The role of ARCs
Khyron
Join Date: 2012-02-02 Member: 143308Members
Join Date: 2012-02-02 Member: 143308Members
<u>Background</u>
ARCs are like siege cannons in NS1 in that they are able to shoot through walls and only do damage to structures, however siege cannons were an immobile structure. They were often built in the relative safety of hallways near hive chambers and used not to assault a hive directly, but clear out defensive structures, making it easier for marines to get in to a hive chamber and kill the hive proper. It wasn't common for siege turrets to attack a hive directly or at least there was a protracted siege on the perimeter defenses first.
Often this played out with marines building siege bases consisting of 2-3 siege cannons, an armory, observatory, phase gate and a few sentry turrets. Unfortunately, once the siege cannons had cleared out anything in their range the base was much less useful. So this often lead to a repetitive process where the marines would inch forwards and build a new siege base.
The mobility of ARCs is an obvious and excellent solution to the worst aspects of the above but it has introduced some new problems.
<u>Problems</u><ul><li>ARCs can roll past alien perimeter defenses and deploy right next to a hive, assault it directly and with very little warning.</li><li>Most alien lifeforms are only able to attack one ARC at a time which means the marine commander can send along a few extra ARCs to be sacrificed while the surviving ARCs complete their mission.</li><li>ARCs can take a primary role in achieving the end game conditions, while marines take a back seat job of guarding them.</li></ul>
<u>Strategic options</u>
In the mid game you have to prioritise which things you get first because you can't afford everything at once. For example, the marines might be faced with choosing to invest in jetpacks, a second base, tier 3 research or ARCs. It's important to have a variety of strategic options available (for both teams) because otherwise the gameplay will become repetitive and stale very quickly. So the choices you make should be influence by the game circumstances, to exploit an opportunity or to respond to the strategy of the enemy.
Eventually the game might progress to the end game, where all the strategic options are unlocked. It's probably important to note that in NS2 the first team to reach end game isn't necessrily the winner. By design. Sure, they have an advantage, but what you don't see is a unit or weapon that is so powerful as to assure victory. For all its bluster, the Onos is just a siege unit and it can be countered by jetpacks. Sometimes a certain build has balance problems which can make the late game tech overpowered which makes it seem that way but this is a balance problem not a designed outcome.
Anyway, I've described all that carefully because its important to understand why there hasn't been an easy fix to the problems...
<u>Failed solutions</u>
Increasing the cost, decreasing the damage, range, health. These kinds of changes will reduce the viability of ARCs in the mid game and simply defer the problems until the end game. The resource model is partly to blame here because once all the research is done the supply side of resources is maxed out while the demand side drops off. Capital expenditure is completed (upgrades, key buildings) and the economy can turn towards commodities (ARCs & sentries). Just to clarify, I don't think the late game economy is somehow a huge problem. It's just the reason why we see spam in the late game, same with aliens filling in the map with crags, whips and so forth. The main thing is for the game to end rather than drag on.
An abstract limit on the number of ARCs (a "cap") is a rudimentary solution which won't address the current problems and could create new problems. They will still be able to roll in to the hive, they will still be responsible for ending the game, marines will still have to take a back seat in guarding them. It may lead to stalemates where marines are unable to kill the last hive, or worse, a protracted end game for marine victory where it's clear that the marines are going to win anyway. In the endgame, they will be built to maximum quantity, going in wave after wave because there is nothing better to spend the resources on. The only question is, is the artificial limit high enough that they're an effective mid game strategy?
Only permitting ARCs to fire in powered zones. This basically means ARCs can't be used offensively. In practice, aliens can fortify the area around the power node, which may, depending on the map, prevent ARCs from clearing out the fortification itself. It puts more balance demands on something that's already tricky: power node placement (as demonstrated by the fact they keep moving around every few patches).
There have been some other suggestions but I think they've all been faulted. I'd be happy to update this list if anybody can point me to a thread they remember.
