I think that the biggest reason for turtling is player attitude rather than broken mechanics (although that does certainly contribute to it).
Consider TF2's 2fort CTF matches. Both teams start on an even playing field. There will be some players who defend and others who rush to capture. In this stage "Winning" == "Not Losing." After one team captures the intel, some of the players on the other team will usually switch to engie and defend, leaving less players to actively try to capture. We start to see a shift to "We have to defend or we LOSE!!!!" instead of the much more interesting "We need to capture their intel to WIN!!!!" Then when the better team captures again, more of the losing team attempts to "not lose," and the game turns into a turtle fest. The problem is amplified on large servers because of the increased engie (and sentry) count. Several servers implement a match timer (that is extended when a capture is made) to prevent the turtling problem so that "Not Losing Immediately" =/= "Winning Later." This forces the losing to at least attempt to capture while the winning team is forced to defend, providing an interesting and fun see-saw effect. You see a very similar effect in the control points maps with even teams battling over the middle point for a very extended time.
Then you have the Attack/Defend maps where the entire point of the match is to turtle, but we won't consider those here.
I'm not saying that TF2 is superior to NS2 as a game (but the balance is light years ahead IMO). Maybe a match timer could help make the endgame less "turtley" with superior map control as a winning condition. That would undoubtedly introduce new problems though and increase the attitude of "We already control 5 RTs and 2 TPs so we win eventually."
I do like the ideas of Exo's being limited to 2+ CCs but JP's still being available on 1. Also maybe making phase gates more expendable (cheaper + lower health & build time with a longer cooldown) would give marines more incentive to push out and less ability to instantly phase between bases or quickly take out a hive after ninja'ing a phase. Make it more risky to make big pushes (since you can't all phase back in 2 seconds), and make them more tactical (we were able to take the 10 seconds to phase all of us through without alerting the aliens and still take down the hive). Then poorly planned pushes are less likely to be successful (because the phase gate will go down), but are still enough to avert the aliens attention to gain that slight tactical advantage. It would give the marines something similar to a lone gorge bile bombing the IPs/CC/power node.
I've been playing a lot lately, and I've noticed this playing on both teams. Even when the aliens hold all the tech points except the single TP marines hold, once exos get out it becomes very difficult to contain them. It almost always forces 3\4 of the team to go gorge and bile rush. Now, I love the gorgie, and play almost nothing except gorgie when I'm on the aliens side, but I think its silly that the gorgie makes up the bulk of an end game team. Its a support class after all, and has gone from being used situationally to being used always and in large numbers. I'm going to throw out a suggestion here, but its just a rough idea and could probably use refinement.
For the Marines:
Tech 1: W1\A1 and JPs
This would allow basic upgrades to stay relevant and JPs to combat lerks.
Tech 2: W2\A2 Single exos (mini\rail)
The reward for having a second base, allows a good push to capture\hold a 3rd point.
Tech 3: W3\A3 Dual exos
The pinnacle of their power, and dual exos.
My reasoning is that with the gains in W\A it allows the Marines to stay relevant. In a map with 4 TP, a W2\A2 squad with exo support is still a powerful force and do plenty of damage and still evenly matched to an alien team with 2 hives. Especially with nade\flamer support. I'm not sure where the nade and flamer should fit into the model, as this is just a rough idea.
Now that I think about it though, the Marines should have access to nades\flamers from tech 1 since the Aliens can evolve to any life form.
Pros :
Allows marines to play more aggressive. Less bases > less marines required to defend> more aggression.
Cons
Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
A+ list.
Lol I love how you entirely missed the point still, after your third attempt at thread shitting.
You'd like to think someone moderately involved in balancing this game would be interested in a larger sample size of feedback than their previous 4 man huddle? You'd think they would want a poll. (albeit still limited to the forum poster crowd)
Even if it's not the most useful feedback its still going to tell you something, if bacillus 's post is any indication.. As well as what you just quoted.
