Aegeri, though I think Chopper's idea is great, I could see balancing as being a difficult task. I do think it would be worth it though. Also, I completely agree that the need for mixed units would help increase teamwork since pairing with 'rines with the other weapon would be nearly a necessity for any successfuly conflict with aliens.
The stock lmg marine is basically average in all traits, there are no obvious advantages/disadvantages. If a strongpoint and a weakpoint were to be added it would cause (at least) 2 marines to group up. It reminds me of when i played everquest, you could go out alone and do an ok job at leveling, or you could group up and level tons faster. If you were a wizard, you would want to team up with a tank class since you wouldnt be able to take the damage. You could sit back and hit the monster for tons of magic damage with little to no risk of dying. The wizards lack of health combined with the tanks super health would even out sorta, it would be like playing 1 really strong character.
I know people really dont like to hear the suggestion for different classes, but in all seriousness, it really does insure teamwork. Everygame i like for the gameplay/teamwork has a class-based system. (FLF,TFC,BF942,RTCW:ET) Since each class has advantages/disadvantages it basically <i>almost</i> makes teamwork needed. I dont think you should have to be with a teamate 100% of the time(maybe like 95% haha) because sometimes sneaking around the backside of the enemy base alone and setting stuff up for a secret attack is what needs to be done to win.
Im not saying that there should be a screen that pops up and you select what class you want. The "class system"(its not even really a class system lol) would be whether you got a shotty,lmg,hmg,nadelauncher. If you have a lmg then you would want to be around a shotgun user, and since the hmg is basically just a bigger lmg the same would pertain to it. If each gun was basically your "class", it would make teamwork <i>almost</i> needed, and would make the game more fun since people would actually work together. Could maybe even add what gun each person has on the scoreboard to make it easier to group up.
Some ideas for changing the weapons advantages/disadvantages:
lmg-like chopper dave said, reduce clip size to about 30 so a marine cant take on 4 skulks rushing him 15 feet away. possibly slow the fire speed down just a tad and raise accuracy.(i mean a really small amount for both) would help with fighting long range, but if an alien is close youre gonna want a buddy with a shotty.
shotty-make a full upclose blast devastating, but make anything at range a waste of time. like cd said change the spread/damage to get these results.
hmg-hmg is a big gun and once they get it i think they kinda deserve everything it offers now, not too sure on what, if anything, should be changed.
nadelauncher-if you have a nl and are trying to go up against skulks then you should die everytime. make the nl take your pistol away so all you would have is knife and the nl. might raise the amount of nades you can hold on the side from 30 to like 40 or 50, since you can run out of nades really fast.
mines-should be placed in slot4, since after you put them down youre left with an empty slot which just sucks imo.(welder should still take away pistol though)
k im tired of typing, and there will probably be like 50 people that replied saying the same thing as me while i was typing this, but oh well. /me types slooow haha
Even if i have a -9999 score for ramboing, Im sure as hell that it wont keep me from ramboing. Lets say that I was mystically given uber aim skills and movement, and headphones, so i had basically built in wallhacks.
If I went out alone and slaughtered the entire alien team, and got no score for it. Im pretty sure it wont stop me from doing it over and over. People wont care about the scoreboard. Its about personal victory. If you completely cleaned house by yourself and got no score for it? Who cares? Everyone knows you did it, and they will all be worshipping you and your skills.