<u>Review</u>
The role of ARCs needs to change to a support until, like the siege cannons of NS1. Their role should be to clear out excessively infested areas (crags, whips, hydras) and permit the marines to enter the hive chamber and finish the hive proper. ARCs should
<u>My suggestion</u>
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest this but perhaps it hasn't been an appropriate solution until now? Either way I'd love to read through some threads where this has been discussed already. Anyway, I think the answer is to prevent ARCs from being deployed on infestation. It would keep ARCs in marine territory which means they're only shooting at the perimeter stuff. It prevents sudden and direct assaults on hives. It means you don't really benefit from huge numbers of ARCs because they're not going to kill perimeter stuff faster (3 is probably enough) and you don't need spare ARCs as sacrifices. I think it would change the role of ARCs to be more like that of siege cannons while still retaining the mobility advantage and all the improved gameplay that comes with it.
Actually this idea started out as infestation envelops deployed ARCs, making them inoperable and/or damaging them. But I think in the end that just means marine comm would either never deploy on infestation because the effect is too dramatic or the marines would still do their old tricks because the effect wasn't dramatic enough. So stripping it down to the core, this idea is to create a relationship between infestation and ARCs.
ARCs are like siege cannons in NS1 in that they are able to shoot through walls and only do damage to structures, however siege cannons were an immobile structure. They were often built in the relative safety of hallways near hive chambers and used not to assault a hive directly, but clear out defensive structures, making it easier for marines to get in to a hive chamber and kill the hive proper. It wasn't common for siege turrets to attack a hive directly or at least there was a protracted siege on the perimeter defenses first.
Often this played out with marines building siege bases consisting of 2-3 siege cannons, an armory, observatory, phase gate and a few sentry turrets. Unfortunately, once the siege cannons had cleared out anything in their range the base was much less useful. So this often lead to a repetitive process where the marines would inch forwards and build a new siege base.
The mobility of ARCs is an obvious and excellent solution to the worst aspects of the above but it has introduced some new problems.
<u>Problems</u><ul><li>ARCs can roll past alien perimeter defenses and deploy right next to a hive, assault it directly and with very little warning.</li><li>Most alien lifeforms are only able to attack one ARC at a time which means the marine commander can send along a few extra ARCs to be sacrificed while the surviving ARCs complete their mission.</li><li>ARCs can take a primary role in achieving the end game conditions, while marines take a back seat job of guarding them.</li></ul>
<u>Strategic options</u>
In the mid game you have to prioritise which things you get first because you can't afford everything at once. For example, the marines might be faced with choosing to invest in jetpacks, a second base, tier 3 research or ARCs. It's important to have a variety of strategic options available (for both teams) because otherwise the gameplay will become repetitive and stale very quickly. So the choices you make should be influence by the game circumstances, to exploit an opportunity or to respond to the strategy of the enemy.
Eventually the game might progress to the end game, where all the strategic options are unlocked. It's probably important to note that in NS2 the first team to reach end game isn't necessrily the winner. By design. Sure, they have an advantage, but what you don't see is a unit or weapon that is so powerful as to assure victory. For all its bluster, the Onos is just a siege unit and it can be countered by jetpacks. Sometimes a certain build has balance problems which can make the late game tech overpowered which makes it seem that way but this is a balance problem not a designed outcome.
Anyway, I've described all that carefully because its important to understand why there hasn't been an easy fix to the problems...
<u>Failed solutions</u>
Increasing the cost, decreasing the damage, range, health. These kinds of changes will reduce the viability of ARCs in the mid game and simply defer the problems until the end game. The resource model is partly to blame here because once all the research is done the supply side of resources is maxed out while the demand side drops off. Capital expenditure is completed (upgrades, key buildings) and the economy can turn towards commodities (ARCs & sentries). Just to clarify, I don't think the late game economy is somehow a huge problem. It's just the reason why we see spam in the late game, same with aliens filling in the map with crags, whips and so forth. The main thing is for the game to end rather than drag on.
