Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1791150:date=Aug 3 2010, 09:22 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 3 2010, 09:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i agree with the OP
leave RTSing to the commander - if you allow individual units to mess with <u>RESOURCE ALLOCATION</u> then it's going to be a gigantic clusterfcuk. i say throw the complainers a bone and let units assist in building an already-started building more rapidly, but don't let them initiate construction themselves - there will be no way for the commander to allocate resources effectively if this happens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone actually suggested this? Kinda obvious the marines should not have the ability to throw down buildings, that should (and is) left up to commander/MAC combo...
<!--quoteo(post=1791131:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:03 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 07:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791131"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 Commander's are suppose to be getting a lot of Spells that directly affect his team on the ground(both Alien and Marine Commanders).
Listen to the recent Podcast.
*****
And that is what the Players on the ground should be doing, is fighting. They are the combat units, not the SCVs/Drones of the team.
Plus they will be busy escorting MASCs, and flanking the Enemy Team/Hives(Alien Kommander ability lets them Shift Hives around).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That approach was used in Savage 2 and overall it was a much less compelling exsperience to be a commander there than in NS1. I strongly believe that having players build structures confers a lot of benefit to the overall pacing and team unity, plus it provides a support role for players that are not as good at combat. Adding NPC construction is a bad call.
Combat troops don’t need to be used for logistics. Their mission is to fight. I think the commander is responsible for logistics and strategy. In NS if you are commanding a good team that’s what happens , except the troops have to stop and build things which slows them down. I feel a good strategy is to secure an area, protect it while it’s built up and move on. In NS on the alien side, the gorge is the logistics supplier. I’m still not sure about the best mission for the alien commander. Maybe he should be a gorge that can pop out to defend the hive among other duties.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More micro is better for the Commander<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One less Commander: Me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And like I said, it doesn't make sense in NS1 how Marines could build a structure without a Welder<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Touch it to prevent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo" target="_blank">Grey Goo</a> scenarios.
<!--quoteo(post=1791135:date=Aug 3 2010, 02:08 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only difference now, is the Commander doesn't have to babysit the Marines and buy their Weapons for them.
He just researches the ability to buy them.
This is an improvment over the NS1 Gameplay model.
*****<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"OMG the commander is doing nothing!!! hes just saving the res for no reason, quick lets rush to teh amrory and have flamethrowerz!"
does anyone else remember being a good stealth marine and crawling into vents or odd locations, and having the commander drop supplies/teleporters/siege weapons?
Would MACs be able to do this? Clearly, MACs are not going to be able to be crawl around to odd locations for stealth drops, new generation AI or not.
There is no clear answer as to whether removing this part of the strategy is better or not for NS2, but it is important to realize MACs eliminate a large number of option strategies for the commander. Part of this will also be affected by map design.
Also, @jimyd, you keep on mentioning that letting marines build will slow down the game. But, how much of a slow down are we really talking about? What's the build time for a res tower or an armory? 10-15 seconds i think. I think comm chair takes the longest, but how often do you drop that?
The reason why pub games in NS1 could last 1 hr or more had nothing to do with the fact that marines could build. It was usually because teams were either evenly matched, or one team would hole up with large numbers of defense/offense towers at the hive or large numbers of turrets.
<!--quoteo(post=1791262:date=Aug 3 2010, 03:16 PM:name=haloz7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (haloz7 @ Aug 3 2010, 03:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Food for thought:
does anyone else remember being a good stealth marine and crawling into vents or odd locations, and having the commander drop supplies/teleporters/siege weapons?
Would MACs be able to do this? Clearly, MACs are not going to be able to be crawl around to odd locations for stealth drops, new generation AI or not.
There is no clear answer as to whether removing this part of the strategy is better or not for NS2, but it is important to realize MACs eliminate a large number of option strategies for the commander. Part of this will also be affected by map design.
Also, @jimyd, you keep on mentioning that letting marines build will slow down the game. But, how much of a slow down are we really talking about? What's the build time for a res tower or an armory? 10-15 seconds i think. I think comm chair takes the longest, but how often do you drop that?
