ssjyodaJoin Date: 2002-03-05Member: 274Members, Squad Five Blue
I think the OP is absolutely retarded for starting another one of these threads without obviously reading any of the other ones. All his questions have been answered so many times.
<!--quoteo(post=1792040:date=Aug 5 2010, 04:06 PM:name=TSS)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TSS @ Aug 5 2010, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have my own, but i'll reply anyway.
It's very easy: It's not about "pressing e". that arguement is invalid becuase you have to press a mouse button every time to shoot, shall we remove shooting?
It's not the annoying escort an NPC mission. Tactical gameplay can be fun as well.
It's the fact that it's not NS. NS was the first and only game to do the FPS/RTS hybrid right: FPS players where a part of the RTS element, and the RTS element couldn't work without the FPS element. Maybe it was done because of limitations or whatever, the point is, NS1 emerged and it was fun.
Every RT you build now, will be done by atleast 2 man escort of a MAC, camping the room untill the RT tower and a few sentries are up (considering the difficulty building RT's, defences are justified now). Every RT in the past was done by marines running as fast as they could to the RT spots and defending them untill the commander dropped an RT. There was interaction there.
Now as a commander ill select a MAC, drop an RT, have the bot move on it's own and build another bot to keep in base or to send out to another RT. The only interaction with marines will be "Medpack" 'Medpack".
Don't get me wrong, NS1 had it's downsides too. In the initial rush 1-2 marines *always* stayed in base to build the buildings the commander dropped. The MAC's are extremely suited for this role, and would free up 1-2 marines for the advance which is an immense asset at the start of the game. Then the commander could set the mac to build the armory and immediantly follow the players to drop an RT as soon as they reach the resource points. THAT'S improvement.
Having MAC's be more important then players is a downgrade. Giving them weapons is even worse because then you won't even need the marine escorts anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a closed platform run by one of the most arrogant people in history that has a cult of personality about him...oh you mean those builders. I see no problem with them. I no longer have to worry about skulks chewing on my back while I build. I just hope they can keep up with us and don't make too much noise so that we can set up small ambush points like we used to in NS1.
I think the real problem with MACs is that they take a big part of the athmosphere out of the game..
You are alone trying to build a rt somewhere with aliens around... How do you feel there?
Damn theres something sneaking around me I'd better be quiet.... Is it gone? .... Uuuh well maybe I should continue building? - chuckle - damn it heard me! Where is it? (didnt see anything while building with MT off...)
With MACs marines can always be alert and watch their enviroment, it would be MUCH harder to sneak up to them as a skulk - And marines wouldnt have to fear aliens since they know where they are...
However theres one thing MACs could do without taking too much athmosphere: Building the base and base defence near command stations because thats a very boring thing to do for a marine - they are usually not attacked in a base so theres nothing to fear there anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1792413:date=Aug 6 2010, 10:54 PM:name=ssjyoda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssjyoda @ Aug 6 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the OP is absolutely retarded for starting another one of these threads without obviously reading any of the other ones. All his questions have been answered so many times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really. And yet you seem so incapable at answering the actual question, rather than flamebaiting me. I think you'll also notice that mine was the last thread of this sort created. If you need to see that anything good came out of this, you'll realise that mine stemmed the flow. It was also a succinct summary of all the other threads combined. I've seen every argument (many times, re-iterated - I don't think people even realise they're repeating themselves) and I've seen many solutions, and the whole issue simply veers on the question of whether your main issue with MACs is that marines can no longer build (which some people seem to find essential) or whether you hate those annoying escort missions (which just about everybody does). There are no questions I personally need answered (I don't know where you got this idea from), but there are questions you need to ask yourselves.
RobB: I quite simply disagree that the commander has "too much to do". There's not really much more to be said on this, we'll just have to see how the commander plays out.
