For the build pack idea, I would advise adding in a component that makes it faster if the players pay attention to the building. For example, say there is a point buy system, perhaps getting a builder's gear could make the building faster, or by leaving the area the buildpack works slower (maybe it uses the power from a Marine's suit?). Drop and forget is, at least in my opinion, a bad idea.
Drop and forget is, in my opinion, a -good- idea. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Natural Selection is a game about <b>killing</b> not <i>welding</i> (or building/healing etc.).
But yeah I had considered that. ie. you could make it faster by being within proximity to it (and maybe even faster if you held E?); depending on the extent, the system would reward you more or less (points, credits, whatever). eg. 1x speed drop-forget, low reward.. 1.5x speed within-proximity, medium reward.. 2x speed hold-E, high reward.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
edited March 2008
Drop and forget sounds good, but I still want to see ghost structures in the game, which means marines have to activate the building process by pressing E at least once.
Another problem is that the game needs to be balanced around fast built structures, if the marines are still able to accelerate the building process like you suggest, Harimau. So we would be back to the problem that marines have to build the structures on their own to gain an advantage or the best result. This leads basicly to the problem in current NS that some players don't build at all, but go for the hive, because building stuff is boring. That renders the self-building structures kinda pointless, but arrises other problems/exploits like structures being spammed by the commander (similar to oc spam), which would then built themselves after a marine quickly enables all of them.
I'd rather like to see a decrease of rt cost, health and time to build so it comes closer to a domination like style of play at least regarding the marine res game.
<!--quoteo(post=1674610:date=Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pSyk0mAn @ Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Drop and forget sounds good, but I still want to see ghost structures in the game, which means marines have to activate the building process by pressing E at least once.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that's what I said. <!--quoteo(post=1674513:date=Mar 28 2008, 05:44 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Mar 28 2008, 05:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Storywise(?) the commander drops a 'ghost structure' that is essentially the blueprint suspended in a virtual space, the buildpack takes the information (location and blueprint) and turns it into an actual structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So yeah, ghost structures should stay in. Marines aren't going around carrying individual buildings, if that's what you're wondering. They're not even carrying around buildpacks, really (not part of the inventory). The commander drops the ghost structure, the marine goes up to it and presses the USE key once and then it starts building automatically, and he can piss off to do other things, or stay and defend.
<!--quoteo(post=1674610:date=Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pSyk0mAn @ Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another problem is that the game needs to be balanced around fast built structures, if the marines are still able to accelerate the building process like you suggest, Harimau.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, my idea was at first just to have the drop-and-forget structures. Then you -could- add the pay-attention fast-build methods, but that might, as you say, complicate things. But I was also thinking instead of that you could get several marines to drop individual buildpacks to speed up the process, if you wanted. (But you can't have the same marine dropping more than one at a time. One building has to finish building before the marine can activate the next one.)
There's just really no reason for marines on the ground to have to pay attention to buildings - that's the commander's job.
In all of the RTSes I've played, an expansion system which restricts expansion, as in you can't take all of the map and still fight off the bat, works best. The reason for this is the extra layer of strategic depth it adds instead of just macro/teamwork skill that it would take
Strategy games are named so because there are many options you can choose to reach your goal. In NS, there is one: cap nodes. I would love to see this curtailed and replaced with a more sophisticated system, one that includes running out of resources on the map as one of the cornerstone features.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674781:date=Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674781"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In all of the RTSes I've played, an expansion system which restricts expansion, as in you can't take all of the map and still fight off the bat, works best. The reason for this is the extra layer of strategic depth it adds instead of just macro/<b>teamwork skill</b> that it would take<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're not giving this area its due credit. It's one of the defining features of NS. <!--quoteo(post=1674781:date=Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674781"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strategy games are named so because there are many options you can choose to reach your goal. In NS, there is one: cap nodes. I would love to see this curtailed and replaced with a more sophisticated system, one that includes running out of resources on the map as one of the cornerstone features.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not saying the RTS aspect of NS is anywhere near as deep as SC, but you can reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals by the same argument. A shotgun rush is different from a hive siege just like a reaver drop is different from a DT rush. You still have tactical options even if they are fewer. If you want to increase RTS depth, give the commander more tools instead of diminishing the scope of map control.