Plus.. Everything argument that could possibly be had for either side is now on the table for the first time. No more "you couldn't possibly understand" cop outs. Yay for clarity.
@palagi this thread isn't attempting to solve a particular issue.. But your still welcome to discuss one, I suppose?
Pros :
Allows marines to play more aggressive. Less bases > less marines required to defend> more aggression.
Cons
Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
A+ list.
Even if it's not the most useful feedback its still going to tell you something, if bacillus 's post is any indication.. As well as what you just quoted.
When you have such contradictions (aggression) in listed pros and cons, I think the 'useful feedback' to take away is that people are quite capable of rationalising anything as long as it fits their mental picture of how the world should behave. You get one opinion which is grounded in solid reasoning, and the contrary one which is made out of smoke. This is the only explanation for people sounding so very self convinced about their opinion on the less aggression. Lets be honest, this isn't actually 'useful feedback' in the context of this thread topic.
That is, unless you are really wanting to dig deep into the meta of 'useful feedback'. Then maybe this is indicating that we should remove techpoints for marines alltogether and allow CC's to be placed anywhere, since there is clearly a miscommunication problem between the game design and the player. There's like this come here come here, no go away kind of tension with techpoints and 2nd CC play.
People are generally quite suggestible and quick to form some inelastic first impression about "how you play the game". And untill you challenge it or spotlight it, they are usually unwilling to critically re-evaluate their opinion. Remember how long it took for people to change their mindset about cara first being superior to everything else all throughout the bt mod and even through some of b250? I still hear people ingame so convinced of themselves that early 2nd CC, or 2nd CC turtle of some kind is the best way to play. They'll try and rationalise it with any benefit they can think of like pseudo phasegates (IP/beacon), even though someone else has calmly and helpfully pointed out why it's clearly a subpar decision.
When you have such contradictions (aggression) in listed pros and cons, I think the 'useful feedback' to take away is that people are quite capable of rationalising anything as long as it fits their mental picture of how the world should behave. You get one opinion which is grounded in solid reasoning, and the contrary one which is made out of smoke.
I see this as the hybris of the experienced player that thinks all of his opinions are facts. Don't forget, even under the experienced players you got different opinions. That doesn't even mean that one is "made out of smoke".
Lets take the example above: The first one is true for competitive games. The second one, you will see in most pub games. It isn't a contradiction. It is both true for different games.
Guys, if you acutally read those points you would realize they dont contradict each other (though i dont agree with the con). Pro says marines CAN play more aggressive if they want or are able to. Con says Marines dont HAVE TO play aggressive anymore. Those are different things. It could be united into "Marines havem ore freedom in choosing a strategy".
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
More options are more strategies and I would think preferred.
So I shall comment on the cons again.
* Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
- Give end game aliens something to break turtles or give marines more reasons to push out.
* Unintuitive. Maintaining and holding map control is encouraged through every facet of this game. So why not one extra structure if you're already in that room??
- I have to disagree. Anything which is a phasegate with another structure should count as a outposts and functions just as fine for map control. It would even allow better map control then rigid techpoint spots.
* Unfair advantage. Aliens have to secure areas of the map just like marines but have to hold them as well to advance and keep their tech.
- See 'give end game aliens something'. Do not make it so marines need stuff to tech. Make it so they must hold techpoints so aliens are not allowed to do so. Back to good old ns1.. You did not need 2 or 3CC. You only needed to deny aliens the other 2 hive spots.
Both sides STILL need to secure the same areas. Its just marines can do it with 1 cc, from a outpost closeby if needed instead of always the techpoint itself.
* Turtles aside, it becomes difficult to push marines back once they have tier 3 tech, even if they own no portion of the map.
- Give end game aliens something to break a 1 base team. As 1 CC is not equal to 1 base. See previous points.
* Game becomes "beat the clock" with marines inevitably getting fully teched.
- Make aliens scale better lategame.
* Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
- If you need to fight to deny THEM mapcontrol, because otherwise you know you will get crushed, you will play far more agressively. Make more then 1 hive a real threat again.
* Tres costs increase.
- You can turn anything into a tres sink.
* Further isolates marine "island" starting areas. (i.e. Control in Veil, Terminal in Docking)
- promote outpost/base use anywhere on the map.
* Promotes a "status quo" attitude regarding TSF team playstyles. ("Just keep 4-5 RT's up at all times, and we'll be golden.")
- Why are they holding 4-5 rts on ONE base?
* Marines can get jeptacks and exos on one CC??
- They should not have the res to do so in the first place if they have 1 base. If they have many bases and 1 CC, then aliens are simply losing.
* Even with the pro of having proto items on 1 cc, comebacks are still very very rare (in some cases not logical).
- Not a real downpoint, just a less occuring thing.
* No point of even getting 2nd cc especially in competitive matches. AKA phase gates are the marines most valuable structure.
- This is a actual problem? a 2nd CC is a structure doing nothing but perhaps supply another spot to place IPs. Asymetric balance. Let the marines have there 1CC aslong as they have ample reason to leave it.
* Gives aliens less bases to destroy, which are more satisfying /exciting than RTs.
- If you are losing to marines not using a single outpost/base which does not include a cc, you are doing something very VERY wrong. I keep saying, a base does not need to have a CC to be a base.
Why don't we list facts instead of pros and cons and then make an informed opinion about them?
Because in this case, the facts are different depending on who you ask.
But aren't pros and cons facts actually, but with an opinion already stamped on them?
Depends on your definition I suppose.
According to wikipedia:
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience.
I would think that simply having this thread with so many people thinking various ways, that the "proven to correspond to experience" part varies greatly.
I really dislike arguing semantics but some folks love it, so if you want, list your facts and see how things go.
Tell me this, what's the difference between marines needing 2 CCs for endgame tech or marines needing to deny aliens 3/4 CCs if they want to stay in the game? Both situations imply both teams will have to play aggressive in order to win. Whether they need it for their own tech or to deny the enemy's tech, control is going to be vital.
This whole 'Marines need 2 CCs for more interesting gameplay' discussion is a distraction stopping people from seeing the actual culprit. Lategame turtling would not be effective if lategame aliens, with significant or maximum map control, were much more potent. Gameplay would also be much better overall, as marines would have something more to fight for and wouldn't just be content sitting on 3 RTs with sentries all the way up to exos.
But even if you fix that aspect of Ns2, there is of course still the problem that is the endgame in itself. It's in a horrendeous state right now and I honestly don't know anyone who legitimately enjoys those EXO vs Onos slugfests that are entirely void of any skill requirement whatsoever.
Tell me this, what's the difference between marines needing 2 CCs for endgame tech or marines needing to deny aliens 3/4 CCs if they want to stay in the game? Both situations imply both teams will have to play aggressive in order to win. Whether they need it for their own tech or to deny the enemy's tech, control is going to be vital.
because it's easier to hold 2 CCs than to deny 3 mature hives on a 5 tech point map
marines playing aggressive without lots skill, coordination, and comm support = death and res down the drain
marines turtling without skill, coordination, and comm support = chance of getting exos = chance of winning
the aggression that you want marines to have isn't viable with the skill set random marine teams possess
blame the players for being bad and tell them to "learn to play"? I guess you could do that. doesn't really solve anything though...
because it's easier to hold 2 CCs than to deny 3 mature hives on a 5 tech point map
Really? If Marines manage to hold a central location like Crossroads or Nano, they pretty much deny any other hive for alien expansion because they can quickly kill the growing hive. They dont have to lock up the location to deny the aliens the room, in fact, locking down each room with a base and a phasegate will splinter the marine forces and allows the aliens to pick them off one by one.