An abstract limit on the number of ARCs (a "cap") is a rudimentary solution which won't address the current problems and could create new problems. They will still be able to roll in to the hive, they will still be responsible for ending the game, marines will still have to take a back seat in guarding them. It may lead to stalemates where marines are unable to kill the last hive, or worse, a protracted end game for marine victory where it's clear that the marines are going to win anyway. In the endgame, they will be built to maximum quantity, going in wave after wave because there is nothing better to spend the resources on. The only question is, is the artificial limit high enough that they're an effective mid game strategy?
Only permitting ARCs to fire in powered zones. This basically means ARCs can't be used offensively. In practice, aliens can fortify the area around the power node, which may, depending on the map, prevent ARCs from clearing out the fortification itself. It puts more balance demands on something that's already tricky: power node placement (as demonstrated by the fact they keep moving around every few patches).
There have been some other suggestions but I think they've all been faulted. I'd be happy to update this list if anybody can point me to a thread they remember.
<u>Review</u>
The role of ARCs needs to change to a support until, like the siege cannons of NS1. Their role should be to clear out excessively infested areas (crags, whips, hydras) and permit the marines to enter the hive chamber and finish the hive proper. ARCs should
<u>My suggestion</u>
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest this but perhaps it hasn't been an appropriate solution until now? Either way I'd love to read through some threads where this has been discussed already. Anyway, I think the answer is to prevent ARCs from being deployed on infestation. It would keep ARCs in marine territory which means they're only shooting at the perimeter stuff. It prevents sudden and direct assaults on hives. It means you don't really benefit from huge numbers of ARCs because they're not going to kill perimeter stuff faster (3 is probably enough) and you don't need spare ARCs as sacrifices. I think it would change the role of ARCs to be more like that of siege cannons while still retaining the mobility advantage and all the improved gameplay that comes with it.
Actually this idea started out as infestation envelops deployed ARCs, making them inoperable and/or damaging them. But I think in the end that just means marine comm would either never deploy on infestation because the effect is too dramatic or the marines would still do their old tricks because the effect wasn't dramatic enough. So stripping it down to the core, this idea is to create a relationship between infestation and ARCs.
Comments
A far better solution: Players activate/build/deploy the ARCs and boom, problem solved.
A far better solution: Players activate/build/deploy the ARCs and boom, problem solved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you've participated in a bunch of these threads, I've read some of your posts from ancient history so I can appreciate that you're probably pretty fed up with the repetition so tell me straight, did you just skip to my solution without reading the rest?
Your solution turns ARCs back in to siege cannons and reinherets all of the bad stuff about siege cannons.
Truthfully, I don't think UWE created ARCs to resolve a perceived issue in siege-cannons from NS1. It was one of the most balance features NS1 had, always remaining an option rather than a necessity. It was always a very finely balanced decision to rush with weapons, sit tight and siege or do a bit of both - all avenues required teamwork and leadership. Besides, there's a good deal of love for the intensity of siege scenario, anyway (as evidenced by the forums). I think the ARCs were made to be mobile for two reasons; firstly, to give the commander AI-units to micro and secondly, because mobile sieges sound cool. Neither of these goals are sacrificed (nor are the animations and whatnot) with ARC-activation which I believe, not only fixes the problem elegantly, but restores/maintains the strong relationship between the commander and his marines.
I'm especially stubborn on this issue because I don't really see any downsides. Other solutions might mitigate the problem but none kill all birds with one stone like this one!
Hopefully the mobility of ARCs does to NS2 what tanks did to trench warfare. The problem is the current implementation has skipped way past that and arrived at blitzkrieg.
Even if your assessment is true, which I don't think it is, by keeping the mobile aspect of ARCs, my solution makes that course of action far less efficient anyway.
