<!--quoteo(post=1686453:date=Aug 22 2008, 08:24 PM:name=darktimes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darktimes @ Aug 22 2008, 08:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that all sounds cool.
but its absolutly stratigical bull######. (sry )
why use clumbsy, slow legs when you have tracks?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you considered learning how to spell? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Why use legs? Because legs can move through any type of terrain, climb stairs, and so on. It takes a <i>lot</i> of energy to make a tracked vehicle climb steep slopes or stairs, and tracks are a bi<i></i>tch to repair when they get damaged (with thin, modular legs, you just pull one off and install a replacement - in fact, 6-legged robots can be designed to continue operating with just 5, 4 or even 3 legs). Tracks are great for the desert or plains, not great for moving inside buildings or navigating complex obstacles. The seige cannon isn't supposed to move quickly anyway (is it?); it's not a tank, so why should it look like one?
Here are some ideas of what I think it should look like. For the "base":
But, instead of a big dish and a small dish, it would have 3 identical dishes. Combine with some elements from anti-missile lasers (ex., <a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)</a>, add some wires, some coils, some coolant tubes, some electric arcs while it charges, and you have something that looks a lot weirder than a simple cannon on tracks, and which could more credibly be able to blow things up through walls (in fact, there are already some energy transfer systems that work by causing two different magnetic waves to interfere with each other at a specific point in space).
I'd do a proper model (or at least some sketches) but I have lots of work right now.
Ultimately, what matters is how the game plays, not what one individual weapon looks like, but the current design just looks too much like a tank, IMO. I'd expect to see it shoot some projectiles, or at least a beam, and move really fast across open ground, neither of which it is actually supposed to do.
You guys are looking at it wrong, all great idea's but look at modeler, rigger stand point. If you make one thing to complicated you need to make all the other things act complicated. That costs money and money doesn't grow on trees. Multi limbed machines that do move are extremely complicated to rig and move and its very time consuming to model it so it all works in those perimeter's. Tracks on the other hand are simple and can be made and rotated very quickly. If you are stuck on the legs then make one yourself and send it in to Flayra and the others and I'm sure they will appreciate your tenacity but the concept that was drawn up was made that way because its possible and simple to make.
<!--quoteo(post=1686463:date=Aug 22 2008, 09:32 PM:name=Kblackwd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kblackwd @ Aug 22 2008, 09:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686463"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You guys are looking at it wrong, all great idea's but look at modeler, rigger stand point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Modeling and rigging a "spider" robot is a lot simpler than doing the same for a human or organic model. At least in my opinion, and I work as a 3D animator. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Animating it might be slightly more complex, but you don't have to get it as perfect. Any little flaw in the movement of an organic model gets noticed, but if a robot's movement is jerky people don't care.
Overall, it might be slightly more complex than making a tracked or wheeled model (especially if the tracks and wheels are basically static and just have animated textures), but you also have to think about the way it moves. A 6-legged, radially symmetric model is basically ready to move in any direction at any time. A tracked or wheeled model needs to make some pretty complex maneuvers to look realistic. Less work for the modelers but more work for the programmers.
Anyway, ultimately it's about how the author wants the game to look, and apparently he likes the "fast tank" look. At least it's a lot better than the "bike" look at the start of the video.
<!--quoteo(post=1686459:date=Aug 22 2008, 08:06 PM:name=Electricity_over_IP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Electricity_over_IP @ Aug 22 2008, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you considered learning how to spell? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Why use legs? Because legs can move through any type of terrain, climb stairs, and so on. It takes a <i>lot</i> of energy to make a tracked vehicle climb steep slopes or stairs, and tracks are a bi<i></i>tch to repair when they get damaged (with thin, modular legs, you just pull one off and install a replacement - in fact, 6-legged robots can be designed to continue operating with just 5, 4 or even 3 legs). Tracks are great for the desert or plains, not great for moving inside buildings or navigating complex obstacles. The seige cannon isn't supposed to move quickly anyway (is it?); it's not a tank, so why should it look like one?
Here are some ideas of what I think it should look like. For the "base":
But, instead of a big dish and a small dish, it would have 3 identical dishes. Combine with some elements from anti-missile lasers (ex., <a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)</a>, add some wires, some coils, some coolant tubes, some electric arcs while it charges, and you have something that looks a lot weirder than a simple cannon on tracks, and which could more credibly be able to blow things up through walls (in fact, there are already some energy transfer systems that work by causing two different magnetic waves to interfere with each other at a specific point in space).
I'd do a proper model (or at least some sketches) but I have lots of work right now.
Ultimately, what matters is how the game plays, not what one individual weapon looks like, but the current design just looks too much like a tank, IMO. I'd expect to see it shoot some projectiles, or at least a beam, and move really fast across open ground, neither of which it is actually supposed to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, yes that's the thing that made me unsure about the concepts. The concepts only explore track based vehicles! The spider linked looks awesome, really agile and fluid.