But pre 250 we had the problem of defensive playing marines. It wasn't intuitive for new ones to play aggressive as marines. Remember the threads about that? If you change it the way, that marines need to play even more aggressive as of now, you won't see more aggressive play. You will see more marine losses.
Also: If you buff the 3rd hive alien abilities to much, it will lead to a "deny 3rd hive or lose" situation. This is as boring as "hold 2 CCs or lose" for marines. I think a solution should make both teams equal of power when they have reached their end-tech. In this case the skill of the players on the ground + tactic should decide who wins. Not an overpowered tech.
marines turtling without skill, coordination, and comm support = chance of getting exos = chance of winning
No. There is usually no chance of winning. Only a small percentage of turtles is able to perform a comeback, and I'm not even talking about winning here.
Tell me this, what's the difference between marines needing 2 CCs for endgame tech or marines needing to deny aliens 3/4 CCs if they want to stay in the game? Both situations imply both teams will have to play aggressive in order to win. Whether they need it for their own tech or to deny the enemy's tech, control is going to be vital.
because it's easier to hold 2 CCs than to deny 3 mature hives on a 5 tech point map
It actually goes both ways, not just Marines because it depends on the team skill/commanding.
PROS: Gives noobie players a 2nd chance with the low-risk, high reward reality granted via 1CC Exosuit.
CONS: It's a pain in the ass to break turtles with, especially as Fade
If 2 CC Protolab was to return, then we'll be back to square one. Noobs will be punished for losing the early-game battles, and they'll cry because they couldn't get dem dualies etc. To be quite honest, the 1CC protolab tech would be fine if Aliens had something formidable to address it. I don't know how many times this has to get stressed.
BRING. BACK. ACID ROCKET.
SPLASH DAMAGE DOES WONDERS AGAINST NUMBERS.
marines turtling without skill, coordination, and comm support = chance of getting exos = chance of winning
No. There is usually no chance of winning. Only a small percentage of turtles is able to perform a comeback, and I'm not even talking about winning here.
i'm not talking about 1 base turtle, but more like they get maybe 4-5 res nodes without playing aggressively, and then maybe fall back to 2 bases + 3 nodes until exos.
because it's easier to hold 2 CCs than to deny 3 mature hives on a 5 tech point map
Really? If Marines manage to hold a central location like Crossroads or Nano, they pretty much deny any other hive for alien expansion because they can quickly kill the growing hive. They dont have to lock up the location to deny the aliens the room, in fact, locking down each room with a base and a phasegate will splinter the marine forces and allows the aliens to pick them off one by one.
you're overestimating marines ability to kill things
and what if they don't have middle but 2 of the techpoints on the ring instead?
And you are overestimating the marine's ability to hold multiple bases vs good aliens. If the marines dont hold a central location, they have no mapcontrol and invite the aliens to take it. It seems to me that you have a weird conception of what playing aggressivly is. If the marines cap half of the map and the aliens cap the other, both teams dont play aggressivly. I also don't understand why you have to play aggressivly all the time, just for the sake of it.
Maybe marines shouldn't relay on structures in every room. Think of it for a moment. When you see a movie like Aliens, do you see them using buildings? *Yes, not the greatest example but bare with my thought process!* What they do is: find the hive and exterminate. They have one mini base and that's it. *The APC* However, they'd use everything in every room they'd go into. For example, welding doors and vents, making small barricades, using the table, that showed the blue prints of the buildings, to make a plan how to defend/ attack.
So, how can we transition this into NS2? The marines have only one CC ( That will mean only one base, in which they can build only IP's and Obs. ) But then how do they tech up? EASILY! Each room will have tech stuff. For example, you go inside a weapons room, secure it and you get weapons for free! You get to a portal room and BAM. Suddenly, you can connect every room with PG's.