The reason why pub games in NS1 could last 1 hr or more had nothing to do with the fact that marines could build. It was usually because teams were either evenly matched, or one team would hole up with large numbers of defense/offense towers at the hive or large numbers of turrets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I keep seeing people talking about ninja PGs and siege cannons. How many people are weighing into this debate without knowing that those things no longer exist in the game design plans currently?
<!--quoteo(post=1791192:date=Aug 3 2010, 04:01 PM:name=1stToast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1stToast @ Aug 3 2010, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791192"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Combat troops don’t need to be used for logistics. Their mission is to fight. I think the commander is responsible for logistics and strategy. In NS if you are commanding a good team that’s what happens , except the troops have to stop and build things which slows them down. I feel a good strategy is to secure an area, protect it while it’s built up and move on. In NS on the alien side, the gorge is the logistics supplier. I’m still not sure about the best mission for the alien commander. Maybe he should be a gorge that can pop out to defend the hive among other duties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TSA aren't combat troops per se. They're more of a paramilitary strike force. In a standard army scenario, logistics trains make for a whole lot of excess baggage that impedes mobility, whereas I think the TSA is supposed to be more of a rapid-response special forces type organization. There is no reason why space marines could not be trained/equipped to deploy tech structures.
<!--quoteo(post=1791130:date=Aug 4 2010, 07:02 AM:name=IeptBarakat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IeptBarakat @ Aug 4 2010, 07:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791130"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I love stripping away commander to soldier relations and turning the game into a run to the hive and click mouse 1, and repeat till victory.
While the commander plays his little rts game isolated from the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This will ruin NS2. Don't change NS2 this much from NS1. This is what made the game what it is /was.
And a great example of what NS isn't is quoted above.
What would you do with those skulk rushes at start of game where marines are all dead bar 1 the commander. There is no resources available to build another builder because they were wasted on building the IP's and armory...
The only person left is the commander and because "marines can't build" there is no way to pull a save.
How many awesome games and features like this will be stripped out because of this gameplay mechanic.
Aliens still have the gorge which can still build structures. Marines need to be able to build as per before. Sure still use the build bots for Marines need to be able to build as well.
The whole idea of marines is moving in a group, covering each other where some build and cover, securing an area and building "expanding" their base, then moving forward and further into the hive's to eliminate the aliens. Involves commanding and team work. If marines can't build, the gameplay completely changes... where the commander plays it's own RTS to deploy builders and marines just keep rushing the hive(s) waive after waive (FPS)...
The gameplay element of FPS with RTS has been split and separated... This isn't NS... and as an old school player that has been playing NS1 since birth is the wrong way to go for NS2.
I'm willing to try it and see if it is fun. Building while anticipating the enemy was a very tense and fun part of NS1 which I liked a lot. And when on the Alien team who didn't like catching some jerk building to grab an easy kill. For all I know this method of using small Commander controlled drones/robots could be way more fun. It's too early to tell.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
edited August 2010
the problem is that right now, the commander and troops dont have a lot in common, its like they are playing two different games - instead of working together so its a kinda weird, the beauty of ns1 was the teamwork between the two different play styles.\
the other reason i dont like building with NPC's is that they aren't fun to shoot or bite compared to real players.
I don't know what you guys are talking about, the whole commander/marine unity crap. I've played NS competitively since pretty much release, and the only 'unity' I ever had with the commander was him telling me where to go, 'hit the hive, go to that RT, meet up with so and so here'. The part pretty much NO ONE wanted to do in competitive play was stay back and build a base, we just don't care for it, it's a waste of time when you could be out and about doing something more useful, like taking out alien RTs, getting positioning at key points. In competitive play for NS1 I think mostly all of the people I know would agree that it's such a waste of time to have the marines build the structures.
The commander has ALWAYS been the guy to just say 'go here, and do this' there was never any 'oh i feel so close to the commander, because i'm building base for him.' Sorry no. I think all commanders would agree that they would much rather send out all their marines to do something more useful than just build base, if it were possible, now it is.
Keep it as it is, let MACs be the main builders, if need be add in that marines can click their 'E' button if they feel a sense of togetherness with the commander. But definitely do not make it that marines have to be the ones to build. I can tell you in all honesty that in competitive play MACs will be the main the main builders for everything.