Another issue I have is that the deployed final concept still looks like it can be moved, ie. open it up at the hive, if you get aliens incoming just roll it back while it closes. Something that could be looked at is having the vehicle attach itself by some means to the ground, which would create that deployment/undeployment time. For example, one way it could be done is to have each leg of the spider weld into the metal floor. An advantage to this is that you can place metal only where you want siege locations to be, allowing the mappers to place alien-advantageous areas in the maps.
i was hoping you would not have siege cannons in this new version of NS just because i think it's ridiculously boring and unchallenging to have something like an artillery cannon that automatically perfectly aims itself and hits something with every shot. but if you must have siege cannons, and the artwork is awesome, so it should not go to waste, then you should change the siege cannons to have to be aimable by the commander or players. someone should go scout ahead and look where the sonic blasts are and say things like "ok aim it further left a little like 7 degrees, and set the range to like 3 metres further, ok now right a little and set the range a little shorter, a bit more, no that's too much, go back. ok that's fine" etc. and they should be able to blast aliens with it too but maybe you should make it so there's like a little warning or where the cannon is focusing like a little distortion effect in the air that the players can see and maybe a slight drain on health before the big blast comes. btw i also thing you should make it so that you can build hives anywhere that there is enough room and i think some alien structures should even be able to move slowly over the infestation.
Remember that they also need to model/animate a weld-bot. I think a spider-like weld-bot would be pretty awesome.
If they used the "spider" as a base concept, then they could almost kill two birds with one stone (if they used a spider model/animation for the movable siege cannon) while also introducing continuity into TSA tech (I haven't seen any TSA-like tanks before...nor mentioned anywhere...).
In addition, I think the spider model would also be more realistic as an alternative, due to the historic connection between humans, spiders and earth...
Tanks are never used for in-door environments anyhow.....
<!--quoteo(post=1686509:date=Aug 23 2008, 01:54 PM:name=MasterPTG)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MasterPTG @ Aug 23 2008, 01:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tanks are never used for in-door environments anyhow.....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
S.W.A.T uses tanks with cameras to look around or little robots that looks like tanks... With a spider bot thing you gotta decide how many legs, how they move... then you have to animate an upward crawl, backward, downward, side to side and then you have to code it to recognize when this is happening and when it has to run different animations... Its alot of work.
the commander has to build a structure "masc control processor" the mascs are fully automated and they will shoot every alien structure in their range the range of the MACS issnt as far as normal siege cannons the mascs are not as fast as the marines (so they have to wait for them sometimes) or the mascs are faster so the marines have to hurry to guard them the masc needs time to to build up before firing its easier to kill a masc when its rdy to fire if its getting damage it moves slower (only for the fast version)
other possibility is that every masc is controlled by a single marine and every masc needs its own control panel (or seat at the masc control processor or something like this) in base (more mascs = less marines but no ress for aliens for killing it) (automated??)
i dont care about how it looks, just make it have a panel so a marine can aim with it (like a field topside view from the target area when the comm scans or anyone spots it, and the marine can move the crosshair on the screen to aim with the cannon where to shoot)
<b>Re: "SUCK IT!"</b> Exactly the same thing happened in <i>Aliens</i>. The production documentary footage (e.g. from the <i>Alien Quadrilogy</i> boxed set) shows how James Cameron basically sat the Marines cast down for an afternoon, gave them a table of arts and crafts bits and pieces and told them to customise their armour however they wanted. So Hudson's chest plate has the actor Bill Paxton's then girlfriend's name on it and Jenette Goldstein, who plays Vasquez, chose a line of poetry that she liked.
<b>Re: Concepting a design that shows the cannon needs to be static while firing</b> I prefer how Starcraft did it, which is basically that the cannon is a big huge gun that needs to be stable if it's going to shoot that extra range and use the full potential of its longbarrel. However, I think the 'powering up' idea could still be worked into this design by having some lights or signs of power on the tracks/feet dim when it deploys and then the barrel gradually lighting up to a crescendo as it fires each shot. Bit blue sky but I know that's how you roll! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<b>Re: Mobile sieges</b> Does this mean no more tfacts? It'd be good to do away with them since they represent too big an investment on the tech tree (versus research, weapons and mines) meaning turrets effectively don't get used in most advanced play. I like the idea of the TF being done away with because it would really open up the early game. Dropping a single turret or researching elec off the bat wouldn't be such an expensive and restricting gamble.
As for how this will change gameplay, in some ways it will and in others it won't make a big difference.<ol type='1'><li>The siege looks like it will be just as vulnerable as current siege cannons when deployed, which is good because that's what you were aiming for.</li><li>The fact that it's mobile means it's re-usable, so less pointless recycling for the commander after sieging a Hive, which has always been a chore rather than a design point.</li><li>The mobile siege does look like it will be bigger than what we have now which means it will be tighter in siege spots (or maybe mean that siege spots will need to be bigger).</li><li>There is an element of complexity in terms of how the automated waypointing of an AI-driven vehicle will interact with human players. Will it push players out of the way if they're in its path or will it stop and start if they get in the way? I'd say a TF2-esque solution is the way to go, with 'team' and 'not team' collision bounding for the model <i>while in motion</i> (when deployed and in order to deploy I think it's reasonable to expect players to be obstructed or get out of the way).</li><li>One big difference is that Marines will not be vulnerable while it deploys. This is a big consideration for how sieging will work in NS2. In NS you must split your Marines between building and covering, which is an element of decision-making that is important to the gameplay. A mobile, automated siege takes some of this room for player error away. There is always the option of welding and unwelding the siege to deploy and un-deploy it, if you decide to keep it similar to how NS works well at the moment.</li><li>Can mobile sieges use phase gates? Interesting implications there.</li><li>Much more time spent on development: Let's see, there's the animations for flat ground, 30 degrees, 45 degrees slopes, etc. which in itself isn't too bad because only the tracks will really need to move in one direction and about one pivot per foot. Unless you go crazy on step-by-step animations on stairs like you have with current heavy lifting equipment, the art side isn't dramatically costly. But then there's the pathfinding around human-controlled players in 3D environments, possibly with physics props rolling about, which seems like a prolongued development process while you get it all working well. This seems an odd choice for an indy dev studio to take considering you had a much more economic asset in place to begin with. Not a problem just an observation, I'm just wondering if the changes it makes to the gameplay will be worth the added cost to the studio (i.e. if they actually add enough depth to the gameplay to justify the extra dev time). Did Max do a lot of pathfinding stuff before at Iron Lore?</li><li>Marines will now have to guard the siege while moving to keep it alive, which brings up an interesting 'convoy' situation much like we have with 'Heavy trains', but with the difference that mobile sieges are both valuable <i>and</i> incredibly vulnerable.</li><li>As SentrySteve pointed out, this thing probably won't be as vulnerable to static Alien defenses (i.e. OCs) or Gas. In fact it could be moved in first to draw OC fire and take them down while they're distracted? (or are there plans to put in code that will prioritise OC fire for human players as opposed to structures and machinery?)</li></ol>So basically this conceptual change has ramifications on player movement, map design, gameplay, the tech tree, a whole new block of extra code for pathfinding and player collision. It's quite a big move, hope it pays off because it sounds interesting enough and not objectionable in any major way if it can be made to work smoothly.
