every single imbalance you could point to from NS1 is 10x worse in NS2, something which I also pointed out in beta, which you hastly 'cast aside' as NS2 was not released.
Quite frankly, I dont understand why you bash my posts. You try to make similar tech trees sound better by saying you would fix all the other problems and things would be great... Where if you fixed those problems with what we have now it would work fine.. and the asymmetric nature of tech progression would work fine and be balanced.
Can one not disagree and provide a counter argument to you? .... If you aren't ready to have your posts responded to idk why you post?
I'll ignore the ad hominems and baseless accusation of masking what methods dont work (and again your lack of explanation of why exactly) or even your subjective opinions of asymmetry design and move right on to what matters:
the subject of tech tying.
TLDR Resource income is enough of a reason for map control. Dont force both teams to play defensively because they need to safeguard tech.
i don't like the CC requirement, nor the current jetpack cost if it's meant to be a replacement for upgrades. but the one-base jetpack seems like the most straightforward way to gimp turtling marines without destroying their comeback potential - as the jetpack gives way more options than the extra 40hp + 10% damage.
imo the thing which sucks most about marine turtling, and the reason it's boring for aliens, is that it requires absolutely no skill to kill with onos, nor does it require skill to kill with fade when you hide behind an onos, nor does it require skill to spam spores all over the place behind an onos. the addition of jetpacks will really make breaking a turtle less mundane and bring skill back.
it's gonna be kinda hard to shake the 'must get max upgrades' feeling though... 3 base marine is typically alien concede time, ergo A3/W3 may as well not be there.
i'd still really love to see an increase in dropped weapon/equipment duration - and allow jetpacks to be dropped on death. i want there to be more strategic focus around reclaiming/blocking/destroying the dropped items.
Being able to relocate the CC to non techpoint locations would be of interest but I am not sure how that would work with a TP requirement for tech.
In NS1 there were no TPs though, only hive rooms. NS2 made a conscious design decision to make both teams use tech points for bases, and I think a corollary of that is that multiple bases should be important for both teams. It feels wrong that the marine main base is built around a tech point but when they take an expansion they could leave the tech point empty the whole game and not even care.
When I played the balance mod for 10++ hours I didn't have any problem with arms lab upgrades being tied to tech points, though I don't think a 3rd CC should be a requirement for anything for marines. I'd like to see either 3/3 tied to 2nd chair or 3 upgrades (ie 1-2, 3-0, or 2-1) on one CC with the remaining 3 available on second CC.
I also think JPs exosuits should go back to requiring 2 CC
-flux
I think the objective is pretty clearly communicated simply by knowing that aliens get powerful upgrades from the third hive. Once you know that, it's not hard to realize that marines should stop them from getting the third hive. Putting some extra candy there for the marines is unnecessary - a good strategist will know what to do, and a bad strategist will figure it out after a few losses.
There's enough 2 CC spam in pub that they don't need more encouragement. Nanoshield on 2 CC should be enough design incentive to discourage 2CC. I don't think we should add random mechanics that lower gameplay options, devalue spectator enjoyment by forcing more defensive play during the early to mid game, and encourage essentially bad and thoughtless play. New players already drop 2nd CC and quite easily figure out gameplay objectives in their own way, so i don't see the need to essentially force tutorials on competitive play. It might be just bearable enough not to be overly noticeable at max 2 CC requirement, but the unwanted systematic problem with this idea becomes obvious when you talk about 3 CC. I don't see the benefit of this change outweighing the cost.
Things don't always go to plan and you will lose your 2nd TP eventually after a certain ammount of equally skilled 6 v 6 games, pidgeonholing you more and more into predictably pressing for a TP as the game goes on. Strategy and play becomes less about the exciting stuff of marines killing hives (the backbone of NS), and more about 'how do we get our stuffz'. It's just not healthy for both teams to have this forced defensive gameplay objective - at the very least one should be the aggressor, one the defender aka 2nd hive engagements. Imo gameplay should be a dynamic artform, not immovable blocks of 'clearly defined' territory and wars of attrition.
If we want to talk about this from the perspective of what UWE has consistently communicated they value in NS2, we'll also see that tying additional command chairs to upgrades is most likely the wrong move. The mechanic is simply not immersive or compatible with marine technology lore. It doesn't make much sense for marines to progress organically like with a hive system, when their structures are mechanical/efficient, not biological. This change breaks the immersion for me, and I think I would find it hard to pretend like i'm actually there. /seriousface
This is how it is in vanilla right now. And I hate it. Thank god it's only a real problem in comp games. But than you know exactly when the game is decided. And that is boring as hell. I hope sewlek can come around those "if fades (with 2 hives) come up marines lose"-problem. And create a fair battle-field even in the mid- and end-game.
On the topic: I played yesterday 2 rounds on a full server:
€dit: I will add my opinion to the TP-dependency discussion.
I understand the arguments of both sides but I'm not sure who is right. Having more freedom in strategy sounds good to me. Being forced in "attacker" and "defender" roles not so much. But I can't say what A3/W3 bound to the 3rd TP will lead to. But I agree, that binding tech to the number of CCs feels unfitting.
What does it want to achieve:
- Create the need for marines to capture / hold TechPoints.
- Lessen the possibility of marines turtling on one base.
We all want comebacks to be possible. But we don't want turtles. So the slippery slope needs to be flat until mid-game but gets really steep in the end-game. So even small mistakes end the game quickly.One way to achieve this, would be to demand 2 TPs for marines in the mid-game to be competitive.
Someone posted a similar idea already in this thread: What if we unleash the CCs from Tech-Points? The ArmsLab and ProtoLab would require to be built on a Techpoint instead.
however, with the standard map topology, there's never a fierce battle over the 5th and final tech point. it always goes to the team with slightly superior skill/coordination by default.
therefore it always creates a greater snowball effect, as long as it's tied to the most powerful upgrades.