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1791502:date=Aug 4 2010, 12:59 AM:name=Frhoe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frhoe @ Aug 4 2010, 12:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791502"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*wall of text*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well obviously they'd be useful in your 5-6 person per team competitive games because it means an extra gun shooting. In 14 player per team public games it would be slower and not worth the time to be micromanaging buildbots and your team. Where-so a group of marines would definitely be better than a little robot.
<!--quoteo(post=1791494:date=Aug 4 2010, 07:41 AM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ Aug 4 2010, 07:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791494"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the problem is that right now, the commander and troops dont have a lot in common, its like they are playing two different games - instead of working together so its a kinda weird, the beauty of ns1 was the teamwork between the two different play styles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't you forgetting about something? Like med/ammo support, upgrades, spells on the comm side or holding territory, scouting, killing on the field? You know, all the things that connect commander and field players.
I think it is also important to note, that things like building RTs help to keep pacing in the game, and increase tension for marines. These "slow" moments in ns1 made the game a lot more fun because it meant there were natural highs and lows to the game.
I think the best route is to let both marines and MACs build, I don't think marines should be forced to build, but they should be able to, otherwise marines will basically be followed by a builder bot every where on the map, 90% of the time a team of marines is on the map, they are going to be putting up at least a few structures. There could be some interesting strategy added to the game if the MACs are better at building things, like it cost less for them to place buildings, or they build faster. That way if you make MACs relatively expensive, they become a valuable resource, and a trade off between having them out in the field, and protecting them comes into play. As it stands, there is no reasons to not have a MAC with every group of marines all the time, because they can both weld marines and build structures, there is no strategic choice, so it isn't even a good idea from a pure RTS point of view.
Also what exactly is the down side of letting marines build? Some commanders might ignore it, some might use it, but either way the MAC will be a viable, and probably smart idea to use for construction purposes. Letting marines build allows for more dynamic play, because the whole marine team isn't dependent on the MACs all the time.
PS: I also think making MACs require for setting up bases will be difficult to balance, if they are too sturdy, stoping a marine advance will be difficult, if they are too weak all you have to do is kill the MAC and you have stopped that marine push.
PPS: We are currently switching one boring task, watching team mates build RTs, for an other one, guarding MACs while they fly to a location, and while they build RTs. I personally would rather cover a team mate, than baby sit an AI, but I see the value in including both building models.
<!--quoteo(post=1791098:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:31 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this game is basically Starcraft, its just we(the Players) get to control the individual Combat Units directly instead of the Commander moving them around. Thus the FPS aspect.
It is pretty comparable. NS2 is suppose to have a lot more stuff, listen to that recent 80 minute podcast, there are a lot of hints in it related to Commanding and its Gameplay.
It is at the end, like the last 30 minutes. Check NS2 twitter for link.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... its not starcraft... FPS is *not* RTS...
NS is a hybrid of FPS and RTS... but it is *not* starcraft by a long shot...
I can sit back and jerk the gerken in a game of starcraft if I want. Try doing that in NS. And i'm not sure at which point you got in on NS1 of course, but to me, half of the comradeship came from having a 3 man group outside of a hive, with a turret factory built, 5 siege cannons one bar away from built, you all are planning this out with the comm, and then, the comm says go, you finish all siege cannons, the comm pings the hive, and down it goes.
Now, am I looking for the exact same thing? No - but the whole "working together thing" was probably the most important aspect to NS1...
I used to play under the alias E-Fonzarelli and everyone knew who I was - many probably thought I cheated - but those who played with me knew I was an extremely valuable asset and a good person to have by your side... and if you were playing against me... well... you didn't like me I can guarantee that.
<!--quoteo(post=1791095:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:28 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 01:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FPS-RTS Hybrid in NS2 is having a Commander that does the duties of the RTS aspect. You do not see Marines in Starcraft doing the building, or any other Combat Unit for that matter.
Now that there is a replacement(NS1 had Marines building due to Engine Limitation at the time; Half-Life AI wasn't that good in early NS1), it is better to have the distinction of the FPS and RTS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not Starcraft nor is it a FULLY RTS game, if anything it's FPS first then RTS considering 2 players actually play the game RTS style and the rest of the players are FPS, majority wins. Also considering if you kept up with NS2, the commander will have a lot more on his plate, and keeping his team alive meaning his micro skills and duties are already heavier, and now with MAC's in, it will feel a lot MORE like a rts game for the commander. So again how does allowing marines to ALSO build hinder his rts experience? He still tells the players to build, even if he doesn't have to click on them, and he still has the option of using ONLY MAC's to build making the game the exact style YOU want, see the beauty of options, everyone's happy.. but apparently some people want it to be ONLY their way.