P.S. Firefox pfficially RULES. My PC just bluescreened on me and this entire post was left intact when I restarted FireFox and selected 'Restore'. <3
<!--quoteo(post=1686554:date=Aug 24 2008, 09:36 PM:name=Philganja (Edited))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Philganja (Edited) @ Aug 24 2008, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The commander has to build a structure "M.A.S.C. Control Processor" The M.A.S.C.s are fully automated and they will shoot every alien structure in their range The range of the M.A.S.C.s isn't as far as normal siege cannons The mascs are not as fast as the marines (so they have to wait for them sometimes) or the M.A.S.C.s are faster so the marines have to hurry to guard them The M.A.S.C. needs time to to build up before firing It's easier to kill a M.A.S.C. when it's ready to fire If it's taking damage it moves slower (only for the fast version)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the control processor dies, turn all the sieges that are linked to it off - like a map-wide TF. Linking costs more res than the building itself, so that commanders don't build a "backup" to break this mechanic. If the CP dies, another one must be built, the siege must be brought back to the location of the CP with which it is to be linked (such as marine start) and re-linked for an additional res cost.
One idea for balancing the MASC could be for its mobility while undeployed. Perhaps a single skulk bite (or a few, whatever) on the treads, or even just anywhere, could disable its movement. It would have to be welded back to full hp before it could move again.
This would add to the teamwork requirement, since marines not only have to defend it but they have to keep up on the welding for it to keep moving. It would also give aliens a better chance of slowing or stopping this new type of 'train'. The HA train has no real counter or slowing, aside from simply damaging them until they have to weld. If the MASC itself stopped from X damage to Y area, it would give skulks incentive to hit it. If not, they would always focus on taking out the escorts first.
<!--quoteo(post=1686599:date=Aug 25 2008, 04:57 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Aug 25 2008, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686599"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the control processor dies, turn all the sieges that are linked to it off - like a map-wide TF. Linking costs more res than the building itself, so that commanders don't build a "backup" to break this mechanic. If the CP dies, another one must be built, the siege must be brought back to the location of the CP with which it is to be linked (such as marine start) and re-linked for an additional res cost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats exactly what i mean^^ maybe there are some research options for the mascs like 10% speed 10% range 10% damage 10% hp or something like this...
<!--quoteo(post=1686606:date=Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One idea for balancing the MASC could be for its mobility while undeployed. Perhaps a single skulk bite (or a few, whatever) on the treads, or even just anywhere, could disable its movement. It would have to be welded back to full hp before it could move again.
This would add to the teamwork requirement, since marines not only have to defend it but they have to keep up on the welding for it to keep moving. It would also give aliens a better chance of slowing or stopping this new type of 'train'. The HA train has no real counter or slowing, aside from simply damaging them until they have to weld. If the MASC itself stopped from X damage to Y area, it would give skulks incentive to hit it. If not, they would always focus on taking out the escorts first.
Just a thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think it would be best if the mascs will go into a defense-mode after they lose half of their hp (in this mode its harder to get them killed but they arent able to move anymore so a marine has to weld them up)
<!--quoteo(post=1686606:date=Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The HA train has no real counter or slowing, aside from simply damaging them until they have to weld.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The main counter to the HA train is that they are incredibly expensive and take time to save up for. Aliens can be doing a lot in that time to cripple the Marines while they have less weapons on the field. HA trains are generally an indication that the Marines are going to win the round, but not always.
True. But balanced games often have partial HA trains as well. I just find that encounter situations are always more interesting when you have multiple choices for countering, aside from the base gameplay options (sure you can umbra, or have a gorge run in healing, or use a fade for a distraction etc, but you can always do those). HA trains simply need a ton of force; a good 2 hive onos can sometimes counter well, but its more like he can slowly chip away at them.
I mean I do like the gun and treads more than the other one, but it still looks like it was just put together in a few seconds and not though out (from the Marine standpoint, not from your design standpoint). I think the 4 treads is nice incase there are stairs you could have some "climbing" animation for the model, but the loose wires and stuff just feel silly and I don't get why an attacking skulk wouldn't rip the wires out of the cannon in 1 swipe.