In terms of the vulnerability of the MAC... Isn't that an intended disadvantage? The marines can't simply be all-powerful. Just give them a nuke, if that's the case. What you just illustrated was a tactic, a strategy that the aliens could possibly employ. It would entail a conscious decision by an alien or the alien team to directly attack the MACs (as opposed to the marines guarding them) at the front lines to deny a marine expansion, at the risk of being destroyed themselves. In order to maintain this situation, they would harass their supply line (their MAC reinforcements). All's fair. "Going for the MAC" is a tactic that the aliens SHOULD exploit, and I believe it should be available to them. Nevertheless, a pick-up-and-drop-MAC would remedy this situation to some extent, but a phased-in MAC would remedy it even moreso. What it'd essentially mean is that marines would be defending a location that is currently being developed - and how is that any different from before?
<!--quoteo(post=1792462:date=Aug 7 2010, 02:11 AM:name=Cordycep)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cordycep @ Aug 7 2010, 02:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a closed platform run by one of the most arrogant people in history that has a cult of personality about him...oh you mean those builders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I liked that.
So in summary, TSS and and TheLord are of the <b>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TENSION?</b> camp.
<!--quoteo(post=1792475:date=Aug 6 2010, 12:42 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 6 2010, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really. And yet you seem so incapable at answering the actual question, rather than flamebaiting me. I think you'll also notice that mine was the last thread of this sort created. If you need to see that anything good came out of this, you'll realise that mine stemmed the flow. It was also a succinct summary of all the other threads combined. I've seen every argument (many times, re-iterated - I don't think people even realise they're repeating themselves) and I've seen many solutions, and the whole issue simply veers on the question of whether your main issue with MACs is that marines can no longer build (which some people seem to find essential) or whether. There are no questions I personally need answered (I don't know where you got this idea from), but there are questions you need to ask yourselves.
RobB: I quite simply disagree that the commander has "too much to do". There's not really much more to be said on this, we'll just have to see how the commander plays out.
In terms of the vulnerability of the MAC... Isn't that an intended disadvantage? The marines can't simply be all-powerful. Just give them a nuke, if that's the case. What you just illustrated was a tactic, a strategy that the aliens could possibly employ. It would entail a conscious decision by an alien or the alien team to directly attack the MACs (as opposed to the marines guarding them) at the front lines to deny a marine expansion, at the risk of being destroyed themselves. In order to maintain this situation, they would harass their supply line (their MAC reinforcements). All's fair. "Going for the MAC" is a tactic that the aliens SHOULD exploit, and I believe it should be available to them. Nevertheless, a pick-up-and-drop-MAC would remedy this situation to some extent, but a phased-in MAC would remedy it even moreso. What it'd essentially mean is that marines would be defending a location that is currently being developed - and how is that any different from before?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you've pointed out the primary reason MACs (and drifters) need to remain sole builders. Because they add the concept of "supply lines" to the game. This is what the people who are arguing for marine building are really arguing against.. the concept of supply lines and those routes needing to be protected. Those who are actually interested in strategy, as opposed to simply an FPS with some survival/horror aspects (aka, building tension) understand how this can significantly add to the RTS/FPS gameplay options.
Those supply lines have to be defended, yes. But I dare you to run back and forth between two locations without being bored out. I start to think it was a bad idea to tick "a new ns" instead of "NS:Source" back then when flayra asked.
<!--quoteo(post=1792478:date=Aug 7 2010, 02:49 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 7 2010, 02:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792478"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And you've pointed out the primary reason MACs (and drifters) need to remain sole builders. Because they add the concept of "supply lines" to the game. This is what the people who are arguing for marine building are really arguing against.. the concept of supply lines and those routes needing to be protected. Those who are actually interested in strategy, as opposed to simply an FPS with some survival/horror aspects (aka, building tension) understand how this can significantly add to the RTS/FPS gameplay options.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know that I'd go that far. Or at least they aren't consciously arguing against the concept of supply lines (even though consequentially, they are). I honestly believe that what's most upsetting as a player is that people no longer 'feel like part of the team' or 'feel tense' because they can no longer build (a non-issue for me, personally); or that people have to undergo annoying NPC escort missions. Perhaps you could <b>up the movespeed</b> of the MAC, and <b>give it much more armour while it's not building</b> (giving greater opportunity for marines to better defend it while it is in transit, but make it suitably vulnerable when working on buildings). After all, cutting off the supply line entirely is a powerful game-changer, and so should also entail an equal amount of risk and/or investment. However, merely harassing the supply line with a lone skulk or two, simply to disrupt the supply line (so as to slow the progress) could also be a viable and effective tactic with an appropriate amount of risk and investment. Also, the most important part, <b>give the MAC a 'follow' command</b>, so it could follow a unit (esp. a marine) - with the increased movespeed, it should be able to keep up. Either way though, there is that annoying escorting mission, but at least there's less of the feeling of being invisibly chained to the slow progress of an NPC unit.