<!--quoteo(post=1674786:date=Mar 31 2008, 06:27 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 31 2008, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're not giving this area its due credit. It's one of the defining features of NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure what teamwork means to you exactly, care to elaborate?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying the RTS aspect of NS is anywhere near as deep as SC, but you can reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals by the same argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What does it have to do with expansions? Also, reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals? How does the logic even follow?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A shotgun rush is different from a hive siege just like a reaver drop is different from a DT rush. You still have tactical options even if they are fewer. If you want to increase RTS depth, give the commander more tools instead of diminishing the scope of map control.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not saying that there are no tactical options in NS. But there are no tactical options in NS concerning resources. Its a one shot thing, you either capture RTs or you lose.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1674789:date=Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure what teamwork means to you exactly, care to elaborate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I mean your marines are actual players not units. <!--quoteo(post=1674789:date=Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying that there are no tactical options in NS. But there are no tactical options in NS concerning resources. Its a one shot thing, you either capture RTs or you lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The tactical option regarding resources is where to expand as I talked abut earlier in this thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1674790:date=Apr 1 2008, 02:02 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 1 2008, 02:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674790"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The tactical option regarding resources is where to expand as I talked abut earlier in this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just don't see it, marines expand in the exact same pattern every game. With small deviations in phase gate placement, but they are more decisions of what you <u>can</u> do instead of what you <u>want</u> to do as a commander. Also, there really is no strategy as to the timing of your expansions, its just get expos ASAP every game.
The point of this is to create more involved and interesting gameplay that really could be much more interesting to dedicated players. It would be more team-based, and probably more rewarding. There are advantages and disadvantages. In NS now it doesn't really feel like you capture and hold territory. It feels like you cap nodes. If you don't see the difference here, then get out. I yearn for longer, more epic matches that last for an hour and really keep you enthralled. All the strategies in NS or so short-term and can be implemented so easily. With this system I could see it being common for commanders to organize map wide pincer and flank attacks in pub games, in a co-ordinated and effective fashion. There should be some larger maps, which would dull the instant gratification, but would simultaneously make it that much more significant when you finally do get into the action. There could also be smaller maps, and with a regular rotation they could keep everyone happy and interested.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with that you shouldn't have to build structures. One of the most important part of the game is running into an unscouted area and buildind that rt and hoping beyond hope a skulk isn't going to chomp you. Also, imagine ninja'ing a hive and running up to the PG, tapping e and running off again while it builds it's self. It is just unsatisfying gameplay. The idea of having actual minibases you have to invest time in building appeals to me in a huge way. This would be the perfect NS to me. Suspenseful, strategic, unpredictable and exciting.
1) Capping would be more fight oriented. Less running to nodes and less +use. Less rt biting for skulks while there were small 1v1, 2v2 and 1v2 skirmishesh going on around the map.
2) Capping wouldn't be enforced so much by the game mechanics. You don't need 4+ RTs to be effective.
3) You could still have a relatively complex map layout with a lot of different routes, map positionings and such. Small fights all around, big fights at hives and other crucial locations.
It might be nice to make a bit of a compromise between the domining styled expo play and res wars we are fighting nowadays. For example if rt costs 40 res and starts giving res at an increasing rate until a cap at one and a half minutes, you could have either a long game strat involving 4 RTs or a shorter hive push one with 2 or 3. Map layouts would have something around 6-7 nodes. I think I'm starting to see what domining was going after when he started this topic.
That is something else, that with less nodes there is less building nodes. The point is that if there are less nodes, or less locations to capture, it makes each one more significant and simultaneously easy to keep track of. At the same time I think this works well because in my opinion it should take longer to advance through the tech tree. More exploration and teamwork and suspense with more immersive gameplay. I defy you not to love that game. I think the inclusion of a fog of war for the com would also add a lot to the immersion of the game without taking away from the running and gunning.
Comments
But yeah I had considered that. ie. you could make it faster by being within proximity to it (and maybe even faster if you held E?); depending on the extent, the system would reward you more or less (points, credits, whatever).
eg. 1x speed drop-forget, low reward.. 1.5x speed within-proximity, medium reward.. 2x speed hold-E, high reward.
Another problem is that the game needs to be balanced around fast built structures, if the marines are still able to accelerate the building process like you suggest, Harimau.
So we would be back to the problem that marines have to build the structures on their own to gain an advantage or the best result.
This leads basicly to the problem in current NS that some players don't build at all, but go for the hive, because building stuff is boring.
That renders the self-building structures kinda pointless, but arrises other problems/exploits like structures being spammed by the commander (similar to oc spam), which would then built themselves after a marine quickly enables all of them.
I'd rather like to see a decrease of rt cost, health and time to build so it comes closer to a domination like style of play at least regarding the marine res game.
Yeah, that's what I said.