Also, I still don't get why it wouldn't be able to move and fire with that design? I would have prefered a much larger cannon and something that locks it in place when it fires (think Siege Cannon from StarCraft). The design doesn't fit with the other Marine designs you've presented (like the train). It isn't a streamlined or smooth or well built. Oh well, hopefully we will see how it turns out in the final product!
By the way, any ETA on the game? Maybe Halloween '09? =)
I very much like the design of the mobile turret system, especially the quad-tread movement, excellently designed for slow, precise movement. Possibly even remote operated, if desired. My only issue is the way the gun seems to elevate from the 'cradle'. The two, folding panel supports that lift it into position seem almost fragile, flimsy. It seems if this 'cannon' had any recoil, any kick, it'd fly right off the hinges. I realize this isn't the case, and they're intended to be as secure as needed, but it makes the entire package seem too stringy, less compact and efficient. Even one more single steadying brace, possibly at the front, or maybe even a tripod style brace to continue the style of the basic sentry and shell cannon sentry.
<!--quoteo(post=1686598:date=Aug 25 2008, 10:28 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Aug 25 2008, 10:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Re: Mobile sieges</b>
[*]As SentrySteve pointed out, this thing probably won't be as vulnerable to static Alien defenses (i.e. OCs) or Gas. In fact it could be moved in first to draw OC fire and take them down while they're distracted? (or are there plans to put in code that will prioritise OC fire for human players as opposed to structures and machinery?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Current NS already includes code that Turrets and OCs will ignore enemy buildings whenever they have the chance to attack enemy players instead. I would assume this same decision would hold for NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1686680:date=Aug 26 2008, 04:26 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Aug 26 2008, 04:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686680"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Current NS already includes code that Turrets and OCs will ignore enemy buildings whenever they have the chance to attack enemy players instead. I would assume this same decision would hold for NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I was just making a point about this because it would be easy to overlook from a developer's standpoint (the MASC is neither a Marine or a Structure) and creates an effective exploit. Plus I know that (new) target acquisition and prioritisation is one of the more fiddly bits of AI-controlled turrets.
Seeing the updates videocasted really excites me a lot more in comparison to the audio podcasts. But nevertheless i'm really digging the updates from the team!
Can't wait to see more stuff! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I apologize if this has been addressed, but if the concept is to make it a slow moving "convoy" type of strategy, would it be worth considering to have the MASC act like an Armory when undeployed? (ie dispense ammo/health, but no spawning of weapons)
Can we electrify these MASCs also? Also upgrade them to have a Heavy Machinegun to wipe out any aliens coming close.
Seriously, I can't see this working or being fun at all. I personally play Natural-Selection competetively, though I do play public also. From what I can make of these MASCs is stupid tactics in both communities, where a Commander will literally build a MASC straight off and send a group of Marines to protect it/them with whatever gun they have, of course, there could be around 8 marines to cover the MASC (Hell, one wouldn't matter if they're good, its the fact that it is indestructable if tactics are made, which is what would make public more fun if people started listening to a Commander or doing what is best for the team, which NEVER happens in Natural-Selection public) making it impossible to kill without a Lerk early game. (This won't happen before the MASC is at the designated location)
The fact that if these MASCs do what the original Natural-Selection Sieges did, then the game would be over within seconds as it would ultimately destroy what has been built for the aliens, and making pressuring resource towers and chambers so easy and simple. Maybe I'm being too impatient to see what else will go into Natural-Selection 2, but I honestly cannot see this being an attraction for me, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one.
Though my input has been negative, I do like the looks of the designs and can see them as being spectacular looking, but the idea of having them moving, which does make it sound fun and could be great to play with, just give me a thought of what these MASCs can do to a game, and they seem completely irrelevant to making gameplay more advanced, especially when the Sieges in current Natural-Selection seem more fun and challenging to use and build than a MASC.
<!--quoteo(post=1686818:date=Aug 28 2008, 09:02 AM:name=Howd3h)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howd3h @ Aug 28 2008, 09:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can we electrify these MASCs also? Also upgrade them to have a Heavy Machinegun to wipe out any aliens coming close.
Seriously, I can't see this working or being fun at all. I personally play Natural-Selection competetively, though I do play public also. From what I can make of these MASCs is stupid tactics in both communities, where a Commander will literally build a MASC straight off and send a group of Marines to protect it/them with whatever gun they have, of course, there could be around 8 marines to cover the MASC (Hell, one wouldn't matter if they're good, its the fact that it is indestructable if tactics are made, which is what would make public more fun if people started listening to a Commander or doing what is best for the team, which NEVER happens in Natural-Selection public) making it impossible to kill without a Lerk early game. (This won't happen before the MASC is at the designated location)
The fact that if these MASCs do what the original Natural-Selection Sieges did, then the game would be over within seconds as it would ultimately destroy what has been built for the aliens, and making pressuring resource towers and chambers so easy and simple. Maybe I'm being too impatient to see what else will go into Natural-Selection 2, but I honestly cannot see this being an attraction for me, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one.
Though my input has been negative, I do like the looks of the designs and can see them as being spectacular looking, but the idea of having them moving, which does make it sound fun and could be great to play with, just give me a thought of what these MASCs can do to a game, and they seem completely irrelevant to making gameplay more advanced, especially when the Sieges in current Natural-Selection seem more fun and challenging to use and build than a MASC.
howdeh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe you're missing all the all the balancing opportunities, as well as the tactical dynamics.