<!--quoteo(post=1792484:date=Aug 7 2010, 03:02 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Aug 7 2010, 03:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those supply lines have to be defended, yes. But I dare you to run back and forth between two locations without being bored out. I start to think it was a bad idea to tick "a new ns" instead of "NS:Source" back then when flayra asked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that the supply lines are appropriately vulnerable. If they're vulnerable, then the enemy is likely going to go after that weakness. It just so happens that enemy is a pair of skulks, and you're the one defending that weakness. Fun is had by all.
<!--quoteo(post=1792485:date=Aug 6 2010, 01:05 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 6 2010, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792485"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know that I'd go that far. Or at least they aren't consciously arguing against the concept of supply lines (even though consequentially, they are). I honestly believe that what's most upsetting as a player is that people no longer 'feel like part of the team' or 'feel tense' because they can no longer build (a non-issue for me, personally); or that people have to undergo annoying NPC escort missions. Perhaps you could <b>up the movespeed</b> of the MAC, and <b>give it much more armour while it's not building</b> (giving greater opportunity for marines to better defend it while it is in transit, but make it suitably vulnerable when working on buildings). After all, cutting off the supply line entirely is a powerful game-changer, and so should also entail an equal amount of risk and/or investment. However, merely harassing the supply line with a lone skulk or two, simply to disrupt the supply line (so as to slow the progress) could also be a viable and effective tactic with an appropriate amount of risk and investment. Also, the most important part, <b>give the MAC a 'follow' command</b>, so it could follow a unit (esp. a marine) - with the increased movespeed, it should be able to keep up. Either way though, there is that annoying escorting mission, but at least there's less of the feeling of being invisibly chained to the slow progress of an NPC unit.
The point is that the supply lines are appropriately vulnerable. If they're vulnerable, then the enemy is likely going to go after that weakness. It just so happens that enemy is a pair of skulks, and you're the one defending that weakness. Fun is had by all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I'm not saying they're consciously arguing against them, hell, I hadn't consciously realized that's what I was arguing for until your post made it clear to me.
That said, I certainly agree with the general gist of your post. I personally would caution against making the MACs too tough or else they lose that vital quality of being something that marines need to defend along the route, but I think you agree with that anyway -- that's simply a numbers balancing game for beta. But I certainly can see the value of the commander being able to tell a MAC to follow a squad. I'd go even further and suggest a MAC should respond somewhat to marine in-game voice commands (which, incidentally, would give a reason to use those in-game voice commands) so things like "Come Here" "Fall Back" and "Take Cover".. with squad leader orders superseding squad members, and commander orders superseding squads.
Summary of my thoughts (a cut and paste of other posts):
Why it's good:
Supporting MAC only construction is easy when you consider how dynamic MAC only construction could potentially make the early and mid game along with the amount of (much needed) depth and skill it added to the commander's role. Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway and sees a marine with two MACs. You now know they may be expanding (resource or forward base) and you report useful information to your team. Your team now have a purpose - go kill the MAC. Or maybe the Marine commander decided use that marine and those MACs as diversions drawing the aliens away from a far away hive as his marines attack it. That's one small example of increased depth of strategy just because MAC's are the only builders. The RTS side in NS1 was so lacking and MACs/Drifters provide an opportunity to allow the commander to actually show off some RTS skill. Finally planning out an early/mid/late game, micromanagement, and multitasking may mean something more than just dropping buildings, weapons, and medpacks.
Despite many attempts there isn't a RTS/FPS hybrid out there that actually feels like you're playing an RTS. This, among other improvements in NS2, could change all of that.