Mr. EpicJoin Date: 2003-08-01Member: 18660Members, Constellation
edited August 2010
On further consideration this concept needs a review, or perhaps even a playtest.
My sense is that as it stands the marines will be playing a straight up fps but are given buffs by the comm and help him hold areas. That makes sense, but giving the marines the option to build or help build was critical for the types of games that occurred in NS. I am not sure the MAC concept can give us the same sorts of games if its just him building.
I really think a compromise would fit the bill here. I am quite enamored by *tethered* MAC, where he can only work within a certain range (kind of like pylons in starcraft). Within the range, he can build and he can build fast. Outside his range, he is super slow and his building isn't so good. That is where marines come in. On the go, outside of bases or support bases, the marines would be the builders. The incentive in this scheme is for the marines to construct these tether systems at their remote bases and thus gain the abilities of the MAC. The MAC, in this case, would keep the existing NS gameplay but add: -Faster builder -Auto welding of hurt structures -Makes phasing back to base for simple building a thing of the past -generally aids in automating bases
That would eliminate the annoying functions of the marine only system, but keep the marine building so the core interaction is not broken.
An extra bit of fun here, if the power system ever gets implemented this would be an ideal sort of target for power-down. When the power is cut the MAC goes back to his slow state and he can't repair buildings as fast and is a sitting duck.
Some of us want the option to build ourselves instead of relying entirely on AI. It's not some sort of conspiracy or devious agenda.
Holding down E while a bot builds something is not the same thing, saying that just shows you don't understand what we want.
Allowing players to build does not make bots obsolete, both have their own different advantages. For instance a player can defend himself better but a bot is more dedicated to it's orders.
Whilst NS2 is still in it's early alpha stages and the gameplay needs to be extensively tested, we know enough already to justify our concerns. The bots may be 1000 times better by 1.0 but they'll still be bots.
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.
And to build on what Snazz is saying, let's say you ONLY have enough resources for an IP and you got no builder bots.. well the com drops an IP and the entire team stands there looking at it.. doing nothing because somehow magically marines forgot how to build structures after a few years.
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually agree with you that marines build is a better idea, but your post is very flawed. A poll where most of the people asked are ns1 players, is not necessarily going to be indicative of the gaming population as a whole by any means. You would have to ask a much more varied sample of gamers to get an idea of that.
its like asking a bunch of democrats or republicans who they think should be president, and then saying the whole country will vote the same way.
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you're not seeing what people who've never played the game want. People who've never played the game probably aren't here. And if they were, they wouldn't be saying stuff like, "It worked just fine in NS1". Personally, I fear <a href="http://www.costik.com/weblog/2003/08/grognard-capture.html" target="_blank">grognard capture.</a> I feared it when the devs bowed and removed the taser, I fear it worse now that I see Charlie seems to be bowing before they've implemented all the other marine support roles such as door welding, clearing DI, etc. I watched Fury die because of it. I'm worried we're going to see the same thing here because ideas that could be absolutely cool if given half a chance to develop aren't being given that chance at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And to build on what Snazz is saying, let's say you ONLY have enough resources for an IP and you got no builder bots.. well the com drops an IP and the entire team stands there looking at it.. doing nothing because somehow magically marines forgot how to build structures after a few years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I suppose that in that specific imaginary situation, it'd be a problem for the marines. Might I suggest that if this actually is the case, the marine team has simply failed to do its job. Blame the sucky team, not the system.
<!--quoteo(post=1791541:date=Aug 4 2010, 02:56 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 4 2010, 02:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791541"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually agree with you that marines build is a better idea, but your post is very flawed. A poll where most of the people asked are ns1 players, is not necessarily going to be indicative of the gaming population as a whole by any means. You would have to ask a much more varied sample of gamers to get an idea of that.
its like asking a bunch of democrats or republicans who they think should be president, and then saying the whole country will vote the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, it's not the best or most accurate way of going about it, but statistically it's all we have to go off by as of now.