Having arcs do damage to other arcs within a small radius could reduce trains. Not so much splash damage from the shot, but more as feedback from unused energy that jumps across to other arcs like lightning causing damage to both. It could even chain across multiple arcs, never hitting the same one twice, but growing in damage with each jump (linear or exponential). This would ideally allow small groups of two-four arcs work alright together while having large chains rip themselves apart. Combined with marine-dependent and infestation-impeded deployment, it would make the firepower of the current arc train only possible if the marines split up into small groups to escort different positions around a hive room instead of one big cluster.
If you're looking to have marines finishing off the hive rather than arcs, maybe make the hive itself resistant to arcs? It would mean that its quicker for the arcs to destroy any hydras or whips, and then the marines rush in to axe the hive.
"Why" it makes sense is my biggest problem with it - why can ARCs roll right over infestation, but not deploy on it? I think players would just feel cheapened as to why they couldn't deploy an ARC, I sure would. Especially with the way cysts can be spammed and create infestation all over everything.
Personally I don't think Marines should be required to announce their presence near a hive to be able to shoot it (i.e. kill cysts to free up a space). This sounds like nerf city to me. The only way I can really see any of this working is if there was later an update which gave ARCs an anti-infesation bubble around themselves (its been discussed before).
As for the other things people have suggested, some sound pretty horrendous:
FPS marines being required to deploy ARCs? Scary, sounds annoying as all hell for the Comm.
ARCs damaging themselves when they fire, literally destroying themselves if there are too many firing at once? So.. you want to punish the Marine team for having too many ARCs / too much res? I don't understand the point of this, it sounds like it would be hard to tell the player why it is happening or in fact what is happening, and it pointlessly slow down games.
FPS marines being required to deploy ARCs? Scary, sounds annoying as all hell for the Comm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. It just means you have to have a few marines escort the ARCs, rather than be able to send a bunch of unguarded ARCs to one side of the map, while all of the marines attack the other side.
You'd only need to have it take a second or two to deploy arcs to get the proper effect.
You'd only need to have it take a second or two to deploy arcs to get the proper effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just imagining an arc train of undeployable arcs because marines were too stupid to follow it. Or an series of arcs across the map because the marines deployed them at the wrong times, or didn't think to undeploy. Or a bunch of frustrated marines because the kharaa don't attack until the marines go to set up - then they massacre everyone.
Imo, its as simple as: whoever controls something has complete control over it, half and half will never work.
By saying arcs couldn't go on infestation actually makes no sense if you think about the design of an arc. Since it is mobile, its design inherently permits it to traverse across foreign terrain. It could even be argued that their design was in direct response to encountering alien infestation.
Short and simple solution is, if you tie the use of the arcs to the marines, then you will achieve balance. Essentially they will as balanced as siege cannons. Also, you wouldn't have mindless arc trains running into a hive just to blow it up. You might have an arc train show up to a particular junction where marines must build a PG to continue reinforcements (Similar to a siege base) in order to preserve the arcs.
Also, I think you put more value on arcs as a unit because even though they cost 20 tres, I feel as though they don't hold enough value as commanders often send them into battle without Marines defending them and don't mind losing them.
Imo, its as simple as: whoever controls something has complete control over it, half and half will never work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you are saying is that this teamwork based game should depend more on just one single player? This "half and half" you speak of that will never work <i>is</i> the teamwork the game is based on. It should be that way because right now, there isn't a whole heck of a lot about arcs that warrant teamwork. It's mostly just the commander playing his own RTS with some random players running around.
The commander should be able to rely on the marines to get the job done and vice versa.
I agree, however I don't think that any player (Comm or Soldiers - or any Kharaa) should ever have "half" of an ability. What I'm saying is that by dividing up how the ARC would work, the ARC would be worthless without help for Comm -> because it isn't set up. And it would be worthless without help for Marine -> because it will be in the wrong place.