On balance; why can't this be a Proto tech? Or even just require an AA? Right there, you can see how this would be far from the 10-second-game-over situation.
Or what if a single one of these MASCs cost 50 res? Perhaps thats only for the 'base model'. For another 10 res each, you can choose to upgrade the movement speed, the armor, the deploy time or the power by 25% apiece. Maybe add an armory or obs attachment, etc. These would all significantly increase the cost and the build time, but would give a better tactical situation for the marines.
Ooh! What if there's a upgrade of some sort of air blower, which basically pushes Spores and Umbra away from the Masc by about 8 feet? This would create a gas 'safehaven' around the MASC, while letting them still affect the combat in the areas immediately surrounding the MASC.
You could have a lot of fun with designing upgrades to this thing.
And on balance again, what if the MASC could have its movement disabled after a certain amount of damage? Yet another balancing tool. It could be very loud during movement as well as when its being built, giving aliens forewarning to prepare.
As for talking about it hitting RTs and such, what if it was primarily designed to hit Hives? When siegeing Hives, it can target at its normal speed; but when targeting smaller structures, like RTs, chambers and such, it takes a few more seconds per shot. An easy balance. You could even add in sound effects that could add a lot of ambience; basically the masc saying 'goddamnit, this target is too small, by i'm trying'. Beep BOOP.
There's a thousand ways you could make this another balanced tool in the NS arsenal, and I can see it being extremely fun.
Another interesting point is perhaps all siege are MASC, but they can't move until upgraded, or maybe this is the AA version and there is still the regular type that require a TF nearby.
There is a nice thread in the Ideas and Suggestions area if you want to jive specifics and other insane ideas.
Howdeh that was my first reaction too, but the game is so amorphous at this point that I think your argument doesn't work.
If the rest of the game had already been designed, and it was obvious that this element would break large parts of the diversification and enjoyment, then I'd be in your camp.
<!--quoteo(post=1686180:date=Aug 19 2008, 01:42 AM:name=brechtos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brechtos @ Aug 19 2008, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> The NS2 podcasts are always of such a high quality and truly inspirig for me.
Keep up the amazing work and connection with the community.
Also noticed that your concept art was taken up in the expose 6 book, congratz with that! <a href="http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/expose/expose_6/" target="_blank">http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/expose/expose_6/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> nice. took a while to find them. but it's got the hive + glowie concept. 3 page turns further it's got the railcar + molten metal concept. and i didn't see anything else.. hmm. has some damn good art on there though.
Comments
but its absolutly stratigical bull######. (sry )
why use clumbsy, slow legs when you have tracks?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you considered learning how to spell? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Why use legs? Because legs can move through any type of terrain, climb stairs, and so on. It takes a <i>lot</i> of energy to make a tracked vehicle climb steep slopes or stairs, and tracks are a bi<i></i>tch to repair when they get damaged (with thin, modular legs, you just pull one off and install a replacement - in fact, 6-legged robots can be designed to continue operating with just 5, 4 or even 3 legs). Tracks are great for the desert or plains, not great for moving inside buildings or navigating complex obstacles. The seige cannon isn't supposed to move quickly anyway (is it?); it's not a tank, so why should it look like one?
Here are some ideas of what I think it should look like. For the "base":
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W71BQKxBFI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W71BQKxBFI</a>
And for the weapon itself:
<a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Hot-Shot-1L36-Radar-1S.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Hot-Shot-1L36-Radar-1S.jpg</a>
But, instead of a big dish and a small dish, it would have 3 identical dishes. Combine with some elements from anti-missile lasers (ex., <a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)</a>, add some wires, some coils, some coolant tubes, some electric arcs while it charges, and you have something that looks a lot weirder than a simple cannon on tracks, and which could more credibly be able to blow things up through walls (in fact, there are already some energy transfer systems that work by causing two different magnetic waves to interfere with each other at a specific point in space).
I'd do a proper model (or at least some sketches) but I have lots of work right now.
Ultimately, what matters is how the game plays, not what one individual weapon looks like, but the current design just looks too much like a tank, IMO. I'd expect to see it shoot some projectiles, or at least a beam, and move really fast across open ground, neither of which it is actually supposed to do.
Modeling and rigging a "spider" robot is a lot simpler than doing the same for a human or organic model. At least in my opinion, and I work as a 3D animator. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Animating it might be slightly more complex, but you don't have to get it as perfect. Any little flaw in the movement of an organic model gets noticed, but if a robot's movement is jerky people don't care.
Overall, it might be slightly more complex than making a tracked or wheeled model (especially if the tracks and wheels are basically static and just have animated textures), but you also have to think about the way it moves. A 6-legged, radially symmetric model is basically ready to move in any direction at any time. A tracked or wheeled model needs to make some pretty complex maneuvers to look realistic. Less work for the modelers but more work for the programmers.
Anyway, ultimately it's about how the author wants the game to look, and apparently he likes the "fast tank" look. At least it's a lot better than the "bike" look at the start of the video.
Why use legs? Because legs can move through any type of terrain, climb stairs, and so on. It takes a <i>lot</i> of energy to make a tracked vehicle climb steep slopes or stairs, and tracks are a bi<i></i>tch to repair when they get damaged (with thin, modular legs, you just pull one off and install a replacement - in fact, 6-legged robots can be designed to continue operating with just 5, 4 or even 3 legs). Tracks are great for the desert or plains, not great for moving inside buildings or navigating complex obstacles. The seige cannon isn't supposed to move quickly anyway (is it?); it's not a tank, so why should it look like one?