"Yes, I suppose that in that specific imaginary situation, it'd be a problem for the marines. Might I suggest that if this actually is the case, the marine team has simply failed to do its job. Blame the sucky team, not the system."
It isn't really that imaginary, I have played countless games on NS1 with this very situation happening, we lost everything, only had resources enough for a IP, dropped it and built, made a come back.
Now if marines can build in NS2 this same situation can happen, if only MAC's well.. again the marines stare at it and do nothing while they wait to get killed.
I totally think marines should be given the ability to build as well. What is really wrong with MACs securing/building/upgrading existing base(s) while marines go and secure new areas, anyway (or any sort of combined use of both). Plus, the above mentioned comeback where you just had enough time/res to drop an IP and respawn is always a possibility.
And how does not having a welder to build not make sense? The structures arn't being built fresh with a pile of wires, mobos, nuts, and bolts. They are setting up a prefab'd structure that has been dropped. (That them there nanites!)
<!--quoteo(post=1791542:date=Aug 4 2010, 06:06 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 4 2010, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see Charlie seems to be bowing before they've implemented all the other marine support roles such as door welding, clearing DI, etc. I watched Fury die because of it. I'm worried we're going to see the same thing here because ideas that could be absolutely cool if given half a chance to develop aren't being given that chance at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand what you're concerned about, however Charlie hasn't 'bowed down' he just said he was considering our feedback.
Whilst I recognize that a lot hasn't been implemented yet and game play will change dramatically before release, being dependent on bots to build is an obvious on-going problem IMO.
Yes not being able to build with the E key does not fit into <u>NS1</u>.
And the issue with NS2 is multiple commanders.
The easy solution is to not allow marines to build, because then commanders don't need to assume that marines will build, and commanders don't need to mic spam and attempt to order marines to build their stuff.
So in order to introduce the marine E building to NS2, then (besides balancing issues if any), the devs need a way to simplify away the need for comms to order marines to build their stuff. I'm thinking an auto-updating task/objective list that updates based on a marines proximity to an object. This seems ideal because comms can still drop things, and they can send their bots out to build, and a marine can CHOOSE to help build based on what he sees on his task list, based on his proximity to a work site.
Comments
leave RTSing to the commander - if you allow individual units to mess with <u>RESOURCE ALLOCATION</u> then it's going to be a gigantic clusterfcuk. i say throw the complainers a bone and let units assist in building an already-started building more rapidly, but don't let them initiate construction themselves - there will be no way for the commander to allocate resources effectively if this happens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone actually suggested this? Kinda obvious the marines should not have the ability to throw down buildings, that should (and is) left up to commander/MAC combo...
Listen to the recent Podcast.
*****
And that is what the Players on the ground should be doing, is fighting. They are the combat units, not the SCVs/Drones of the team.
Plus they will be busy escorting MASCs, and flanking the Enemy Team/Hives(Alien Kommander ability lets them Shift Hives around).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That approach was used in Savage 2 and overall it was a much less compelling exsperience to be a commander there than in NS1. I strongly believe that having players build structures confers a lot of benefit to the overall pacing and team unity, plus it provides a support role for players that are not as good at combat. Adding NPC construction is a bad call.
One less Commander: Me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And like I said, it doesn't make sense in NS1 how Marines could build a structure without a Welder<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touch it to prevent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo" target="_blank">Grey Goo</a> scenarios.
He just researches the ability to buy them.
This is an improvment over the NS1 Gameplay model.
*****<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"OMG the commander is doing nothing!!! hes just saving the res for no reason, quick lets rush to teh amrory and have flamethrowerz!"
does anyone else remember being a good stealth marine and crawling into vents or odd locations, and having the commander drop supplies/teleporters/siege weapons?
Would MACs be able to do this? Clearly, MACs are not going to be able to be crawl around to odd locations for stealth drops, new generation AI or not.
There is no clear answer as to whether removing this part of the strategy is better or not for NS2, but it is important to realize MACs eliminate a large number of option strategies for the commander. Part of this will also be affected by map design.