What this means is instead of building boring resource towers and be dependent on an economy, now we, by being aggressive, unlock tech, which helps us deal with the aliens. A lot of new strategies will be born out of this! But then how do we deny marines the acquired tech? By taking out those rooms. But doesn't that mean that marines will camp in those rooms, so that they'd not loose their tech? Hm, the rooms must be in large numbers and not provide too many upgrades, which would mean that you'd need all them to become super strong. So, camping in a few rooms will hurt you in the long process.
Aliens can be similar but I think they need to have an economy.
I know, this seems too farfetched and I'm 100% certain that this will never be implemented in this game. ( maybe in a mod, who knows )
TL:DR: Rooms should give you stuff to work with, that will help you in achieving victory. That's how you make the marines aggressive.
- "I want that $#^! ! So, I'm gonna take it! And I'm gonna kill bugs with it! Hell yeah!"
and not
- "Oil driller here, ASAP! Man, working in rooms is hard work but at least we get a lot of $ for this hole." Cause OIL Space Marine Energy Crystals is still the best resource in space and can be obtained even in our buildings! America would be proud, that is before it was taken over by Space Commies! He-he!
And you are overestimating the marine's ability to hold multiple bases vs good aliens. If the marines dont hold a central location, they have no mapcontrol and invite the aliens to take it. It seems to me that you have a weird conception of what playing aggressivly is. If the marines cap half of the map and the aliens cap the other, both teams dont play aggressivly. I also don't understand why you have to play aggressivly all the time, just for the sake of it.
who said anything about good aliens?
i'm talking about bad aliens vs. bad marines (i.e. 95% of games)
aggression doesn't work with bad teams. trying to make marines play aggressive won't fix the problems
good marine teams already play aggressive
the balance is skewed so a bad alien team can force a bad marine team back to 1 base / 1 extractor, but when that wasn't always the case games were very passive because aggression = death
biz, you just leave me speechless... Not only do I have no idea where you get your "facts" from nor do I understand your logic. If the aliens push the marines back to 1 base 1 rt, they are obviously better than the marines and it is not a bad aliens vs bad marine game.
aggression doesn't work with bad teams. trying to make marines play aggressive won't fix the problems
good marine teams already play aggressive
Here is what you dont get, if the marines keep getting wiped in fights, they become scared and might start camping. If the aliens dominate the early game and don't let the marines expand, what should they do instead of turtling? (And dont start with concede now). In a scenario where one team dominates the other early on, that team should be able to quickly and decisivly end the game by snowballing. Right now, aliens lack easy siegebraker abilities like acid rocket (which, since I assume you dont know what it is, was a long ranged splash attack for the fade in NS1). That's why "bad" aliens who can't pull off a coordinated attack fail to break the turtles.
The 3rd hive should be the break point of a match. Whether aliens secure 3 tech points or the marines deny 3 tech points should be what the fight is about. If the marines rely on securing 2 techpoints AND denying the aliens their 3rd their winning objective is more difficult compared to the aliens.
Comments
For the sake of gameplay^^
Consider TF2's 2fort CTF matches. Both teams start on an even playing field. There will be some players who defend and others who rush to capture. In this stage "Winning" == "Not Losing." After one team captures the intel, some of the players on the other team will usually switch to engie and defend, leaving less players to actively try to capture. We start to see a shift to "We have to defend or we LOSE!!!!" instead of the much more interesting "We need to capture their intel to WIN!!!!" Then when the better team captures again, more of the losing team attempts to "not lose," and the game turns into a turtle fest. The problem is amplified on large servers because of the increased engie (and sentry) count. Several servers implement a match timer (that is extended when a capture is made) to prevent the turtling problem so that "Not Losing Immediately" =/= "Winning Later." This forces the losing to at least attempt to capture while the winning team is forced to defend, providing an interesting and fun see-saw effect. You see a very similar effect in the control points maps with even teams battling over the middle point for a very extended time.
Then you have the Attack/Defend maps where the entire point of the match is to turtle, but we won't consider those here.