Here are some ideas of what I think it should look like. For the "base":
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W71BQKxBFI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W71BQKxBFI</a>
And for the weapon itself:
<a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Hot-Shot-1L36-Radar-1S.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Hot-Shot-1L36-Radar-1S.jpg</a>
But, instead of a big dish and a small dish, it would have 3 identical dishes. Combine with some elements from anti-missile lasers (ex., <a href="http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/Almaz-HEL-DEW-System-2S.jpg)</a>, add some wires, some coils, some coolant tubes, some electric arcs while it charges, and you have something that looks a lot weirder than a simple cannon on tracks, and which could more credibly be able to blow things up through walls (in fact, there are already some energy transfer systems that work by causing two different magnetic waves to interfere with each other at a specific point in space).
I'd do a proper model (or at least some sketches) but I have lots of work right now.
Ultimately, what matters is how the game plays, not what one individual weapon looks like, but the current design just looks too much like a tank, IMO. I'd expect to see it shoot some projectiles, or at least a beam, and move really fast across open ground, neither of which it is actually supposed to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, yes that's the thing that made me unsure about the concepts. The concepts only explore track based vehicles! The spider linked looks awesome, really agile and fluid.
Another issue I have is that the deployed final concept still looks like it can be moved, ie. open it up at the hive, if you get aliens incoming just roll it back while it closes. Something that could be looked at is having the vehicle attach itself by some means to the ground, which would create that deployment/undeployment time. For example, one way it could be done is to have each leg of the spider weld into the metal floor. An advantage to this is that you can place metal only where you want siege locations to be, allowing the mappers to place alien-advantageous areas in the maps.
If they used the "spider" as a base concept, then they could almost kill two birds with one stone (if they used a spider model/animation for the movable siege cannon) while also introducing continuity into TSA tech (I haven't seen any TSA-like tanks before...nor mentioned anywhere...).
In addition, I think the spider model would also be more realistic as an alternative, due to the historic connection between humans, spiders and earth...
Tanks are never used for in-door environments anyhow.....
S.W.A.T uses tanks with cameras to look around or little robots that looks like tanks... With a spider bot thing you gotta decide how many legs, how they move... then you have to animate an upward crawl, backward, downward, side to side and then you have to code it to recognize when this is happening and when it has to run different animations... Its alot of work.
the commander has to build a structure "masc control processor"
the mascs are fully automated and they will shoot every alien structure in their range
the range of the MACS issnt as far as normal siege cannons
the mascs are not as fast as the marines (so they have to wait for them sometimes)
or the mascs are faster so the marines have to hurry to guard them
the masc needs time to to build up before firing
its easier to kill a masc when its rdy to fire
if its getting damage it moves slower (only for the fast version)
other possibility is that every masc is controlled by a single marine and every masc needs its own control panel (or seat at the masc control processor or something like this) in base (more mascs = less marines but no ress for aliens for killing it) (automated??)
hope my thoughts arent useless <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Exactly the same thing happened in <i>Aliens</i>. The production documentary footage (e.g. from the <i>Alien Quadrilogy</i> boxed set) shows how James Cameron basically sat the Marines cast down for an afternoon, gave them a table of arts and crafts bits and pieces and told them to customise their armour however they wanted. So Hudson's chest plate has the actor Bill Paxton's then girlfriend's name on it and Jenette Goldstein, who plays Vasquez, chose a line of poetry that she liked.
<b>Re: Concepting a design that shows the cannon needs to be static while firing</b>
I prefer how Starcraft did it, which is basically that the cannon is a big huge gun that needs to be stable if it's going to shoot that extra range and use the full potential of its longbarrel. However, I think the 'powering up' idea could still be worked into this design by having some lights or signs of power on the tracks/feet dim when it deploys and then the barrel gradually lighting up to a crescendo as it fires each shot. Bit blue sky but I know that's how you roll! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<b>Re: Mobile sieges</b>
Does this mean no more tfacts? It'd be good to do away with them since they represent too big an investment on the tech tree (versus research, weapons and mines) meaning turrets effectively don't get used in most advanced play. I like the idea of the TF being done away with because it would really open up the early game. Dropping a single turret or researching elec off the bat wouldn't be such an expensive and restricting gamble.