I don't want to point my weapon at someone and rely on a teammate to pull the trigger, nor do I want to hover my mouse over the map and have a teammate activate a scan.. its too much division and imo it would just cause frustration and lots of rage.
On the other hand -> if you were to suggest that Marines completely control ARCs after they are built, moving and setting up, and having ARCs fire based off of what Marines see (and not only OBS scans as I believe they work now), then that's something else entirely.
I've previously supported the idea of marines deploying ARCs, but I can see how that would be seriously frustrating for a commander unless ARCs were given large range bonuses so they could behave more like old-school siege cannons.
What if arcs simple stopped moving once they traveled onto infestation? That's much easier to understand, you could even have a graphical effect of the bottom half of the arc getting covered in infestation texture.
Although I suppose you could have the arcs get covered in infestation to communicate their inability to deploy per the op's suggestion.
Although I suppose you could have the arcs get covered in infestation to communicate their inability to deploy per the op's suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great idea but instead of stopping them, just give them a <!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><u><b>significative speed loss on infestation</b></u><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->?
+ more support goal than brutal offensive
+ need some preparation before arcs coming
+ Aliens will know if an ARC train comes and have enough time to do a proper strategy (gorge bilebomb) instead of a uncoordinated rush, IF marines didn't prepared their attack!
+ more tactical use of the ARCs
They can still move by themselves on infestation, a use of the infestation spikes can slow down even more the ARCs if they go on infestation.
It's not a hard overall loss of mobility if used smartly and keeps the actual gameplay of the ARCs, but the main goal is to make easier for aliens the defense against arc trains <b>ON</b> infestation. Keeping the actual feature of ARCs not firing to cysts can be a good thing so ARCs always need support if the commander wants them to go faster.
Maybe the Rupture of the cysts can stop the ARCs for a short period of time:
For aliens: + give more time to prepare
- infestation will decrease letting the ARCs go faster
Imo it's a balanced solution between Aliens and Marines, and really makes all the abilities on both sides useful => ARCs become a tactical force and not a random attack killing everything alone. Needs preparation from both sides (killing cysts for marines and extend cysts for the Aliens)
Well, don't know how I missed that. You're completely right of course, but somehow my brain is saying that this would be a different relationship. Dropping an Armory in an area known to be protected hoping to have marines build it is not the same as sending a bunch of ARCs into a hostile environment and hoping that a marine follows it, activates it once ready, isn't killed in the process, and deactivates it afterward, seems like a stretch. It actually sounds somewhat like NS1, which worked fine most of the time - but what it required was a lot of teamwork. The way Marines had to build a little siege "nest" next to a hive required an immense amount of teamwork, and I don't see that kind of situation happening in NS2. I haven't seen any planning or scheming that would suggest that something like this would work even half the time.
And note, I'm not saying that it would never work, I'm saying it would cause a lot of headaches and annoyances that don't need to be there.
To me, the role of the Arc should be to regain territory. I think that arcs should be able to target cysts like in previous builds. This helps retake territory. But I think that the arcs should require marines to activate them. This will balance out the arc trains and instill greater teamwork.
And what do you mean "hoping that a marine follows it" ? As of right now, the reason marines dont is because they have no reason to. If you give them a reason to, they will. Remember, the majority (Sadly not all) of players aren't stupid and understand how the game works. If you are a good commander, then you can get your marines to listen to you and follow your orders (Which happens 95 percent of the time during games).
I would give it more like 60-70% of the time in the pub games I play. However that's not the real issue -> its that once in the place the ARCs should be - even if they are set up by the nearby marines - as soon as the ARCs start firing, all Kharaa rush the location (generally). So now comes a slew of other issues:
More ARCs arrive at the party -> who is setting these up?
One (or more) of the ARCs is slightly out of range, Comm must get a marine to figure out which one, then undeploy it, then the Comm moves it forward another couple inches, then a Marine redeploys it. Remember that there is likely still a fight going on during all this kind of micro-managing of the Comm yelling at Marines to adjust the stupid ARCs.
