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=1791867:date=Aug 4 2010, 08:13 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 4 2010, 08:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You won't have to be forced to sit and wait in the base for the Commander to give you stuff anymore. You are in control now. Let the Commander focus on the RTS aspect, and help you indirectly through AoE Buffs and also with AI Bots.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I miss the days when commanders would command.
But this day and age I do what I want, when I want. Commander wants me to go secure an rt? Well screw him. I'll just grab a flamethrower and chase some gorges.
<!--quoteo(post=1791850:date=Aug 5 2010, 01:49 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Aug 5 2010, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe it's just me but the more "contra marine building" posts i read i get the feeling quite a few people just want a deathmatch game with NS skins... Or to make it even simpler: They want NS2 combat with buildings but none of the tasks that don't involve "shooting stuff"....
Sorry NS had been about more than "just shooting stuff" and while NS2 shouldn't be a HD version of NS1 it also shouldn't be NS2 Combat Evolved. There are certain things that made NS what it is, certain things that made it stick out compared to the bazillion of purely deathmatch mods out there, removing these things doesn't add to the game, it sucks out it's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. What makes the difference is the functionality buildings provide and having to defend or destroy them. NS doesn't turn into deathmatch just because a commander controlled unit does the building now.
If anything, one might argue that ambushing will become harder, because of marines having their weapons ready at all times.
Yes let ns2 be different a bit from sc2 to where it lol protect the builders even though people are playing the protectors its still the person sitting in the commander chair is basically moving everything around to follow macs. why take aspects from other games when ns1 worked how it was don't make an exact copy change things but not the entire game play. like now marines can buy their own weapons now after the commander researches it that is new and fun commanding wasn't boring in the fact you need to keep your marines alive and have ammo when they are way from base with medpacs and ammo it wasn't just about dropping stuff for marines to build and dropping weapons.
<!--quoteo(post=1791130:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:02 PM:name=IeptBarakat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IeptBarakat @ Aug 3 2010, 01:02 PM) <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-->
Translation: "I don't want to fight the aliens... I just want to build my tower... maybe my tower can be a peace offering to the aliiens ??? ".
Seriously. Mark these words well my friend: if the actual combat between aliens and marines is less interesting than building a damn tower there , is , a , _big_ and I mean _big_ damn problem and the game is doomed to mediocrity/could-a-been-ware.
Bottom line: Marine game should be focused on _interesting_ i.e. tactical combat with spice added in terms of repairing structures already built. Comm game should be _interesting_ in terms of base planning and expansion with spice in controlling certain units directly.
<!--quoteo(post=1791850:date=Aug 4 2010, 06:49 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Aug 4 2010, 06:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe it's just me but the more "contra marine building" posts i read i get the feeling quite a few people just want a deathmatch game with NS skins... Or to make it even simpler: They want NS2 combat with buildings but none of the tasks that don't involve "shooting stuff"....
Sorry NS had been about more than "just shooting stuff" and while NS2 shouldn't be a HD version of NS1 it also shouldn't be NS2 Combat Evolved. There are certain things that made NS what it is, certain things that made it stick out compared to the bazillion of purely deathmatch mods out there, removing these things doesn't add to the game, it sucks out it's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1791870:date=Aug 4 2010, 08:21 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 4 2010, 08:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or, wait for the NS1 Classic Conversion Mod. (You know it will be made.)
(Or some retarted "Pro Mod" that always fails like in CS.)
Since that is what a lot of stubborn people want.
Let NS2 be differen't a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or wait for a mod that disables marines from building.
If they end up changing it. And seriously if you can't see that NS2 is different from NS1 in many ways outside of marines not being able to build, then your ignorance is astounding, unless your over stressing it to try and make a point for your side, which I still have yet to see a single example as to WHY this would work better in the game. As it's been stated if you DON'T like building then you don't have to, how much more simple can this be?