Counter arguments:
"It divides the RTS side and FPS too much"
Just because marines can't build structures doesn't suddenly turn NS into something other than an RTS/FPS. The general strategy of the team is almost always devised by the team itself rather than just the commander. ("Hey Comm, can we get X?","Hey Comm, let's siege X hive soon") When the marines move out and scout / target drifters they're providing intel and harassing. The commander, in NS1 pubs, rarely was the sole person who made all strategic decisions. Not allowing marines to build does not change this.
"The intensity/vulnerability from building is gone"
While the intensity will not be the same as NS1 it may be transferred to making sure the MAC will survive. The vulnerability has been given to the commander who will rely on his teammates. Granted, the commander is not exposed but a piece of equipment that cost resources is. And keep in mind that you will not spend your life guarding a MAC. Only when your commander wants to expand will you be next to one and with NS2's more refined and streamlined maps that may not even be an inconvenience or something that "escort missions suck" people notice.
The other option:
"Both options should exist; MACs and Marines should be able to build"
There are obvious imbalances which would take quite a bit of planning to reduce. For example, using Flayra's recently described method, a commander could use one MAC to create all ghost structures from base while marines build. This doesn't involve any risk and is the most efficient way to go about expanding, completely undermining the MAC's existence. Allowing marines to build will always trump MACs assuming the team is competent and will severely reduce the role of the MAC and make them redundant.
<!--quoteo(post=1792488:date=Aug 7 2010, 03:22 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 7 2010, 03:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh I'm not saying they're consciously arguing against them, hell, I hadn't consciously realized that's what I was arguing for until your post made it clear to me.
That said, I certainly agree with the general gist of your post. I personally would caution against making the MACs too tough or else they lose that vital quality of being something that marines need to defend along the route, but I think you agree with that anyway -- that's simply a numbers balancing game for beta. But I certainly can see the value of the commander being able to tell a MAC to follow a squad. I'd go even further and suggest a MAC should respond somewhat to marine in-game voice commands (which, incidentally, would give a reason to use those in-game voice commands) so things like "Come Here" "Fall Back" and "Take Cover".. with squad leader orders superseding squad members, and commander orders superseding squads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure I like the following idea completely myself (and I'll illustrate why afterward), but I'll just throw it out there... Perhaps you could have it so that, in addition to my previous suggestions, the MAC's movespeed is slowed in proportion to its HP, with a maximum and minimum. Say that above 80% HP movespeed is maximum (at some speed around marine sprinting speed), but at 80% HP (or some reasonable amount of 'investment'), you begin seeing a movespeed loss, and the movespeed loss is in proportion to further HP lost, and at 40% HP you see the minimum movespeed (at some speed slower than marine normal movespeed). This would enable aliens to harass the MACs and slow/disrupt the supply line without needing to completely decimate it. Perhaps as a counter to this, MACs could auto-self-repair (it kinda makes sense that they should). The possible issue that lies with this, is that with the slower speeds, you're back to the ball-and-chain escort mission thing again. It's also not completely intuitive for the initial 20% HP loss, but this can be remedied with a 'damaged' effect (sparks and whatnot, that would reflect its amount of HP) - you'd be able to see that it's sufficiently damaged, and is being slowed. The other, greater consideration is that maybe it's just not needed - maybe skulks attacking the supply line is already disruption enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1792493:date=Aug 7 2010, 03:45 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 7 2010, 03:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh hey, another thread. amazing. This was needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Been up for a couple days now... I won't claim it was needed, but it was potentially beneficial - the discussions here are more succinct, and I've summarised most of the arguments myself. Less repetition, all the baggage is in the other threads, etc. Funnily enough, I've already summarised most of your own arguments (probably because I've read the same thing by you and like 3 other people in other threads - and, it should be noted, come to the same conclusions myself).
Comments
It's very easy: It's not about "pressing e". that arguement is invalid becuase you have to press a mouse button every time to shoot, shall we remove shooting?
It's not the annoying escort an NPC mission. Tactical gameplay can be fun as well.
It's the fact that it's not NS. NS was the first and only game to do the FPS/RTS hybrid right: FPS players where a part of the RTS element, and the RTS element couldn't work without the FPS element. Maybe it was done because of limitations or whatever, the point is, NS1 emerged and it was fun.