Say the Comm wants to have a few ARCs sneak attack another location, or to set-up a distraction at a different hive.
When its time to hit the next hive, is there a designated "ARC-Boy" <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhr4t2_this-is-my-boomstick_shortfilms" target="_blank">(sword-BOY!)</a> who will be responsible for the honor of breaking all the ARCs down so they can move again?
Currently these are simple tasks, implementing the split control you're suggesting would cause confusion and annoyance. Again, I'm not saying it would be impossible to pull off, I'm saying it would generally cause headaches. I don't see the beneficial trade-off that this would add to the game.
Most of the stink about ARCs comes up in pub games. Competitive rarely progresses to the end game phase I described earlier. Whether or not a siege base in NS1 was a cost effective mid-game strategic choice (for pub or comp) doesn't matter here. If/when the game progresses to the end game, 'usually better spent on other things' becomes irrelevant because there is nothing else to buy. That economic design is true of both NS1 and NS2.
What I'm trying to do is remove the <i>benefit</i> of spamming ARCs, rather than impose a game mechanic which impedes their use to excess.
What I should have done was ask for clarification on exactly what your solution is, how it would be implemented and what problems you think it addresses.
<!--quoteo(post=1949145:date=Jul 5 2012, 08:28 PM:name=Zxaber)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zxaber @ Jul 5 2012, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949145"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...Infestation-impeded deployment just means the marines have to kill a cyst or two around the deployment area...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it's as simple as that because of the time required for infestation to recede combined with the relative ease for a Kham to just build new cysts. Any time the marines spend clearing cysts is time the rest of the alien team can move about the map unchallenged.
<!--quoteo(post=1949247:date=Jul 6 2012, 06:42 AM:name=botchiball)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (botchiball @ Jul 6 2012, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Why" it makes sense is my biggest problem with it - why can ARCs roll right over infestation, but not deploy on it? I think players would just feel cheapened as to why they couldn't deploy an ARC, I sure would. Especially with the way cysts can be spammed and create infestation all over everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1950229:date=Jul 10 2012, 12:21 PM:name=Death_by_bullets)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Death_by_bullets @ Jul 10 2012, 12:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I have no problem sending arcs on their own. Build up a big enough train and you don't need a marine team....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my original post I ended by saying that the infestation could grow over a deployed ARC, preventing it from being operated and possibly also damaging the ARC. This also creates interesting oportunities for the Kham to respond to unattended ARCs by growing infestation towards them.
<!--quoteo(post=1950229:date=Jul 10 2012, 12:21 PM:name=Death_by_bullets)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Death_by_bullets @ Jul 10 2012, 12:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By saying arcs couldn't go on infestation actually makes no sense if you think about the design of an arc. Since it is mobile, its design inherently permits it to traverse across foreign terrain. It could even be argued that their design was in direct response to encountering alien infestation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I never suggested they can't move over infestation.
<!--quoteo(post=1950398:date=Jul 11 2012, 05:57 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 11 2012, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like the concept, but it might be really unintuitive... Although I suppose you could have the arcs get covered in infestation to communicate their inability to deploy per the op's suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, after reading through the responses I would definately go back to my pre-OP idea and allow ARCs be deployed on infestation but have infestation grow over the ARCs. Aside from the benefits mentioned above it would also create that learning oportunity and feedback which somewhat addresses the 'unintuitive' issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1950423:date=Jul 11 2012, 07:39 AM:name=[HEI]Spade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([HEI]Spade @ Jul 11 2012, 07:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Great idea but instead of stopping them, just give them a significative speed loss on infestation?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting they be unable to move on infestation, only unable to be deployed. As I wrote above, I'd go back to my original idea that the infestation grows over the ARCs for varoius reasons explained above. As for your suggestion, it could work as an alternative - creating any relationship between ARCs and infestation would generally address the problems as I see them. I'd rather remove the temptation to have the ARCs go straight for the hive. Depends how much speed penalty you'd give them. It could have serious implications for retreating the ARCs, which could be a good or a bad thing, I'm not sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1950423:date=Jul 11 2012, 07:39 AM:name=[HEI]Spade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([HEI]Spade @ Jul 11 2012, 07:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Maybe the Rupture of the cysts can stop the ARCs for a short period of time:
For aliens: + give more time to prepare
- infestation will decrease letting the ARCs go faster<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this idea less than your other one because it's not intuitive for the Khamm, they'd have to read the game rules to learn something like that really. It would also have to be factored in to the design of cysts, for their cost, build speed and HP. Infestation take ages to recede when a cyst is destroyed and a Kham can just drop new cysts and in fact he'd probably build them beside the ARCs as required.
