My worries about marine building
scott.exe
Join Date: 2010-07-15 Member: 72394Members
Join Date: 2010-07-15 Member: 72394Members
<div class="IPBDescription">and yet another idea.</div>The only thing that really worries me about the proposition of 'marines also being able to build and help build' is that I and most people play to win. The popular counter argument is that you don't actually HAVE to build, you could have the commander send a MAC or let someone else do it. But if you want to win the game, you have to do what is most effective in your abilities. The problem is, though, that it is not entirely clear whether it would be more effective and or safer to send a MAC and guard it or to have a marine try to build it. There needs to be some structure that dictates which should be used.
If marines could help MACs build, I just know I will end up in an argument with a commander at some point about whether I should help a MAC build, or be on guard and ready for an attack. The role of the marines and MACs should be, to an extent, set by the game developers, not left open for in game discussion/argument.
The only true compromise for both parties that I can agree with would be; marines can finish a building that had already been started by a MAC but at a slower pace. Meaning if the MAC that started construction was either killed or pulled away to do something else, a marine could finish the building at a reduced speed. This system, in theory, would create scenarios where either a marine or MAC would be the efficient choice for building, without diminishing from their main roles.
There has been enough discussion about whether or not people enjoy building or not to know that its a fairly mixed bag, lets not have another flame war please.
Do you agree or disagree with this idea, and why?
If marines could help MACs build, I just know I will end up in an argument with a commander at some point about whether I should help a MAC build, or be on guard and ready for an attack. The role of the marines and MACs should be, to an extent, set by the game developers, not left open for in game discussion/argument.
The only true compromise for both parties that I can agree with would be; marines can finish a building that had already been started by a MAC but at a slower pace. Meaning if the MAC that started construction was either killed or pulled away to do something else, a marine could finish the building at a reduced speed. This system, in theory, would create scenarios where either a marine or MAC would be the efficient choice for building, without diminishing from their main roles.
There has been enough discussion about whether or not people enjoy building or not to know that its a fairly mixed bag, lets not have another flame war please.
Do you agree or disagree with this idea, and why?
Comments
Unless you're trying to make marine building so slow no one would want to do it.
Marines CAN build, but MACs are better at it.
MACs CAN fight, but marines are better at it.
But I guess that's just me.
Even having a Class system Marines + Engineers would work far better IMO.
And the MAC is only restricted to 1 thing because they haven't implemented the rest. There is evidence that it is capable of other utility/support roles as well via Research Upgrades.
in NS1 there were some games where a marine could sneak into alien land an build a small base there to make a attak on the hive. I think there should be the possibillity to have this again.
Just imagine a MAC running and beeping into alien territorry to build a PG there... well this will be noticed, but a single marine maybe not.
Thinking this way.. MAC's should build faster the marines. And I can choose to defend or help building.
I could also imagine letting the MAC be the first in a room to get the skulks out of their hidings.
just think of the gameplay stories you can achieve with both able to build. the suspense the action. the strategies
And I think the construction system should be reverted back to NS1 with the mac as backup system.
Right now the only thing they can do is build and chatter around, later they will be used as mobile repairstation.
I allways thought that MACs where a backup for commanders to build while the marines where busy hunting or building <b>at the frontline(s)</b>.
Just an idea off the top of my head. Why not allow the MACs to run silently, but if they do, they move at a slower speed (or build slower)? This would allow such tactics while allowing the commander to activate the "Silent Running" mode or not.
lol, good call.
my bad
But my worry about this system of choice is that not everyone will agree on whether marines should be defending or helping build, others will try to make that choice for you, maybe even the commander. And I bet this will result in arguments between teammates and commanders about which should be done. The 'you can do either' system puts both aspects into the game, but leaves it up to the players to decide which is the better course of action. And it is very preference based as to which is the better choice, so I can very easily imagine arguments erupting about which of the two things should be done. And arguing about game mechanics in a team based game, with teammates, is one of the few things that I think could ruin NS2.
Say marines can help build and I join a game, go to secure a RT with a MAC and then defend while the MAC does his thing. Then the commander sees this and says, "hey scott, help that MAC build". Now I'm screwed, because it is my preference to defend and let the MAC build, but the commander wants me to help, so I have two choices here, argue with the commander, or help build. Neither of these are fun to me.
In worse case scenario, the player base will be divided into "pro build" and "pro defend" and that is not the devs mission statement, they want to "unite the world through gaming"
A system that includes both and makes it clear which is the best choice of action in each case is the only real compromise between the ideas.
Remove marine building RobB and others complain.
Add it back in and Harimau and others complain.
<!--quoteo(post=1793073:date=Aug 9 2010, 03:05 PM:name=Dalin Seivewright)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dalin Seivewright @ Aug 9 2010, 03:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, I say we take MACs out of the Building equation completely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--quoteo(post=1793099:date=Aug 9 2010, 06:26 PM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Aug 9 2010, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And I think the construction system should be reverted back to NS1 with the mac as backup system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RIP PGs... why why??!? They werre one of my favorite things of NS1. Everyone had to go and attack the pg and it brought great strategies into play such as pg rushing, pg sieging, ninjaing and pg defending.
the infantry portal can now spawn you onto your squad - but you're right the PG's did bring a lot fun into the game.