Every RT you build now, will be done by atleast 2 man escort of a MAC, camping the room untill the RT tower and a few sentries are up (considering the difficulty building RT's, defences are justified now). Every RT in the past was done by marines running as fast as they could to the RT spots and defending them untill the commander dropped an RT. There was interaction there.
Now as a commander ill select a MAC, drop an RT, have the bot move on it's own and build another bot to keep in base or to send out to another RT. The only interaction with marines will be "Medpack" 'Medpack".
Don't get me wrong, NS1 had it's downsides too. In the initial rush 1-2 marines *always* stayed in base to build the buildings the commander dropped. The MAC's are extremely suited for this role, and would free up 1-2 marines for the advance which is an immense asset at the start of the game. Then the commander could set the mac to build the armory and immediantly follow the players to drop an RT as soon as they reach the resource points. THAT'S improvement.
Having MAC's be more important then players is a downgrade. Giving them weapons is even worse because then you won't even need the marine escorts anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality post.
You are alone trying to build a rt somewhere with aliens around... How do you feel there?
Damn theres something sneaking around me I'd better be quiet.... Is it gone? .... Uuuh well maybe I should continue building? - chuckle - damn it heard me! Where is it? (didnt see anything while building with MT off...)
With MACs marines can always be alert and watch their enviroment, it would be MUCH harder to sneak up to them as a skulk - And marines wouldnt have to fear aliens since they know where they are...
However theres one thing MACs could do without taking too much athmosphere: Building the base and base defence near command stations because thats a very boring thing to do for a marine - they are usually not attacked in a base so theres nothing to fear there anyway.
This is why I voted 3 E in the other thread...
Really. And yet you seem so incapable at answering the actual question, rather than flamebaiting me. I think you'll also notice that mine was the last thread of this sort created. If you need to see that anything good came out of this, you'll realise that mine stemmed the flow.
It was also a succinct summary of all the other threads combined. I've seen every argument (many times, re-iterated - I don't think people even realise they're repeating themselves) and I've seen many solutions, and the whole issue simply veers on the question of whether your main issue with MACs is that marines can no longer build (which some people seem to find essential) or whether you hate those annoying escort missions (which just about everybody does). There are no questions I personally need answered (I don't know where you got this idea from), but there are questions you need to ask yourselves.
RobB:
I quite simply disagree that the commander has "too much to do". There's not really much more to be said on this, we'll just have to see how the commander plays out.
In terms of the vulnerability of the MAC... Isn't that an intended disadvantage? The marines can't simply be all-powerful. Just give them a nuke, if that's the case.
What you just illustrated was a tactic, a strategy that the aliens could possibly employ. It would entail a conscious decision by an alien or the alien team to directly attack the MACs (as opposed to the marines guarding them) at the front lines to deny a marine expansion, at the risk of being destroyed themselves.
In order to maintain this situation, they would harass their supply line (their MAC reinforcements). All's fair. "Going for the MAC" is a tactic that the aliens SHOULD exploit, and I believe it should be available to them.
Nevertheless, a pick-up-and-drop-MAC would remedy this situation to some extent, but a phased-in MAC would remedy it even moreso. What it'd essentially mean is that marines would be defending a location that is currently being developed - and how is that any different from before?
<!--quoteo(post=1792462:date=Aug 7 2010, 02:11 AM:name=Cordycep)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cordycep @ Aug 7 2010, 02:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a closed platform run by one of the most arrogant people in history that has a cult of personality about him...oh you mean those builders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I liked that.
So in summary, TSS and and TheLord are of the <b>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TENSION?</b> camp.
It was also a succinct summary of all the other threads combined. I've seen every argument (many times, re-iterated - I don't think people even realise they're repeating themselves) and I've seen many solutions, and the whole issue simply veers on the question of whether your main issue with MACs is that marines can no longer build (which some people seem to find essential) or whether. There are no questions I personally need answered (I don't know where you got this idea from), but there are questions you need to ask yourselves.
RobB:
I quite simply disagree that the commander has "too much to do". There's not really much more to be said on this, we'll just have to see how the commander plays out.