I'm not saying that TF2 is superior to NS2 as a game (but the balance is light years ahead IMO). Maybe a match timer could help make the endgame less "turtley" with superior map control as a winning condition. That would undoubtedly introduce new problems though and increase the attitude of "We already control 5 RTs and 2 TPs so we win eventually."
I do like the ideas of Exo's being limited to 2+ CCs but JP's still being available on 1. Also maybe making phase gates more expendable (cheaper + lower health & build time with a longer cooldown) would give marines more incentive to push out and less ability to instantly phase between bases or quickly take out a hive after ninja'ing a phase. Make it more risky to make big pushes (since you can't all phase back in 2 seconds), and make them more tactical (we were able to take the 10 seconds to phase all of us through without alerting the aliens and still take down the hive). Then poorly planned pushes are less likely to be successful (because the phase gate will go down), but are still enough to avert the aliens attention to gain that slight tactical advantage. It would give the marines something similar to a lone gorge bile bombing the IPs/CC/power node.
For the Marines:
Tech 1: W1\A1 and JPs
This would allow basic upgrades to stay relevant and JPs to combat lerks.
Tech 2: W2\A2 Single exos (mini\rail)
The reward for having a second base, allows a good push to capture\hold a 3rd point.
Tech 3: W3\A3 Dual exos
The pinnacle of their power, and dual exos.
My reasoning is that with the gains in W\A it allows the Marines to stay relevant. In a map with 4 TP, a W2\A2 squad with exo support is still a powerful force and do plenty of damage and still evenly matched to an alien team with 2 hives. Especially with nade\flamer support. I'm not sure where the nade and flamer should fit into the model, as this is just a rough idea.
Now that I think about it though, the Marines should have access to nades\flamers from tech 1 since the Aliens can evolve to any life form.
You'd like to think someone moderately involved in balancing this game would be interested in a larger sample size of feedback than their previous 4 man huddle? You'd think they would want a poll. (albeit still limited to the forum poster crowd)
Even if it's not the most useful feedback its still going to tell you something, if bacillus 's post is any indication.. As well as what you just quoted.
Plus.. Everything argument that could possibly be had for either side is now on the table for the first time. No more "you couldn't possibly understand" cop outs. Yay for clarity.
@palagi this thread isn't attempting to solve a particular issue.. But your still welcome to discuss one, I suppose?
That is, unless you are really wanting to dig deep into the meta of 'useful feedback'. Then maybe this is indicating that we should remove techpoints for marines alltogether and allow CC's to be placed anywhere, since there is clearly a miscommunication problem between the game design and the player. There's like this come here come here, no go away kind of tension with techpoints and 2nd CC play.
People are generally quite suggestible and quick to form some inelastic first impression about "how you play the game". And untill you challenge it or spotlight it, they are usually unwilling to critically re-evaluate their opinion. Remember how long it took for people to change their mindset about cara first being superior to everything else all throughout the bt mod and even through some of b250? I still hear people ingame so convinced of themselves that early 2nd CC, or 2nd CC turtle of some kind is the best way to play. They'll try and rationalise it with any benefit they can think of like pseudo phasegates (IP/beacon), even though someone else has calmly and helpfully pointed out why it's clearly a subpar decision.
I see this as the hybris of the experienced player that thinks all of his opinions are facts. Don't forget, even under the experienced players you got different opinions. That doesn't even mean that one is "made out of smoke".
Lets take the example above: The first one is true for competitive games. The second one, you will see in most pub games. It isn't a contradiction. It is both true for different games.
Because in this case, the facts are different depending on who you ask.
But aren't pros and cons facts actually, but with an opinion already stamped on them?
So I shall comment on the cons again.
* Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
- Give end game aliens something to break turtles or give marines more reasons to push out.
* Unintuitive. Maintaining and holding map control is encouraged through every facet of this game. So why not one extra structure if you're already in that room??
- I have to disagree. Anything which is a phasegate with another structure should count as a outposts and functions just as fine for map control. It would even allow better map control then rigid techpoint spots.