As for how this will change gameplay, in some ways it will and in others it won't make a big difference.<ol type='1'><li>The siege looks like it will be just as vulnerable as current siege cannons when deployed, which is good because that's what you were aiming for.</li><li>The fact that it's mobile means it's re-usable, so less pointless recycling for the commander after sieging a Hive, which has always been a chore rather than a design point.</li><li>The mobile siege does look like it will be bigger than what we have now which means it will be tighter in siege spots (or maybe mean that siege spots will need to be bigger).</li><li>There is an element of complexity in terms of how the automated waypointing of an AI-driven vehicle will interact with human players. Will it push players out of the way if they're in its path or will it stop and start if they get in the way? I'd say a TF2-esque solution is the way to go, with 'team' and 'not team' collision bounding for the model <i>while in motion</i> (when deployed and in order to deploy I think it's reasonable to expect players to be obstructed or get out of the way).</li><li>One big difference is that Marines will not be vulnerable while it deploys. This is a big consideration for how sieging will work in NS2. In NS you must split your Marines between building and covering, which is an element of decision-making that is important to the gameplay. A mobile, automated siege takes some of this room for player error away. There is always the option of welding and unwelding the siege to deploy and un-deploy it, if you decide to keep it similar to how NS works well at the moment.</li><li>Can mobile sieges use phase gates? Interesting implications there.</li><li>Much more time spent on development: Let's see, there's the animations for flat ground, 30 degrees, 45 degrees slopes, etc. which in itself isn't too bad because only the tracks will really need to move in one direction and about one pivot per foot. Unless you go crazy on step-by-step animations on stairs like you have with current heavy lifting equipment, the art side isn't dramatically costly. But then there's the pathfinding around human-controlled players in 3D environments, possibly with physics props rolling about, which seems like a prolongued development process while you get it all working well. This seems an odd choice for an indy dev studio to take considering you had a much more economic asset in place to begin with. Not a problem just an observation, I'm just wondering if the changes it makes to the gameplay will be worth the added cost to the studio (i.e. if they actually add enough depth to the gameplay to justify the extra dev time). Did Max do a lot of pathfinding stuff before at Iron Lore?</li><li>Marines will now have to guard the siege while moving to keep it alive, which brings up an interesting 'convoy' situation much like we have with 'Heavy trains', but with the difference that mobile sieges are both valuable <i>and</i> incredibly vulnerable.</li><li>As SentrySteve pointed out, this thing probably won't be as vulnerable to static Alien defenses (i.e. OCs) or Gas. In fact it could be moved in first to draw OC fire and take them down while they're distracted? (or are there plans to put in code that will prioritise OC fire for human players as opposed to structures and machinery?)</li></ol>So basically this conceptual change has ramifications on player movement, map design, gameplay, the tech tree, a whole new block of extra code for pathfinding and player collision. It's quite a big move, hope it pays off because it sounds interesting enough and not objectionable in any major way if it can be made to work smoothly.
P.S. Firefox pfficially RULES. My PC just bluescreened on me and this entire post was left intact when I restarted FireFox and selected 'Restore'. <3
The M.A.S.C.s are fully automated and they will shoot every alien structure in their range
The range of the M.A.S.C.s isn't as far as normal siege cannons
The mascs are not as fast as the marines (so they have to wait for them sometimes)
or the M.A.S.C.s are faster so the marines have to hurry to guard them
The M.A.S.C. needs time to to build up before firing
It's easier to kill a M.A.S.C. when it's ready to fire
If it's taking damage it moves slower (only for the fast version)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the control processor dies, turn all the sieges that are linked to it off - like a map-wide TF. Linking costs more res than the building itself, so that commanders don't build a "backup" to break this mechanic. If the CP dies, another one must be built, the siege must be brought back to the location of the CP with which it is to be linked (such as marine start) and re-linked for an additional res cost.
This would add to the teamwork requirement, since marines not only have to defend it but they have to keep up on the welding for it to keep moving. It would also give aliens a better chance of slowing or stopping this new type of 'train'. The HA train has no real counter or slowing, aside from simply damaging them until they have to weld. If the MASC itself stopped from X damage to Y area, it would give skulks incentive to hit it. If not, they would always focus on taking out the escorts first.
Just a thought.
thats exactly what i mean^^ maybe there are some research options for the mascs like 10% speed 10% range 10% damage 10% hp or something like this...
<!--quoteo(post=1686606:date=Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Aug 25 2008, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One idea for balancing the MASC could be for its mobility while undeployed. Perhaps a single skulk bite (or a few, whatever) on the treads, or even just anywhere, could disable its movement. It would have to be welded back to full hp before it could move again.
This would add to the teamwork requirement, since marines not only have to defend it but they have to keep up on the welding for it to keep moving. It would also give aliens a better chance of slowing or stopping this new type of 'train'. The HA train has no real counter or slowing, aside from simply damaging them until they have to weld. If the MASC itself stopped from X damage to Y area, it would give skulks incentive to hit it. If not, they would always focus on taking out the escorts first.
Just a thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think it would be best if the mascs will go into a defense-mode after they lose half of their hp (in this mode its harder to get them killed but they arent able to move anymore so a marine has to weld them up)
If so, are there any more concept pictures like the ones shown in the podcast?
I know there are those in the image gallery.
I mean I do like the gun and treads more than the other one, but it still looks like it was just put together in a few seconds and not though out (from the Marine standpoint, not from your design standpoint). I think the 4 treads is nice incase there are stairs you could have some "climbing" animation for the model, but the loose wires and stuff just feel silly and I don't get why an attacking skulk wouldn't rip the wires out of the cannon in 1 swipe.
Also, I still don't get why it wouldn't be able to move and fire with that design? I would have prefered a much larger cannon and something that locks it in place when it fires (think Siege Cannon from StarCraft). The design doesn't fit with the other Marine designs you've presented (like the train). It isn't a streamlined or smooth or well built. Oh well, hopefully we will see how it turns out in the final product!
By the way, any ETA on the game? Maybe Halloween '09? =)
Well designed though, great job guys.
[*]As SentrySteve pointed out, this thing probably won't be as vulnerable to static Alien defenses (i.e. OCs) or Gas. In fact it could be moved in first to draw OC fire and take them down while they're distracted? (or are there plans to put in code that will prioritise OC fire for human players as opposed to structures and machinery?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Current NS already includes code that Turrets and OCs will ignore enemy buildings whenever they have the chance to attack enemy players instead. I would assume this same decision would hold for NS2.