<!--quoteo(post=1791867:date=Aug 4 2010, 06:13 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 4 2010, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That Poll is flawed, by the simple fact that there are more NS1 I CANT CHANGE MY WAYS EVER ZEALOTS on these forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm surprised someone cited the poll as any sort of "evidence". I have since added a disclaimer.
<!--quoteo(post=1791896:date=Aug 4 2010, 09:25 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 4 2010, 09:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->, which I still have yet to see a single example as to WHY this would work better in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You may want to read my post at the top of page 5.. specifically where I point out how if marines can build commanders won't bother with MACs, and the where I point out at the end exactly what that will cost us.
<!--quoteo(post=1791915:date=Aug 5 2010, 12:09 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 5 2010, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You may want to read my post at the top of page 5.. specifically where I point out how if marines can build commanders won't bother with MACs, and the where I point out at the end exactly what that will cost us.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what are you basing this on? How do you know what the commanders will and will not do? I know for myself if this was added in, I have many plans in my head that deal using MAC's and marines to build, not to mention that they serve more purposes then JUST building. So I don't know.. if you honestly can't think of any strategies to use MAC's and marines to build then I wouldn't ever want you as my com.
I don't really care if you don't want to build anything and just want to play the soldier. Fine. But there are OTHER players who LIKE building, LIKE playing support, why not let them build and you can still go run around? Honestly if both the MACs and marines are able to build, why are you so vehemently opposed to this? Not everybody shares the same opinion that building sucks or is boring. Why deprive them of an enjoyable gameplay element?
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=1791929:date=Aug 5 2010, 01:08 AM:name=w3st420)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (w3st420 @ Aug 5 2010, 01:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really care if you don't want to build anything and just want to play the soldier. Fine. But there are OTHER players who LIKE building, LIKE playing support, why not let them build and you can still go run around? Honestly if both the MACs and marines are able to build, why are you so vehemently opposed to this? Not everybody shares the same opinion that building sucks or is boring. Why deprive them of an enjoyable gameplay element?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true. If they want the protecting while something else builds thing, why not just keep having marine building and the person who doesn't want to build just covered the team.
I'm really interested in trying out the new method. I'll miss the ninja's sneaking stuff around, but I won't know which is better until the game is nearly completed.
<!--quoteo(post=1791841:date=Aug 5 2010, 01:28 AM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 5 2010, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791841"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Umm.. with the last com chair down you can't build anything so I don't get the point your trying to make.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As aliens are the organic agents of the bacterium they should retain the ability to reinfest the station/ship/what have you once the hives are cleared. To do this they are required to build a hive as a bridgehead against nanites.
<!--quoteo(post=1791743:date=Aug 5 2010, 05:29 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 5 2010, 05:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, it's not obvious at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I said 'IMO'. I'm not saying it's a problem or an obvious one to everyone, I'm saying I don't like completely relying on bots full stop. The current state of the game seems irrelevant to that.
<b>"1. Lessens interaction between commander and marine."</b> I believe that allowing players to build doesn't lessen interaction because it gives another reason to communicate with each other (eg. if no bot is around, the commander can ask a player to build for them). I agree that there's still various reasons for a commander to coordinate with players when using bots (eg. "escort my bot", "hey commander move your bot"), but I think they'll remain when players can build too. All depending on the situation of course, whether a bot or a player is more appropriate for the job and whether they need escorting.
<b>"2. Removes support role for marines who suck at shooting."</b> I agree there's more to come that will help diversifty the role from the average FPS, but I still highly value being able to build myself.
<b>"2. a) Building added tension."</b> Tension is a subjective thing, just like some people find building themselves mundane whilst others love it. It's not all about holding down a button and looking at something, but even that can't be substituted like you suggest because in NS1 it was actually neccessary to do so to build. I agree though that there's opportunites for tension in other aspects of NS.
<b>"3. Dislike escorting AI. You're not. You're escorting a commander controlled unit."</b> Technically it isn't AI, but it's still a bot and I don't like depending on bots regardless of whether they're being closely micromanaged or not.