Thanks for all the great conversation folks. Some interesting concepts here. What I'm seeing is that people seem to be more on the side of 'positive encouragement' instead of 'negative discouragement'. In that vain, why don't we examine this further. I just want to comment in general first...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the mechanics of the game enforce teamwork (ie if not working together = dying a lot = not much fun to play) then people will adapt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The game already forces teamwork in that without teamwork when needed you simply lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes I know that the ultimate result of 'lack of teamwork' will often be a loss for the TEAM. However, loss of the game for the TEAM does not necessarily mean loss of the game for the player if he 'enjoyed himself'. How many 'griefers' have you seen on pubs that have completely enjoyed screwing things up yet didn't leave? Just because the team loses doesn't necessarily mean people will care if it doesn't affect them DIRECTLY. (which was why I brought up the score concept)
Deacon wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. If the commander doesn't actively group people, people will not reliably group. 2. If the commander doesn't establish rally and strike points, people will try their best to rambo their way to victory. 3. If the commander doesn't actively task people, people will start to wander off, on, uh, "scouting missions." 4. If people do not trust the commander, it's really pretty much the same as the commander doing nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was reading through your post (nicely done) and I agree with your points in principle. Basically you are suggesting that a poor commander will lead to a poorly organized team. In of itself that's not unexpected. The game does demand a lot of the commander, and there is no replacement for a good commander. That's why the ability to eject the commander is present.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Allow the commander to delegate some elements of plan implementation (waypointing, group membership, timing) to people who are actually on the ground, playing the game. 2. Give players some visual cue to indicate what group they are in, where their group leaders/goals are, which other players are in the group, and how many group members are in the immediate vicinity. 3. Allow players to start their own groups, and join other groups. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I noticed the suggestion on 'delegation of duty'. Unfortunately this is something Flayra has never been keen on. While his position on this may change, for now we should operate on the assumption that we won't be moving in this direction. However, we may be able to accomplish something similar if we look at it in a different way.
Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another?
Bosnian wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When movement tracking goes up, you should be able to see your teammates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bosnian, a marker for 'friendlies' has been suggested before, and it is something we should likely look at again. I know it is something I would appreciate.
Chopper Dave wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, all of the guns in the marine armory, save the grenade launcher, really gives you a sense of confidence in your ability to defend yourself. I really think this confidence should be taken away almost completely by giving each gun more distinct strengths and weaknesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chopper Dave, also a well thought out post. Let's take a closer look at the psychology here. It's quite true for many people, that when playing as alien you tend to feel far more vulnerable then when playing as marine. Even when playing as Onos, you can still feel vulnerable, while playing as an HA/HMG you feel invincible.
On your point of reduced clip size, while it sounds good in principle, it may not necessarily work as planned. For example, if you have 3 marines and a skulk comes up, then they will likely ALL start firing at once and that will likely mean they will ALL drain their clips. At this point a single skulk might be able to come in and kill them all.
I would suggest if we wanted to go this route, to balance it we make clip size START at 30 and increase by 10 bullets for each level of weapon upgrade that you get at the arms lab. This would make marines more likely to stay in groups in the early game, while not forcing LMG marines to a 30 bullet clip when facing late game aliens. (in fact they could upgrade to a 60 bullet clip at weapon level 3 - giving them better ability to take on late game aliens.)
As for marine specialization, that's already something the commander has at his disposal. He can equip marines with 3 other weapon types and 2 other armour/jetpack options. While it may not seem like much, there are many combinations. Flayra has said he doesn't want to get into a class system for marines, so that's really not an option.
However, let's continue to discuss this. When looking at concepts most respondents agree that a POSITIVE reinforcement system would be preferable. So what kind of concepts should we look at?
-As has been suggested in the past, make marines show up on each other HUDs in some form. This would likely encourage teamwork since marines would be more likely to search out nearby marines, and it would also help marines stay in a group. The back-story for this would be that this is a 'friendly fire protection mechanism' built in to all marine armour suits. It should be easy to implement since it would be similar to the alien system.
-Variable clip size tied to the weapon upgrade of the arms lab. This would give LMG marines more of an incentive to stick together in the early game, while giving them the ability to expand clip size through the arms lab in the later game.
What's still missing is some way we can give stock marines incentive to work together from THEIR perspective. Some examples of possible concepts: (these are not ALL meant to be implemented.)