* Unfair advantage. Aliens have to secure areas of the map just like marines but have to hold them as well to advance and keep their tech.
- See 'give end game aliens something'. Do not make it so marines need stuff to tech. Make it so they must hold techpoints so aliens are not allowed to do so. Back to good old ns1.. You did not need 2 or 3CC. You only needed to deny aliens the other 2 hive spots.
Both sides STILL need to secure the same areas. Its just marines can do it with 1 cc, from a outpost closeby if needed instead of always the techpoint itself.
* Turtles aside, it becomes difficult to push marines back once they have tier 3 tech, even if they own no portion of the map.
- Give end game aliens something to break a 1 base team. As 1 CC is not equal to 1 base. See previous points.
* Game becomes "beat the clock" with marines inevitably getting fully teched.
- Make aliens scale better lategame.
* Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
- If you need to fight to deny THEM mapcontrol, because otherwise you know you will get crushed, you will play far more agressively. Make more then 1 hive a real threat again.
* Tres costs increase.
- You can turn anything into a tres sink.
* Further isolates marine "island" starting areas. (i.e. Control in Veil, Terminal in Docking)
- promote outpost/base use anywhere on the map.
* Promotes a "status quo" attitude regarding TSF team playstyles. ("Just keep 4-5 RT's up at all times, and we'll be golden.")
- Why are they holding 4-5 rts on ONE base?
* Marines can get jeptacks and exos on one CC??
- They should not have the res to do so in the first place if they have 1 base. If they have many bases and 1 CC, then aliens are simply losing.
* Even with the pro of having proto items on 1 cc, comebacks are still very very rare (in some cases not logical).
- Not a real downpoint, just a less occuring thing.
* No point of even getting 2nd cc especially in competitive matches. AKA phase gates are the marines most valuable structure.
- This is a actual problem? a 2nd CC is a structure doing nothing but perhaps supply another spot to place IPs. Asymetric balance. Let the marines have there 1CC aslong as they have ample reason to leave it.
* Gives aliens less bases to destroy, which are more satisfying /exciting than RTs.
- If you are losing to marines not using a single outpost/base which does not include a cc, you are doing something very VERY wrong. I keep saying, a base does not need to have a CC to be a base.
Depends on your definition I suppose.
According to wikipedia:
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience.
I would think that simply having this thread with so many people thinking various ways, that the "proven to correspond to experience" part varies greatly.
I really dislike arguing semantics but some folks love it, so if you want, list your facts and see how things go.
This whole 'Marines need 2 CCs for more interesting gameplay' discussion is a distraction stopping people from seeing the actual culprit. Lategame turtling would not be effective if lategame aliens, with significant or maximum map control, were much more potent. Gameplay would also be much better overall, as marines would have something more to fight for and wouldn't just be content sitting on 3 RTs with sentries all the way up to exos.
But even if you fix that aspect of Ns2, there is of course still the problem that is the endgame in itself. It's in a horrendeous state right now and I honestly don't know anyone who legitimately enjoys those EXO vs Onos slugfests that are entirely void of any skill requirement whatsoever.
because it's easier to hold 2 CCs than to deny 3 mature hives on a 5 tech point map
marines playing aggressive without lots skill, coordination, and comm support = death and res down the drain
marines turtling without skill, coordination, and comm support = chance of getting exos = chance of winning
the aggression that you want marines to have isn't viable with the skill set random marine teams possess
blame the players for being bad and tell them to "learn to play"? I guess you could do that. doesn't really solve anything though...
Really? If Marines manage to hold a central location like Crossroads or Nano, they pretty much deny any other hive for alien expansion because they can quickly kill the growing hive. They dont have to lock up the location to deny the aliens the room, in fact, locking down each room with a base and a phasegate will splinter the marine forces and allows the aliens to pick them off one by one.