<b>"4. Can't ninja PG/Siege/command centre."</b> Never made that argument myself, I agree the lack of PGs and structures that aren't limited to tech point rooms is another matter altogether.
<b>"5. As I've pointed out before, a marine is far superior a builder to a MAC in every way."</b> Disagree, bots are programmed units that will always respond to and follow their commander's orders provided they aren't bugged. That is a superiority to players as far as a commander tool. Apart from that there's plenty of opportunity to balance both build methods so each have their place.
<b>"6. It's frustrating to lose your MAC and not be able to build unless you go all the way back. Uhh.. yeah. Defend it better next time, then."</b> I understand that occasional frustration is a neccessary evil in some games to make losses more meaningful and success more rewarding, however in NS2 I'd rather that was acheived through other means than restricting building to bots. I don't think killing enemy players is meaningless either, if they can build there's even more to gain from killing them.
<b>"7. Cause I liked it in NS1! So... go play NS1."</b> I'm not against changes in general I just don't like the one in question. Most of us are here because we played NS1, so any dramatic changes are going to be contraversial.
<b>"1. A focal point for alien battles. People are saying that the MACs are too much of a weak point.. that's the beauty of them."</b> Or the uglyness of them depending on your point of view. I'm all for assymetrical balance, I just don't like a teams weak point to be their dependance on bots.
<b>"2. A means of intention communication between the teams"</b> Provided you think that it should be easy to determine your enemies intentions. You can make an educated guess that a team is going to build somewhere if their players are hanging around defending the spot instead of just passing through it. The maps are also quite small and confined with limited strategic options. Bots aren't neccesarily give aways either as they can be decoys/scouts like players, they may be given 'defensive' weapons in future updates as well.
<b>"3. A focal point for e-sports. Having definable focus points is part of what makes a good viewer experience."</b> That seems very insignificant and low priority to me, besides all the possibilities of making it a good viewer experience without restricting the gameplay itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1791938:date=Aug 5 2010, 01:55 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Aug 5 2010, 01:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791938"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As aliens are the organic agents of the bacterium they should retain the ability to reinfest the station/ship/what have you once the hives are cleared. To do this they are required to build a hive as a bridgehead against nanites.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright but what in the world does this have to do with the topic?? I mean if you really think this is a good idea, you should make a new post about it and discuss it.
I say, keep things the same for the most part, and right now focus on getting things running smoothly so that people can actually play the game properly.
As it stands, even though we have something like a game in our hands, it's not quite working, and thus any commentary is still rudimentary.
Keep MACs as the only builders for now. Then, once you get the game running smoothly enough to do real gameplay testing, then use that data to make a decision.
Has anyone thought of just having both, but say maybe the marines cant build as fast as the mac can??
Say about half the speed of a mac? that way marines that like to build/support can still do stealth runs and help build things and those that like to be on the front line blowing stuff up while a mac helps build a foward postition (if not 2 macs) can do so without having to stop every couple of seconds to fill another bar up etc
As for 5-6 marines jumping on one building to build it faster probably a cap on how many can build a structure at one time say 4 marines or 1 mac & 2 marines (balance's it out at 2x build speed) this way its personal preference on let a mac build it/ a mac and 2 marines or just marines. which would all come down to the commander anyways if he rely's on macs or marines to build.
ssjyodaJoin Date: 2002-03-05Member: 274Members, Squad Five Blue
nemesiz... thats pretty much the compromise most people who want marine building included back in are willing to make. then you have the few who say its boring and are unwilling to compromise.
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
I like the idea on get satisfaction where the buildbot is basically a base monkey, working within a limited range. So players can get out of the base sooner but still be able to build rt's and whatever drops down from the commander.
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=1792127:date=Aug 5 2010, 02:32 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Aug 5 2010, 02:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792127"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a terrible idea, it renders the MAC utterly useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? When everyone is out in the field and the commander gets enough res he wouldn't need to pull a marine out of combat or wait for someone to respawn, or jump out of the chair to build it. And the plus side is marines can still build at the beginning of the game, build res nodes, place mines, and weld in the field.