Can't wait to see more stuff! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I apologize if this has been addressed, but if the concept is to make it a slow moving "convoy" type of strategy, would it be worth considering to have the MASC act like an Armory when undeployed? (ie dispense ammo/health, but no spawning of weapons)
Once deployed it would loose that capability.
Seriously, I can't see this working or being fun at all. I personally play Natural-Selection competetively, though I do play public also. From what I can make of these MASCs is stupid tactics in both communities, where a Commander will literally build a MASC straight off and send a group of Marines to protect it/them with whatever gun they have, of course, there could be around 8 marines to cover the MASC (Hell, one wouldn't matter if they're good, its the fact that it is indestructable if tactics are made, which is what would make public more fun if people started listening to a Commander or doing what is best for the team, which NEVER happens in Natural-Selection public) making it impossible to kill without a Lerk early game. (This won't happen before the MASC is at the designated location)
The fact that if these MASCs do what the original Natural-Selection Sieges did, then the game would be over within seconds as it would ultimately destroy what has been built for the aliens, and making pressuring resource towers and chambers so easy and simple. Maybe I'm being too impatient to see what else will go into Natural-Selection 2, but I honestly cannot see this being an attraction for me, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one.
Though my input has been negative, I do like the looks of the designs and can see them as being spectacular looking, but the idea of having them moving, which does make it sound fun and could be great to play with, just give me a thought of what these MASCs can do to a game, and they seem completely irrelevant to making gameplay more advanced, especially when the Sieges in current Natural-Selection seem more fun and challenging to use and build than a MASC.
howdeh
Seriously, I can't see this working or being fun at all. I personally play Natural-Selection competetively, though I do play public also. From what I can make of these MASCs is stupid tactics in both communities, where a Commander will literally build a MASC straight off and send a group of Marines to protect it/them with whatever gun they have, of course, there could be around 8 marines to cover the MASC (Hell, one wouldn't matter if they're good, its the fact that it is indestructable if tactics are made, which is what would make public more fun if people started listening to a Commander or doing what is best for the team, which NEVER happens in Natural-Selection public) making it impossible to kill without a Lerk early game. (This won't happen before the MASC is at the designated location)
The fact that if these MASCs do what the original Natural-Selection Sieges did, then the game would be over within seconds as it would ultimately destroy what has been built for the aliens, and making pressuring resource towers and chambers so easy and simple. Maybe I'm being too impatient to see what else will go into Natural-Selection 2, but I honestly cannot see this being an attraction for me, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one.
Though my input has been negative, I do like the looks of the designs and can see them as being spectacular looking, but the idea of having them moving, which does make it sound fun and could be great to play with, just give me a thought of what these MASCs can do to a game, and they seem completely irrelevant to making gameplay more advanced, especially when the Sieges in current Natural-Selection seem more fun and challenging to use and build than a MASC.
howdeh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe you're missing all the all the balancing opportunities, as well as the tactical dynamics.
On balance; why can't this be a Proto tech? Or even just require an AA? Right there, you can see how this would be far from the 10-second-game-over situation.
Or what if a single one of these MASCs cost 50 res? Perhaps thats only for the 'base model'. For another 10 res each, you can choose to upgrade the movement speed, the armor, the deploy time or the power by 25% apiece. Maybe add an armory or obs attachment, etc. These would all significantly increase the cost and the build time, but would give a better tactical situation for the marines.
Ooh! What if there's a upgrade of some sort of air blower, which basically pushes Spores and Umbra away from the Masc by about 8 feet? This would create a gas 'safehaven' around the MASC, while letting them still affect the combat in the areas immediately surrounding the MASC.
You could have a lot of fun with designing upgrades to this thing.
And on balance again, what if the MASC could have its movement disabled after a certain amount of damage? Yet another balancing tool. It could be very loud during movement as well as when its being built, giving aliens forewarning to prepare.
As for talking about it hitting RTs and such, what if it was primarily designed to hit Hives? When siegeing Hives, it can target at its normal speed; but when targeting smaller structures, like RTs, chambers and such, it takes a few more seconds per shot. An easy balance. You could even add in sound effects that could add a lot of ambience; basically the masc saying 'goddamnit, this target is too small, by i'm trying'. Beep BOOP.
There's a thousand ways you could make this another balanced tool in the NS arsenal, and I can see it being extremely fun.
Another interesting point is perhaps all siege are MASC, but they can't move until upgraded, or maybe this is the AA version and there is still the regular type that require a TF nearby.
There is a nice thread in the Ideas and Suggestions area if you want to jive specifics and other insane ideas.
If the rest of the game had already been designed, and it was obvious that this element would break large parts of the diversification and enjoyment, then I'd be in your camp.
<!--quoteo(post=1686180:date=Aug 19 2008, 01:42 AM:name=brechtos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brechtos @ Aug 19 2008, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1686180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" />
The NS2 podcasts are always of such a high quality and truly inspirig for me.
Keep up the amazing work and connection with the community.
Also noticed that your concept art was taken up in the expose 6 book, congratz with that!
<a href="http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/expose/expose_6/" target="_blank">http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/books/expose/expose_6/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nice. took a while to find them. but it's got the hive + glowie concept. 3 page turns further it's got the railcar + molten metal concept. and i didn't see anything else.. hmm.
has some damn good art on there though.