Also, @jimyd, you keep on mentioning that letting marines build will slow down the game. But, how much of a slow down are we really talking about? What's the build time for a res tower or an armory? 10-15 seconds i think. I think comm chair takes the longest, but how often do you drop that?
The reason why pub games in NS1 could last 1 hr or more had nothing to do with the fact that marines could build. It was usually because teams were either evenly matched, or one team would hole up with large numbers of defense/offense towers at the hive or large numbers of turrets.
does anyone else remember being a good stealth marine and crawling into vents or odd locations, and having the commander drop supplies/teleporters/siege weapons?
Would MACs be able to do this? Clearly, MACs are not going to be able to be crawl around to odd locations for stealth drops, new generation AI or not.
There is no clear answer as to whether removing this part of the strategy is better or not for NS2, but it is important to realize MACs eliminate a large number of option strategies for the commander. Part of this will also be affected by map design.
Also, @jimyd, you keep on mentioning that letting marines build will slow down the game. But, how much of a slow down are we really talking about? What's the build time for a res tower or an armory? 10-15 seconds i think. I think comm chair takes the longest, but how often do you drop that?
The reason why pub games in NS1 could last 1 hr or more had nothing to do with the fact that marines could build. It was usually because teams were either evenly matched, or one team would hole up with large numbers of defense/offense towers at the hive or large numbers of turrets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I keep seeing people talking about ninja PGs and siege cannons. How many people are weighing into this debate without knowing that those things no longer exist in the game design plans currently?
TSA aren't combat troops per se. They're more of a paramilitary strike force. In a standard army scenario, logistics trains make for a whole lot of excess baggage that impedes mobility, whereas I think the TSA is supposed to be more of a rapid-response special forces type organization. There is no reason why space marines could not be trained/equipped to deploy tech structures.
While the commander plays his little rts game isolated from the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This will ruin NS2. Don't change NS2 this much from NS1. This is what made the game what it is /was.
And a great example of what NS isn't is quoted above.
What would you do with those skulk rushes at start of game where marines are all dead bar 1 the commander. There is no resources available to build another builder because they were wasted on building the IP's and armory...
The only person left is the commander and because "marines can't build" there is no way to pull a save.
How many awesome games and features like this will be stripped out because of this gameplay mechanic.
Aliens still have the gorge which can still build structures. Marines need to be able to build as per before. Sure still use the build bots for Marines need to be able to build as well.
The whole idea of marines is moving in a group, covering each other where some build and cover, securing an area and building "expanding" their base, then moving forward and further into the hive's to eliminate the aliens.
Involves commanding and team work. If marines can't build, the gameplay completely changes... where the commander plays it's own RTS to deploy builders and marines just keep rushing the hive(s) waive after waive (FPS)...
The gameplay element of FPS with RTS has been split and separated... This isn't NS... and as an old school player that has been playing NS1 since birth is the wrong way to go for NS2.
For all I know this method of using small Commander controlled drones/robots could be way more fun. It's too early to tell.
the other reason i dont like building with NPC's is that they aren't fun to shoot or bite compared to real players.
The commander has ALWAYS been the guy to just say 'go here, and do this' there was never any 'oh i feel so close to the commander, because i'm building base for him.' Sorry no. I think all commanders would agree that they would much rather send out all their marines to do something more useful than just build base, if it were possible, now it is.
Keep it as it is, let MACs be the main builders, if need be add in that marines can click their 'E' button if they feel a sense of togetherness with the commander. But definitely do not make it that marines have to be the ones to build. I can tell you in all honesty that in competitive play MACs will be the main the main builders for everything.
Well obviously they'd be useful in your 5-6 person per team competitive games because it means an extra gun shooting. In 14 player per team public games it would be slower and not worth the time to be micromanaging buildbots and your team. Where-so a group of marines would definitely be better than a little robot.
Aren't you forgetting about something? Like med/ammo support, upgrades, spells on the comm side or holding territory, scouting, killing on the field? You know, all the things that connect commander and field players.