<!--quoteo(post=1792127:date=Aug 5 2010, 12:32 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Aug 5 2010, 12:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792127"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a terrible idea, it renders the MAC utterly useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about this:
Bots can move anywhere on the map, but do not have the ability to build/repair unless they are within range of the comm, or in range of a robotics entity. The robotics entity hasn't been unlocked yet, so I'm not really sure what its function will be, but I'm guessing it at least covers the turret factory's purpose.
This change would have the bots limited to building up marine start, near the comm, and maintaining forward bases, which would likely have a robotics entity for the turrets (if I am correct about it replacing the turret factory). That would leave marines to building res towers and lone buildings, and still allow stealth operations.
To stop the MACs being sort of useless, the building by marines alone (if it's allowed) would probably need to be a lot slower than 50% speed. At 5% or 10% (max 2 marines building, or hugely decreasing returns) you'd not be entirely screwed without the MAC but would be regretting not defending the wretched thing better.
If it's too easy to build then building and defending the buildings is worth less in general, imho
marines need to be able to build! what if you dont have enough resources for a weld bot or there is not a command chair anymore if the welderbots get destroyed and a building is in the middle of being built someone needs the ability to complete it!
otherwise explane to me how a situation like that would work? and saying that it just wont be finished is not an option
If there's no command chair the game is over. And the MAC costs only two plasma (I think ... haven't played the alpha in a few days), so even a single extractor will give up the goods in only a few seconds.
I agree that the MAC should be limited to base-building to allow all marines to leave the base and secure resources. This makes it viable for the Comm's "home improvement" projects and doesn't require him having to take a marine out of the field to build something he needs, or make him get out of the chair to build. MACs will have their uses in this role, while the marines themselves are responsible for securing areas outside the command area.
Running escort for an AI bot is not my idea of the "fast-paced action gameplay" that all the pro-MAC people are arguing. If it dies, you have to do it again - go back and defend it. An entrenched alien team can pretty much stop any advance by the marines by simply targeting the fragile MAC and eliminating him from combat. The marine advance is halted because of the lack of a builder, and the marines have to fall back and do it again.
I say the commander should rely on his marines for more than just shooting and escorting his glorified builder. Marine flexibility is what made NS such a fun and unique game. The fact that it wasn't JUST another FPS is what made it stand out from everything else.
I've seen many marine-build supporters claim to be willing to compromise. In the same paragraph they often suggest hampering the effectiveness of MACs in some odd attempt to give marine-building more value. That is NOT compromise.
If anything, the vision the devs have is very counter to the marine-build fans. You are the ones that need to compromise your own vision of NS2 being so similar to NS1. I think the focus on the marine side in this demand for reverting back to NS1 is interesting. There was some mild outcry at gorge-building being limited, but mostly everyone seemed to handle it OK. But marine-building has become this rally-point for nostalgic impulses. It seems like these supporters believe an NS2 without marine-building is damned to hell.
Both sides in NS2 have new and different building strategies and gameplay. It isn't even really fully playable/testable at this stage. Please calm down a bit and let the devs complete their vision. Once we are all playing something more akin to a complete game, then you can site actual shortcomings you have witnessed. Many of the possible ideas that have been flying around may be implemented at some point if deemed necessary AFTER playtesting.
Please stop sacrificing virgin MACs at the throne of marine-building. Your devoutness to NS1 will NOT save your gaming soul.
Aww, but I spent all NIGHT working on those sacrificial rituals...
All kidding aside, I think what gets most of us in a bunch is that it removes a critical aspect of a system that WORKED in the past - something that was functional and playable and responded well to. Here we have removed a major cog in the marine gameplay element and, of course, fans are going to be adamant about it. We feel a little upset when the devs remove a key aspect in the marine attack and defend strategy.