I was fine with the way NS was, and you where, too. Else you wouldn't be around 'nymore, 'mmmkay?
The thing is, many people thought that MACs where there as <b>alternate way</b> to support the commander in base and free marines for actualy combat, <u>not</u> as <b>total replacement</b> for player building.
My critic is that taking players completely out of the equation of building makes the game way to static.
If you're gonna argue that, fine. But please understand that I never liked Games where I had to guard a suicidal NPC "Buddy" that happily runs in every trap open eyed.
<i>If</i> you have to limit marines building, than enforce a welder on them. If that is still in and not moved to the stinky, widemouthed trashcan as well.
TF2, where you have the options to push kart or not to push cart
CS, sniper to camp or not to camp
SC2, to turtle or not to turtle or to zerg or not to zerg
MMORPG's, to grind or not to grind
NS1, to bunny hop or not to bunny hop <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
*
Having more options ingame could result into arguments, but in the end will give the game much more value. Besides what is so bad about arguments, you do have a mute option. Just either STFU yourself or tell them to STFU/MUTE and go on with playing the friggin' game. Or... You could of course embrace said argument, if that floats your boat <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<i>*
The previous examples were brought to you by examplegamingwithonlinepople.com and could also be applied to other games in their specific genre >_<</i>
TF2, where you have the options to push kart or not to push cart
CS, sniper to camp or not to camp
SC2, to turtle or not to turtle or to zerg or not to zerg
MMORPG's, to grind or not to grind
NS1, to bunny hop or not to bunny hop <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
*
Having more options ingame could result into arguments, but in the end will give the game much more value. Besides what is so bad about arguments, you do have a mute option. Just either STFU yourself or tell them to STFU/MUTE and go on with playing the friggin' game. Or... You could of course embrace said argument, if that floats your boat <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<i>*
The previous examples were brought to you by examplegamingwithonlinepople.com and could also be applied to other games in their specific genre >_<</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a very good point. But I still would feel a little uneasy with marines building like they did in NS1.
So making it obsolete is not effectively taking it out? Also consider the driving force behind it, clearly his opinion is that MACs shouldn't really exist in the first place - even if he didn't explicitly state that, it's rather obvious.
I'm pretty sure the MAC will have its uses no matter what happens to it. While you are afraid it might become obsolete (rightfully so), I'm willing to try RobB's idea here, especially since there will probably be less "base traffic" since marines will be able to respawn with their squad, leaving less opportunities to get a marine to build stuff in the base. Plus, there's a whole array of "spells" and abilities that have yet to be included, so the MAC sure has a few tricks up its sleeves.
Too bad all this talk won't lead us anywhere until we can test it out.
But please understand that I never liked Games where I had to guard a suicidal NPC "Buddy" that happily runs in every trap open eyed.
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The MAC is going to be controlled directly by the commander. It is, in fact, player controlled. And this game [relatively] doesn't have all that much that needs to be managed at the base at any given moment, leaving the commander free to more closely control any MACs that may be on the field.
I happily stare at a construction while I press E and concentrate on the sound around me compored to standing around, puffing a smoke and waiting for something to happen while guarding something stupid.
Well then! It's a good thing that the commander...
... doesn't have to be present at those locations.
... has a top-down view of the field.
... can view the entire field at his leisure.
... doesn't really have to 'control' the MAC, but simply give it an order.
... doesn't have to babysit the MAC after giving it an order.
... is not a complete retard who is so bad at multi-tasking that they are unable to handle the control of two units in two different locations. *
* I'm willing to concede that this point could be false, depending on the quality of player. However, that's what Eject is for.
Seriously. Quit arguing for the sake of arguing. It's stupid. Try using your brain. It's okay to concede a point once in a while.
yeah, sorry if I came off as an arguing angry guy, or whatever
I'm just saying the MAC is not always going to be as stupid and annoying to deal with as some like to say it will be. If you watch starcraft at all, you know that it is possible to manage tons of ######, AND keep your lonely working alive in the enemy base to see what hes doing. I can imagine a good commander would be able to manage MACs to give them higher life expectancies.
I respect your opinion on wanting to build, thats exactly why this thread started with an idea for a compromise. However I feel like it might be worth while to do some play testing with MAC only building, seeing as how it has never been widely play tested before. Who knows, you might like it after a few games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the bottom line with MAC only construction;
1) We do not know for certain how they would have affected the marine's tension (tension of keeping it alive / taking hits for it / etc) and how much of a burden escorting one would be (smaller maps than NS1).
2) It's safe to say that being a commander in NS2 needs some major improvements and being able to control a vital unit to the team, from the get go, could have been that major improvement.
Something potentially huge for the commander was removed because a relatively small amount people isolated that one feature, pretended we were all in NS1, then complained on the forums. For some reason, UWE listened. Imagine if people did the same thing to the power grid system. "You mean we can't ninja phase gate!?" There would be heart attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->