Not if: The commander can deploy and undeploy ARCs, but marines need to activate them. Marines cannot activate an ARC unless it is deployed and are not required to de-activate it if the commander wants to move the ARCs on to a new location.
Basically, the commander keeps full autonomy of the ARCs except for when he wants to siege a location (a good thing).
What you're highlighting is exactly why I think my solution is preferable. With huge banks of resources, your proposal doesn't stop it still paying to amass a huge train of ARCs, even if they cannot deploy on infestation, so that you can sustain attacks on alien perimeters with or without marines for support. There are also still reasons to amass ARCs for attacks on multiple fronts because the commander is not constrained by the number of marines on his team, for example.
My solution, on the other hand, ensures that spamming yields almost zero benefit beyond what the marines can effectively activate. Marines will not be able to attack more than two areas at once realistically and excessive ARC production cannot be capitalised on. The extent to which marines can take advantage of ARCs is linked to the number of marines present which makes sense. Other benefits of this solution include cementing the link between commander and marine, preventing NS2 from becoming PvE and making use of the current design/animations.
Basically, the commander keeps full autonomy of the ARCs except for when he wants to siege a location (a good thing).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Activate them once and they keep shooting till they are destroyed/undeployed or they have no more targets? Or would you have to "pull the trigger" for each shot being fired?
It would look like this:
1) Commander moves sieges to location and "deploys" ARC
2) Marines "activate" the deployed ARC
3) ARC can now fire at things
4a) ARC is "undeployed" by commander and moved elsewhere
or
4b) ARC is left "deployed" (and "activated") to hold location
It would look like this:
1) Commander moves sieges to location and "deploys" ARC
2) Marines "activate" the deployed ARC
3) ARC can now fire at things
4a) ARC is "undeployed" by commander and moved elsewhere
or
4b) ARC is left "deployed" (and "activated") to hold location<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know i somehow don't like the activate thing. I would prefer if the marines had to deploy and undeploy them. The comm can more them around but everything else would have to be done by at least one marine.
The terminology is confusing because deploy, build and activate all sound similar. You can think of the commander as making ARCs "ready-to-build" whereupon marines "build" them. Crucially, I think it's preferable to allow the commander to move them on whenever he wants, though.
The terminology is confusing because deploy, build and activate all sound similar. You can think of the commander as making ARCs "ready-to-build" whereupon marines "build" them. Crucially, I think it's preferable to allow the commander to move them on whenever he wants, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just thought about it while walking home. How about ARCs can be deployed by the commander but it takes about 10sec to deploy and undeploy them but the marines can speed the process up. Similar to the building of structures on the alien side where the gorge can speed it up.
Edit:
Also the movement-, attack- and deploymentspeed could be decreased while the ARC is on infestation. So it would still be possible to use them on the infestation but it wouldn't be effective.
Well it will not fix the issue entirely, but if the ARC would be nearly useless it without a marine to set them up it would make nearly no sense to use them on their own. I also assume that the economy will be fixed so that trains will not happen this often and to this extend any more.