It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one? Why not implement both and see which works best? Instead we've been given a substitute for the marine builder - an AI bot that both the comm and the marines have to babysit as it scurries to its next object to build something. The IDEA is unlikeable by many, so its not so much a "don't knock it until you try it", but more like we don't have to try it to know we prefer something else that would be more functional and fun.
Ok, for those who doesn't want Marines being able to build, and wanna play a separated game from Comm. then they don't know what NS is about.
So you want to grab a weapon and leave base to shoot aliens? Then, NS is not the game for you but Counter Strike or Call of Duty is.
Natural Selection WAS about building and attacking (following Comm' orders), and should this one be as well.
Yes, there are some players who don't follow orders, so what, the most of us did. But because you are too lazy, or you want to play a Counter Strike-like game you want to take the ability to build for the rest of us? I don't think so.
I wanna be able to sneak behind enemy lines and build a PG right under their Hive if possible! :D
Comments
I miss the days when commanders would command.
But this day and age I do what I want, when I want. Commander wants me to go secure an rt? Well screw him. I'll just grab a flamethrower and chase some gorges.
I can't wait to see the griefing in this game.
Or to make it even simpler: They want NS2 combat with buildings but none of the tasks that don't involve "shooting stuff"....
Sorry NS had been about more than "just shooting stuff" and while NS2 shouldn't be a HD version of NS1 it also shouldn't be NS2 Combat Evolved.
There are certain things that made NS what it is, certain things that made it stick out compared to the bazillion of purely deathmatch mods out there, removing these things doesn't add to the game, it sucks out it's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. What makes the difference is the functionality buildings provide and having to defend or destroy them.
NS doesn't turn into deathmatch just because a commander controlled unit does the building now.
If anything, one might argue that ambushing will become harder, because of marines having their weapons ready at all times.
While the commander plays his little rts game isolated from the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Translation: "I don't want to fight the aliens... I just want to build my tower... maybe my tower can be a peace offering to the aliiens ??? ".
Seriously. Mark these words well my friend: if the actual combat between aliens and marines is less interesting than building a damn tower there , is , a , _big_ and I mean _big_ damn problem and the game is doomed to mediocrity/could-a-been-ware.
Bottom line: Marine game should be focused on _interesting_ i.e. tactical combat with spice added in terms of repairing structures already built. Comm game should be _interesting_ in terms of base planning and expansion with spice in controlling certain units directly.
Or to make it even simpler: They want NS2 combat with buildings but none of the tasks that don't involve "shooting stuff"....
Sorry NS had been about more than "just shooting stuff" and while NS2 shouldn't be a HD version of NS1 it also shouldn't be NS2 Combat Evolved.
There are certain things that made NS what it is, certain things that made it stick out compared to the bazillion of purely deathmatch mods out there, removing these things doesn't add to the game, it sucks out it's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great point and I agree completely.
(Or some retarted "Pro Mod" that always fails like in CS.)
Since that is what a lot of stubborn people want.
Let NS2 be differen't a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or wait for a mod that disables marines from building.
If they end up changing it. And seriously if you can't see that NS2 is different from NS1 in many ways outside of marines not being able to build, then your ignorance is astounding, unless your over stressing it to try and make a point for your side, which I still have yet to see a single example as to WHY this would work better in the game. As it's been stated if you DON'T like building then you don't have to, how much more simple can this be?
I'm surprised someone cited the poll as any sort of "evidence". I have since added a disclaimer.
You may want to read my post at the top of page 5.. specifically where I point out how if marines can build commanders won't bother with MACs, and the where I point out at the end exactly what that will cost us.
And what are you basing this on? How do you know what the commanders will and will not do? I know for myself if this was added in, I have many plans in my head that deal using MAC's and marines to build, not to mention that they serve more purposes then JUST building. So I don't know.. if you honestly can't think of any strategies to use MAC's and marines to build then I wouldn't ever want you as my com.
Very true. If they want the protecting while something else builds thing, why not just keep having marine building and the person who doesn't want to build just covered the team.
As aliens are the organic agents of the bacterium they should retain the ability to reinfest the station/ship/what have you once the hives are cleared.