In terms of the vulnerability of the MAC... Isn't that an intended disadvantage? The marines can't simply be all-powerful. Just give them a nuke, if that's the case.
What you just illustrated was a tactic, a strategy that the aliens could possibly employ. It would entail a conscious decision by an alien or the alien team to directly attack the MACs (as opposed to the marines guarding them) at the front lines to deny a marine expansion, at the risk of being destroyed themselves.
In order to maintain this situation, they would harass their supply line (their MAC reinforcements). All's fair. "Going for the MAC" is a tactic that the aliens SHOULD exploit, and I believe it should be available to them.
Nevertheless, a pick-up-and-drop-MAC would remedy this situation to some extent, but a phased-in MAC would remedy it even moreso. What it'd essentially mean is that marines would be defending a location that is currently being developed - and how is that any different from before?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you've pointed out the primary reason MACs (and drifters) need to remain sole builders. Because they add the concept of "supply lines" to the game. This is what the people who are arguing for marine building are really arguing against.. the concept of supply lines and those routes needing to be protected. Those who are actually interested in strategy, as opposed to simply an FPS with some survival/horror aspects (aka, building tension) understand how this can significantly add to the RTS/FPS gameplay options.
I start to think it was a bad idea to tick "a new ns" instead of "NS:Source" back then when flayra asked.
I don't know that I'd go that far. Or at least they aren't consciously arguing against the concept of supply lines (even though consequentially, they are). I honestly believe that what's most upsetting as a player is that people no longer 'feel like part of the team' or 'feel tense' because they can no longer build (a non-issue for me, personally); or that people have to undergo annoying NPC escort missions. Perhaps you could <b>up the movespeed</b> of the MAC, and <b>give it much more armour while it's not building</b> (giving greater opportunity for marines to better defend it while it is in transit, but make it suitably vulnerable when working on buildings). After all, cutting off the supply line entirely is a powerful game-changer, and so should also entail an equal amount of risk and/or investment. However, merely harassing the supply line with a lone skulk or two, simply to disrupt the supply line (so as to slow the progress) could also be a viable and effective tactic with an appropriate amount of risk and investment. Also, the most important part, <b>give the MAC a 'follow' command</b>, so it could follow a unit (esp. a marine) - with the increased movespeed, it should be able to keep up. Either way though, there is that annoying escorting mission, but at least there's less of the feeling of being invisibly chained to the slow progress of an NPC unit.
<!--quoteo(post=1792484:date=Aug 7 2010, 03:02 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Aug 7 2010, 03:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those supply lines have to be defended, yes. But I dare you to run back and forth between two locations without being bored out.
I start to think it was a bad idea to tick "a new ns" instead of "NS:Source" back then when flayra asked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that the supply lines are appropriately vulnerable. If they're vulnerable, then the enemy is likely going to go after that weakness. It just so happens that enemy is a pair of skulks, and you're the one defending that weakness. Fun is had by all.
The point is that the supply lines are appropriately vulnerable. If they're vulnerable, then the enemy is likely going to go after that weakness. It just so happens that enemy is a pair of skulks, and you're the one defending that weakness. Fun is had by all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I'm not saying they're consciously arguing against them, hell, I hadn't consciously realized that's what I was arguing for until your post made it clear to me.
That said, I certainly agree with the general gist of your post. I personally would caution against making the MACs too tough or else they lose that vital quality of being something that marines need to defend along the route, but I think you agree with that anyway -- that's simply a numbers balancing game for beta. But I certainly can see the value of the commander being able to tell a MAC to follow a squad. I'd go even further and suggest a MAC should respond somewhat to marine in-game voice commands (which, incidentally, would give a reason to use those in-game voice commands) so things like "Come Here" "Fall Back" and "Take Cover".. with squad leader orders superseding squad members, and commander orders superseding squads.