I think the best route is to let both marines and MACs build, I don't think marines should be forced to build, but they should be able to, otherwise marines will basically be followed by a builder bot every where on the map, 90% of the time a team of marines is on the map, they are going to be putting up at least a few structures. There could be some interesting strategy added to the game if the MACs are better at building things, like it cost less for them to place buildings, or they build faster. That way if you make MACs relatively expensive, they become a valuable resource, and a trade off between having them out in the field, and protecting them comes into play. As it stands, there is no reasons to not have a MAC with every group of marines all the time, because they can both weld marines and build structures, there is no strategic choice, so it isn't even a good idea from a pure RTS point of view.
Also what exactly is the down side of letting marines build? Some commanders might ignore it, some might use it, but either way the MAC will be a viable, and probably smart idea to use for construction purposes. Letting marines build allows for more dynamic play, because the whole marine team isn't dependent on the MACs all the time.
PS: I also think making MACs require for setting up bases will be difficult to balance, if they are too sturdy, stoping a marine advance will be difficult, if they are too weak all you have to do is kill the MAC and you have stopped that marine push.
PPS: We are currently switching one boring task, watching team mates build RTs, for an other one, guarding MACs while they fly to a location, and while they build RTs. I personally would rather cover a team mate, than baby sit an AI, but I see the value in including both building models.
It is pretty comparable. NS2 is suppose to have a lot more stuff, listen to that recent 80 minute podcast, there are a lot of hints in it related to Commanding and its Gameplay.
It is at the end, like the last 30 minutes. Check NS2 twitter for link.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... its not starcraft... FPS is *not* RTS...
NS is a hybrid of FPS and RTS... but it is *not* starcraft by a long shot...
I can sit back and jerk the gerken in a game of starcraft if I want. Try doing that in NS. And i'm not sure at which point you got in on NS1 of course, but to me, half of the comradeship came from having a 3 man group outside of a hive, with a turret factory built, 5 siege cannons one bar away from built, you all are planning this out with the comm, and then, the comm says go, you finish all siege cannons, the comm pings the hive, and down it goes.
Now, am I looking for the exact same thing? No - but the whole "working together thing" was probably the most important aspect to NS1...
I used to play under the alias E-Fonzarelli and everyone knew who I was - many probably thought I cheated - but those who played with me knew I was an extremely valuable asset and a good person to have by your side... and if you were playing against me... well... you didn't like me I can guarantee that.
So - let me say again - this is not starcraft.
Now that there is a replacement(NS1 had Marines building due to Engine Limitation at the time; Half-Life AI wasn't that good in early NS1), it is better to have the distinction of the FPS and RTS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not Starcraft nor is it a FULLY RTS game, if anything it's FPS first then RTS considering 2 players actually play the game RTS style and the rest of the players are FPS, majority wins. Also considering if you kept up with NS2, the commander will have a lot more on his plate, and keeping his team alive meaning his micro skills and duties are already heavier, and now with MAC's in, it will feel a lot MORE like a rts game for the commander. So again how does allowing marines to ALSO build hinder his rts experience? He still tells the players to build, even if he doesn't have to click on them, and he still has the option of using ONLY MAC's to build making the game the exact style YOU want, see the beauty of options, everyone's happy.. but apparently some people want it to be ONLY their way.
My sense is that as it stands the marines will be playing a straight up fps but are given buffs by the comm and help him hold areas. That makes sense, but giving the marines the option to build or help build was critical for the types of games that occurred in NS. I am not sure the MAC concept can give us the same sorts of games if its just him building.
I really think a compromise would fit the bill here. I am quite enamored by *tethered* MAC, where he can only work within a certain range (kind of like pylons in starcraft). Within the range, he can build and he can build fast. Outside his range, he is super slow and his building isn't so good. That is where marines come in. On the go, outside of bases or support bases, the marines would be the builders. The incentive in this scheme is for the marines to construct these tether systems at their remote bases and thus gain the abilities of the MAC. The MAC, in this case, would keep the existing NS gameplay but add:
-Faster builder
-Auto welding of hurt structures
-Makes phasing back to base for simple building a thing of the past
-generally aids in automating bases
That would eliminate the annoying functions of the marine only system, but keep the marine building so the core interaction is not broken.
An extra bit of fun here, if the power system ever gets implemented this would be an ideal sort of target for power-down. When the power is cut the MAC goes back to his slow state and he can't repair buildings as fast and is a sitting duck.
Holding down E while a bot builds something is not the same thing, saying that just shows you don't understand what we want.