To do this they are required to build a hive as a bridgehead against nanites.
I said 'IMO'. I'm not saying it's a problem or an obvious one to everyone, I'm saying I don't like completely relying on bots full stop. The current state of the game seems irrelevant to that.
<b>"1. Lessens interaction between commander and marine."</b>
I believe that allowing players to build doesn't lessen interaction because it gives another reason to communicate with each other (eg. if no bot is around, the commander can ask a player to build for them). I agree that there's still various reasons for a commander to coordinate with players when using bots (eg. "escort my bot", "hey commander move your bot"), but I think they'll remain when players can build too. All depending on the situation of course, whether a bot or a player is more appropriate for the job and whether they need escorting.
<b>"2. Removes support role for marines who suck at shooting."</b>
I agree there's more to come that will help diversifty the role from the average FPS, but I still highly value being able to build myself.
<b>"2. a) Building added tension."</b>
Tension is a subjective thing, just like some people find building themselves mundane whilst others love it. It's not all about holding down a button and looking at something, but even that can't be substituted like you suggest because in NS1 it was actually neccessary to do so to build. I agree though that there's opportunites for tension in other aspects of NS.
<b>"3. Dislike escorting AI. You're not. You're escorting a commander controlled unit."</b>
Technically it isn't AI, but it's still a bot and I don't like depending on bots regardless of whether they're being closely micromanaged or not.
<b>"4. Can't ninja PG/Siege/command centre."</b>
Never made that argument myself, I agree the lack of PGs and structures that aren't limited to tech point rooms is another matter altogether.
<b>"5. As I've pointed out before, a marine is far superior a builder to a MAC in every way."</b>
Disagree, bots are programmed units that will always respond to and follow their commander's orders provided they aren't bugged. That is a superiority to players as far as a commander tool. Apart from that there's plenty of opportunity to balance both build methods so each have their place.
<b>"6. It's frustrating to lose your MAC and not be able to build unless you go all the way back. Uhh.. yeah. Defend it better next time, then."</b>
I understand that occasional frustration is a neccessary evil in some games to make losses more meaningful and success more rewarding, however in NS2 I'd rather that was acheived through other means than restricting building to bots. I don't think killing enemy players is meaningless either, if they can build there's even more to gain from killing them.
<b>"7. Cause I liked it in NS1! So... go play NS1."</b>
I'm not against changes in general I just don't like the one in question. Most of us are here because we played NS1, so any dramatic changes are going to be contraversial.
<b>"1. A focal point for alien battles. People are saying that the MACs are too much of a weak point.. that's the beauty of them."</b>
Or the uglyness of them depending on your point of view. I'm all for assymetrical balance, I just don't like a teams weak point to be their dependance on bots.
<b>"2. A means of intention communication between the teams"</b>
Provided you think that it should be easy to determine your enemies intentions. You can make an educated guess that a team is going to build somewhere if their players are hanging around defending the spot instead of just passing through it. The maps are also quite small and confined with limited strategic options. Bots aren't neccesarily give aways either as they can be decoys/scouts like players, they may be given 'defensive' weapons in future updates as well.
<b>"3. A focal point for e-sports. Having definable focus points is part of what makes a good viewer experience."</b>
That seems very insignificant and low priority to me, besides all the possibilities of making it a good viewer experience without restricting the gameplay itself.
To do this they are required to build a hive as a bridgehead against nanites.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright but what in the world does this have to do with the topic?? I mean if you really think this is a good idea, you should make a new post about it and discuss it.
As it stands, even though we have something like a game in our hands, it's not quite working, and thus any commentary is still rudimentary.
Keep MACs as the only builders for now. Then, once you get the game running smoothly enough to do real gameplay testing, then use that data to make a decision.