Summary of my thoughts (a cut and paste of other posts):
Why it's good:
Supporting MAC only construction is easy when you consider how dynamic MAC only construction could potentially make the early and mid game along with the amount of (much needed) depth and skill it added to the commander's role. Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway and sees a marine with two MACs. You now know they may be expanding (resource or forward base) and you report useful information to your team. Your team now have a purpose - go kill the MAC. Or maybe the Marine commander decided use that marine and those MACs as diversions drawing the aliens away from a far away hive as his marines attack it. That's one small example of increased depth of strategy just because MAC's are the only builders. The RTS side in NS1 was so lacking and MACs/Drifters provide an opportunity to allow the commander to actually show off some RTS skill. Finally planning out an early/mid/late game, micromanagement, and multitasking may mean something more than just dropping buildings, weapons, and medpacks.
Despite many attempts there isn't a RTS/FPS hybrid out there that actually feels like you're playing an RTS. This, among other improvements in NS2, could change all of that.
Counter arguments:
"It divides the RTS side and FPS too much"
Just because marines can't build structures doesn't suddenly turn NS into something other than an RTS/FPS. The general strategy of the team is almost always devised by the team itself rather than just the commander. ("Hey Comm, can we get X?","Hey Comm, let's siege X hive soon") When the marines move out and scout / target drifters they're providing intel and harassing. The commander, in NS1 pubs, rarely was the sole person who made all strategic decisions. Not allowing marines to build does not change this.
"The intensity/vulnerability from building is gone"
While the intensity will not be the same as NS1 it may be transferred to making sure the MAC will survive. The vulnerability has been given to the commander who will rely on his teammates. Granted, the commander is not exposed but a piece of equipment that cost resources is. And keep in mind that you will not spend your life guarding a MAC. Only when your commander wants to expand will you be next to one and with NS2's more refined and streamlined maps that may not even be an inconvenience or something that "escort missions suck" people notice.
The other option:
"Both options should exist; MACs and Marines should be able to build"
There are obvious imbalances which would take quite a bit of planning to reduce. For example, using Flayra's recently described method, a commander could use one MAC to create all ghost structures from base while marines build. This doesn't involve any risk and is the most efficient way to go about expanding, completely undermining the MAC's existence. Allowing marines to build will always trump MACs assuming the team is competent and will severely reduce the role of the MAC and make them redundant.
That said, I certainly agree with the general gist of your post. I personally would caution against making the MACs too tough or else they lose that vital quality of being something that marines need to defend along the route, but I think you agree with that anyway -- that's simply a numbers balancing game for beta. But I certainly can see the value of the commander being able to tell a MAC to follow a squad. I'd go even further and suggest a MAC should respond somewhat to marine in-game voice commands (which, incidentally, would give a reason to use those in-game voice commands) so things like "Come Here" "Fall Back" and "Take Cover".. with squad leader orders superseding squad members, and commander orders superseding squads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure I like the following idea completely myself (and I'll illustrate why afterward), but I'll just throw it out there...
Perhaps you could have it so that, in addition to my previous suggestions, the MAC's movespeed is slowed in proportion to its HP, with a maximum and minimum. Say that above 80% HP movespeed is maximum (at some speed around marine sprinting speed), but at 80% HP (or some reasonable amount of 'investment'), you begin seeing a movespeed loss, and the movespeed loss is in proportion to further HP lost, and at 40% HP you see the minimum movespeed (at some speed slower than marine normal movespeed). This would enable aliens to harass the MACs and slow/disrupt the supply line without needing to completely decimate it. Perhaps as a counter to this, MACs could auto-self-repair (it kinda makes sense that they should).
The possible issue that lies with this, is that with the slower speeds, you're back to the ball-and-chain escort mission thing again. It's also not completely intuitive for the initial 20% HP loss, but this can be remedied with a 'damaged' effect (sparks and whatnot, that would reflect its amount of HP) - you'd be able to see that it's sufficiently damaged, and is being slowed.
The other, greater consideration is that maybe it's just not needed - maybe skulks attacking the supply line is already disruption enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1792493:date=Aug 7 2010, 03:45 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 7 2010, 03:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh hey, another thread. amazing. This was needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been up for a couple days now... I won't claim it was needed, but it was potentially beneficial - the discussions here are more succinct, and I've summarised most of the arguments myself. Less repetition, all the baggage is in the other threads, etc.
Funnily enough, I've already summarised most of your own arguments (probably because I've read the same thing by you and like 3 other people in other threads - and, it should be noted, come to the same conclusions myself).