Also: If you buff the 3rd hive alien abilities to much, it will lead to a "deny 3rd hive or lose" situation. This is as boring as "hold 2 CCs or lose" for marines. I think a solution should make both teams equal of power when they have reached their end-tech. In this case the skill of the players on the ground + tactic should decide who wins. Not an overpowered tech.
No. There is usually no chance of winning. Only a small percentage of turtles is able to perform a comeback, and I'm not even talking about winning here.
It actually goes both ways, not just Marines because it depends on the team skill/commanding.
PROS: Gives noobie players a 2nd chance with the low-risk, high reward reality granted via 1CC Exosuit.
CONS: It's a pain in the ass to break turtles with, especially as Fade
If 2 CC Protolab was to return, then we'll be back to square one. Noobs will be punished for losing the early-game battles, and they'll cry because they couldn't get dem dualies etc. To be quite honest, the 1CC protolab tech would be fine if Aliens had something formidable to address it. I don't know how many times this has to get stressed.
BRING. BACK. ACID ROCKET.
SPLASH DAMAGE DOES WONDERS AGAINST NUMBERS.
i'm not talking about 1 base turtle, but more like they get maybe 4-5 res nodes without playing aggressively, and then maybe fall back to 2 bases + 3 nodes until exos.
you're overestimating marines ability to kill things
and what if they don't have middle but 2 of the techpoints on the ring instead?
This is one of the changes that got me off the game.
So, how can we transition this into NS2? The marines have only one CC ( That will mean only one base, in which they can build only IP's and Obs. ) But then how do they tech up? EASILY! Each room will have tech stuff. For example, you go inside a weapons room, secure it and you get weapons for free! You get to a portal room and BAM. Suddenly, you can connect every room with PG's.
What this means is instead of building boring resource towers and be dependent on an economy, now we, by being aggressive, unlock tech, which helps us deal with the aliens. A lot of new strategies will be born out of this! But then how do we deny marines the acquired tech? By taking out those rooms. But doesn't that mean that marines will camp in those rooms, so that they'd not loose their tech? Hm, the rooms must be in large numbers and not provide too many upgrades, which would mean that you'd need all them to become super strong. So, camping in a few rooms will hurt you in the long process.
Aliens can be similar but I think they need to have an economy.
I know, this seems too farfetched and I'm 100% certain that this will never be implemented in this game. ( maybe in a mod, who knows
TL:DR: Rooms should give you stuff to work with, that will help you in achieving victory. That's how you make the marines aggressive.
- "I want that $#^! ! So, I'm gonna take it! And I'm gonna kill bugs with it! Hell yeah!"
and not
- "Oil driller here, ASAP! Man, working in rooms is hard work but at least we get a lot of $ for this hole." Cause OIL Space Marine Energy Crystals is still the best resource in space and can be obtained even in our buildings! America would be proud, that is before it was taken over by Space Commies! He-he!
who said anything about good aliens?
i'm talking about bad aliens vs. bad marines (i.e. 95% of games)
aggression doesn't work with bad teams. trying to make marines play aggressive won't fix the problems
good marine teams already play aggressive
the balance is skewed so a bad alien team can force a bad marine team back to 1 base / 1 extractor, but when that wasn't always the case games were very passive because aggression = death
Here is what you dont get, if the marines keep getting wiped in fights, they become scared and might start camping. If the aliens dominate the early game and don't let the marines expand, what should they do instead of turtling? (And dont start with concede now). In a scenario where one team dominates the other early on, that team should be able to quickly and decisivly end the game by snowballing. Right now, aliens lack easy siegebraker abilities like acid rocket (which, since I assume you dont know what it is, was a long ranged splash attack for the fade in NS1). That's why "bad" aliens who can't pull off a coordinated attack fail to break the turtles.
The 3rd hive should be the break point of a match. Whether aliens secure 3 tech points or the marines deny 3 tech points should be what the fight is about. If the marines rely on securing 2 techpoints AND denying the aliens their 3rd their winning objective is more difficult compared to the aliens.