Say about half the speed of a mac? that way marines that like to build/support can still do stealth runs and help build things and those that like to be on the front line blowing stuff up while a mac helps build a foward postition (if not 2 macs) can do so without having to stop every couple of seconds to fill another bar up etc
As for 5-6 marines jumping on one building to build it faster probably a cap on how many can build a structure at one time say 4 marines or 1 mac & 2 marines (balance's it out at 2x build speed) this way its personal preference on let a mac build it/ a mac and 2 marines or just marines. which would all come down to the commander anyways if he rely's on macs or marines to build.
Right now MACs can easily be killed by any skulk worth a crap. It takes like 5 bites, and even with a marine escort it's probably going to die.
How so? When everyone is out in the field and the commander gets enough res he wouldn't need to pull a marine out of combat or wait for someone to respawn, or jump out of the chair to build it. And the plus side is marines can still build at the beginning of the game, build res nodes, place mines, and weld in the field.
How about this:
Bots can move anywhere on the map, but do not have the ability to build/repair unless they are within range of the comm, or in range of a robotics entity. The robotics entity hasn't been unlocked yet, so I'm not really sure what its function will be, but I'm guessing it at least covers the turret factory's purpose.
This change would have the bots limited to building up marine start, near the comm, and maintaining forward bases, which would likely have a robotics entity for the turrets (if I am correct about it replacing the turret factory). That would leave marines to building res towers and lone buildings, and still allow stealth operations.
If it's too easy to build then building and defending the buildings is worth less in general, imho
otherwise explane to me how a situation like that would work?
and saying that it just wont be finished is not an option
Running escort for an AI bot is not my idea of the "fast-paced action gameplay" that all the pro-MAC people are arguing. If it dies, you have to do it again - go back and defend it. An entrenched alien team can pretty much stop any advance by the marines by simply targeting the fragile MAC and eliminating him from combat. The marine advance is halted because of the lack of a builder, and the marines have to fall back and do it again.
I say the commander should rely on his marines for more than just shooting and escorting his glorified builder. Marine flexibility is what made NS such a fun and unique game. The fact that it wasn't JUST another FPS is what made it stand out from everything else.
If anything, the vision the devs have is very counter to the marine-build fans. You are the ones that need to compromise your own vision of NS2 being so similar to NS1. I think the focus on the marine side in this demand for reverting back to NS1 is interesting. There was some mild outcry at gorge-building being limited, but mostly everyone seemed to handle it OK. But marine-building has become this rally-point for nostalgic impulses. It seems like these supporters believe an NS2 without marine-building is damned to hell.
Both sides in NS2 have new and different building strategies and gameplay. It isn't even really fully playable/testable at this stage. Please calm down a bit and let the devs complete their vision. Once we are all playing something more akin to a complete game, then you can site actual shortcomings you have witnessed. Many of the possible ideas that have been flying around may be implemented at some point if deemed necessary AFTER playtesting.
Please stop sacrificing virgin MACs at the throne of marine-building. Your devoutness to NS1 will NOT save your gaming soul.
All kidding aside, I think what gets most of us in a bunch is that it removes a critical aspect of a system that WORKED in the past - something that was functional and playable and responded well to. Here we have removed a major cog in the marine gameplay element and, of course, fans are going to be adamant about it. We feel a little upset when the devs remove a key aspect in the marine attack and defend strategy.
It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one? Why not implement both and see which works best? Instead we've been given a substitute for the marine builder - an AI bot that both the comm and the marines have to babysit as it scurries to its next object to build something. The IDEA is unlikeable by many, so its not so much a "don't knock it until you try it", but more like we don't have to try it to know we prefer something else that would be more functional and fun.
So you want to grab a weapon and leave base to shoot aliens? Then, NS is not the game for you but Counter Strike or Call of Duty is.
Natural Selection WAS about building and attacking (following Comm' orders), and should this one be as well.
Yes, there are some players who don't follow orders, so what, the most of us did. But because you are too lazy, or you want to play a Counter Strike-like game you want to take the ability to build for the rest of us? I don't think so.
I wanna be able to sneak behind enemy lines and build a PG right under their Hive if possible! :D