Allowing players to build does not make bots obsolete, both have their own different advantages. For instance a player can defend himself better but a bot is more dedicated to it's orders.
Whilst NS2 is still in it's early alpha stages and the gameplay needs to be extensively tested, we know enough already to justify our concerns. The bots may be 1000 times better by 1.0 but they'll still be bots.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/index.php?showtopic=110778" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/ind...howtopic=110778</a>
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.
And to build on what Snazz is saying, let's say you ONLY have enough resources for an IP and you got no builder bots.. well the com drops an IP and the entire team stands there looking at it.. doing nothing because somehow magically marines forgot how to build structures after a few years.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/index.php?showtopic=110778" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/ind...howtopic=110778</a>
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually agree with you that marines build is a better idea, but your post is very flawed. A poll where most of the people asked are ns1 players, is not necessarily going to be indicative of the gaming population as a whole by any means. You would have to ask a much more varied sample of gamers to get an idea of that.
its like asking a bunch of democrats or republicans who they think should be president, and then saying the whole country will vote the same way.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/index.php?showtopic=110778" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns/forums/ind...howtopic=110778</a>
You will see which choice is winning the votes, meaning more people want it that way, meaning more people that never played the game will find it appealing.. meaning more sales and success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you're not seeing what people who've never played the game want. People who've never played the game probably aren't here. And if they were, they wouldn't be saying stuff like, "It worked just fine in NS1". Personally, I fear <a href="http://www.costik.com/weblog/2003/08/grognard-capture.html" target="_blank">grognard capture.</a> I feared it when the devs bowed and removed the taser, I fear it worse now that I see Charlie seems to be bowing before they've implemented all the other marine support roles such as door welding, clearing DI, etc. I watched Fury die because of it. I'm worried we're going to see the same thing here because ideas that could be absolutely cool if given half a chance to develop aren't being given that chance at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And to build on what Snazz is saying, let's say you ONLY have enough resources for an IP and you got no builder bots.. well the com drops an IP and the entire team stands there looking at it.. doing nothing because somehow magically marines forgot how to build structures after a few years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I suppose that in that specific imaginary situation, it'd be a problem for the marines. Might I suggest that if this actually is the case, the marine team has simply failed to do its job. Blame the sucky team, not the system.
its like asking a bunch of democrats or republicans who they think should be president, and then saying the whole country will vote the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, it's not the best or most accurate way of going about it, but statistically it's all we have to go off by as of now.
"Yes, I suppose that in that specific imaginary situation, it'd be a problem for the marines. Might I suggest that if this actually is the case, the marine team has simply failed to do its job. Blame the sucky team, not the system."
It isn't really that imaginary, I have played countless games on NS1 with this very situation happening, we lost everything, only had resources enough for a IP, dropped it and built, made a come back.
Now if marines can build in NS2 this same situation can happen, if only MAC's well.. again the marines stare at it and do nothing while they wait to get killed.
I totally think marines should be given the ability to build as well. What is really wrong with MACs securing/building/upgrading existing base(s) while marines go and secure new areas, anyway (or any sort of combined use of both). Plus, the above mentioned comeback where you just had enough time/res to drop an IP and respawn is always a possibility.
And how does not having a welder to build not make sense? The structures arn't being built fresh with a pile of wires, mobos, nuts, and bolts. They are setting up a prefab'd structure that has been dropped. (That them there nanites!)
I understand what you're concerned about, however Charlie hasn't 'bowed down' he just said he was considering our feedback.
Whilst I recognize that a lot hasn't been implemented yet and game play will change dramatically before release, being dependent on bots to build is an obvious on-going problem IMO.
And the issue with NS2 is multiple commanders.
The easy solution is to not allow marines to build, because then commanders don't need to assume that marines will build, and commanders don't need to mic spam and attempt to order marines to build their stuff.
So in order to introduce the marine E building to NS2, then (besides balancing issues if any), the devs need a way to simplify away the need for comms to order marines to build their stuff. I'm thinking an auto-updating task/objective list that updates based on a marines proximity to an object. This seems ideal because comms can still drop things, and they can send their bots out to build, and a marine can CHOOSE to help build based on what he sees on his task list, based on his proximity to a work site.