<!--quoteo(post=1674513:date=Mar 28 2008, 05:44 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Mar 28 2008, 05:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Storywise(?) the commander drops a 'ghost structure' that is essentially the blueprint suspended in a virtual space, the buildpack takes the information (location and blueprint) and turns it into an actual structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yeah, ghost structures should stay in. Marines aren't going around carrying individual buildings, if that's what you're wondering.
They're not even carrying around buildpacks, really (not part of the inventory). The commander drops the ghost structure, the marine goes up to it and presses the USE key once and then it starts building automatically, and he can piss off to do other things, or stay and defend.
<!--quoteo(post=1674610:date=Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pSyk0mAn @ Mar 29 2008, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another problem is that the game needs to be balanced around fast built structures, if the marines are still able to accelerate the building process like you suggest, Harimau.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, my idea was at first just to have the drop-and-forget structures.
Then you -could- add the pay-attention fast-build methods, but that might, as you say, complicate things.
But I was also thinking instead of that you could get several marines to drop individual buildpacks to speed up the process, if you wanted. (But you can't have the same marine dropping more than one at a time. One building has to finish building before the marine can activate the next one.)
There's just really no reason for marines on the ground to have to pay attention to buildings - that's the commander's job.
Strategy games are named so because there are many options you can choose to reach your goal. In NS, there is one: cap nodes. I would love to see this curtailed and replaced with a more sophisticated system, one that includes running out of resources on the map as one of the cornerstone features.
I think you're not giving this area its due credit. It's one of the defining features of NS.
<!--quoteo(post=1674781:date=Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674781"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strategy games are named so because there are many options you can choose to reach your goal. In NS, there is one: cap nodes. I would love to see this curtailed and replaced with a more sophisticated system, one that includes running out of resources on the map as one of the cornerstone features.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying the RTS aspect of NS is anywhere near as deep as SC, but you can reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals by the same argument. A shotgun rush is different from a hive siege just like a reaver drop is different from a DT rush. You still have tactical options even if they are fewer. If you want to increase RTS depth, give the commander more tools instead of diminishing the scope of map control.
I'm not sure what teamwork means to you exactly, care to elaborate?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying the RTS aspect of NS is anywhere near as deep as SC, but you can reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals by the same argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does it have to do with expansions? Also, reduce SC's goals to gather gas and minerals? How does the logic even follow?
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />??
?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A shotgun rush is different from a hive siege just like a reaver drop is different from a DT rush. You still have tactical options even if they are fewer. If you want to increase RTS depth, give the commander more tools instead of diminishing the scope of map control.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying that there are no tactical options in NS. But there are no tactical options in NS concerning resources. Its a one shot thing, you either capture RTs or you lose.
(?)
I mean your marines are actual players not units.
<!--quoteo(post=1674789:date=Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Mar 31 2008, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1674789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying that there are no tactical options in NS. But there are no tactical options in NS concerning resources. Its a one shot thing, you either capture RTs or you lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The tactical option regarding resources is where to expand as I talked abut earlier in this thread.
I just don't see it, marines expand in the exact same pattern every game. With small deviations in phase gate placement, but they are more decisions of what you <u>can</u> do instead of what you <u>want</u> to do as a commander. Also, there really is no strategy as to the timing of your expansions, its just get expos ASAP every game.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with that you shouldn't have to build structures. One of the most important part of the game is running into an unscouted area and buildind that rt and hoping beyond hope a skulk isn't going to chomp you. Also, imagine ninja'ing a hive and running up to the PG, tapping e and running off again while it builds it's self. It is just unsatisfying gameplay. The idea of having actual minibases you have to invest time in building appeals to me in a huge way. This would be the perfect NS to me. Suspenseful, strategic, unpredictable and exciting.
1) Capping would be more fight oriented. Less running to nodes and less +use. Less rt biting for skulks while there were small 1v1, 2v2 and 1v2 skirmishesh going on around the map.
2) Capping wouldn't be enforced so much by the game mechanics. You don't need 4+ RTs to be effective.
3) You could still have a relatively complex map layout with a lot of different routes, map positionings and such.
Small fights all around, big fights at hives and other crucial locations.
It might be nice to make a bit of a compromise between the domining styled expo play and res wars we are fighting nowadays. For example if rt costs 40 res and starts giving res at an increasing rate until a cap at one and a half minutes, you could have either a long game strat involving 4 RTs or a shorter hive push one with 2 or 3. Map layouts would have something around 6-7 nodes. I think I'm starting to see what domining was going after when he started this topic.