-a small bonus to marine damage when marines are in a group of 3 or more -a small bonus to marine armour when marines are in a group of 3 or more -marines heal slowly when in groups of 3 or more -when a group of marines follows a waypoint, (of a set minimum distance - like between hives) they would all receive one medpack and one ammo pack.
Again, these are just concepts for discussion. The thing to keep in mind is that we can't radically alter gameplay by suggesting classes or other ideas that will take control away from the commander.
Good discussion folks, keep it coming. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thanks for reply... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I suggested the aura idea already and I think its the <b>Easiest</b> solution we can afford. More armor seems abit too "unrealistic" but the heal and damage and also speed factor could be developed or even tested. As for weapons players will always find a way to go around the suggest "restrictions" from Chopper Dave. Im pretty sure players would play in squad togheter and when the community would realise that players that cooperate kills more than Rambo Joe they will eventually stick with mates.
I like the idea of the clip size and also the one about the HUD.
Marines should also have a costly upgrade that tells them trouble near by.. (like res tower is under attack something like that). It would be very close tough to not give an alien "trait" to the marines.
Sorry if my post isn't as well presented as Chopper Dave I'm still rushing sometimes in English so I would rather check my mistakes than my presentation... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why should there be any artificial punishment/reward system which somehow encourages the marines to stick together? That would make it look like an afterthought, as if someone said "But there needs to be teamwork!" because it says so in the design document. Like in that other HL mod that does the aura thing (name eludes me), it won't feel anything like real teamwork, it will feel like "I must stand this close to that guy to get a cookie."
If operating in larger groups really is beneficial to your team, that is what the majority of players will ultimately do. Vets faster, pubs more slowly, as always. If going rambo can get you frags, it'll happen, and it should.
I'm all for giving the players more tools to help them coordinate on a voluntary basis though. That DoD-inspired minimap Flayra planned would have been very helpful. Unfortunately it didn't work due to technical problems, IIRC. Knowing where your teammates are if your commander is too busy to guide you (which he always is) would make a big difference already. It did in DoD.
well, I was just thinking, why not enforce teamply by mapdesign? I mean like certain doors where you have to press two different buttons at about the same time, so you always need two marines to open them? How about certain sluices where you need a second marine to let you pass?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like in that other HL mod that does the aura thing (name eludes me), it won't feel anything like real teamwork, it will feel like "I must stand this close to that guy to get a cookie."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I played FLF since it came out and im still in the clan that i was in while playing it( -RoT- is the clan if anybody plays flf). What Twex said is exactly how it is. In the game you get +2 points for being next to a capture point when a teamate captures it. You can almost always find somebody that runs over in the "aura zone" to get the +2 points, even though they arent helping the team at all.
I dont like the idea of getting a skill bonus just for being within a certain radius of somebody, because when you eventually find yourself alone(team dies and your last one standing) you end up being "punished" with regular stats. It would work so much better if the weapons themselves dictated how you played. The commander has a decision on who to give new guns and how he wants them to play, so he never loses "control" over his men. People will start to realize quickly that they wont stand a chance if they try to rambo with a shotty(or whatever other gun), and they will begin teaming up more on their own.
IMO there should never be "punishments", unless given by the other team in some way.(like web makes you run slow and takes your gun away) And yes, having no bonus due to getting lost/split up/etc from your team, feels like a punishment when youre able to go from regenerating 5 health and doing more damage, to not regenerating and doing weaker damage.
<!--QuoteBegin--Savant+Jun 29 2003, 04:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Savant @ Jun 29 2003, 04:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Allow the commander to delegate some elements of plan implementation (waypointing, group membership, timing) to people who are actually on the ground, playing the game. 2. Give players some visual cue to indicate what group they are in, where their group leaders/goals are, which other players are in the group, and how many group members are in the immediate vicinity. 3. Allow players to start their own groups, and join other groups. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...<snip>...
Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I honestly don't recall if this has been implemented or not, but having a key that allows you to send a voice message ONLY to your squadmates (like the commander can speak to selected marines) would probably help a squad organise itself somewhat in the field. Using a new colour for the Voice indicator (Black on red?) to differentiate squad coms from general would be useful too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically you are suggesting that a poor commander will lead to a poorly organized team. In of itself that's not unexpected. The game does demand a lot of the commander, and there is no replacement for a good commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that comm<->player is heavily trust-based relationship. And on public servers, there is no framework for this trust. Without that trust, you get the two classic marine problems: either no one wants to comm, or no one listens to the comm.
You cannot legislate that trust into existence. You can only punish players for not implicitly trusting whoever is in the chair.
What I'm suggesting is allowing these trust relationships to grow organically. The implementation is really immaterial.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why the ability to eject the commander is present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bleh, too binary. You either completely affirm the commander's role as sole strategic visionary, tactical mastermind, and inspirational leader. Or you kick him to the curb. There has to be a middle ground. As humans, our relationships with strangers don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have self-organization without any concept of hierarchy, you have... wait for it... aliens!
I'm only half-kidding. I do think any marine system for self-organization needs to be:
1. Somehow different from the de-facto alien system (classes and hive sight) 2. Intuitive and well-integrated into the game, not artificial and obvious 3. An ALTERNATIVE to the commander<->grunts system. A good commander should still be a significant advantage. But the marines should have the tools to cooperate and set objectives without direct commander intervention.
See, all of this is simply forcing people to stick together. What about the lowly base ****? Or the guy that moves to a node, but is attacked by 3 skulks and he downs them all by himself. Or the guy that acted as bait. Where is their credit? It's not teamwork, its forcing people to glue themselves together. Sometimes you need to go solo. There are already natural advantages to being in a group anyway.
Besides, why do guys seem to think that pubs cannot self-organize so therefore some kind of carrot/candy has to be placed in front of them. People who can work together will. They only need a good leader to organize them (e.g. the commander). Those who don't want to work together will not. They just won't, simple as that.
I agree with Zerg. That is the reason why there are two different modes when playing NS, Normal and Tourney. Most pub games actually go along quite well, since most of the time, people, if there are no llamas around to **** them all off, will grow a temporary "friendship" with teammates just for that round. Its that simple. I've seen it happen most of the time, and the marine team wins when this happens. With all this extra info flowing, the gorge is found quickly, and then excuted by firing squad. Fin.
I don't think that doors that need two marines to open and one to fetch the gizmo inside (IE: Firearms, one of the maps has that). That is something that is not needed and is actually pissant, since one team will probably secure a base around that obvious chokepoint, like Processing is in ns_hera or Mess Hall in ns_nothing I believe it is.
Rewards and such for "teamwork", such as in Firearms, are really cheap. All it takes is some uber rambo to steal all the kills in a group of +3, get a really high score, while deflating the egos of his teammates who have something like 5 kills to 13 deaths. I'd know, since in CS, when your ratio is so low its in hades, you tend to play worse since everytime you click tab to see whos alive on your team, you see that evil ratio mocking you in the face.
TRANSLATION: No ratios. Pubs have their own society. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> they wil sort it out themselves. always has, always will be. like in ns_siege005, the counter to JP/HMG rush is webs that shoot up from the floor to the roof, so that they get stuck, crash, and then die. They will find a way, always has, always will be.
Aaronvroom vroom der party startahJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7020Members
I have the feeling that instead of externally forcing people into teamwork, that the game itself should *naturally* evoke teamwork, and that it should just naturally occur by itself. In fact I do see that a lot, and insofar as it should be engendered, the game should be designed intrinsically to make teamwork happen spontaneously...not through conscious effort in order to obtain "points".
<!--QuoteBegin--Savant+Jun 29 2003, 05:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Savant @ Jun 29 2003, 05:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there is.
It's called better commander organization.
By allowing the commander to stay ALL over EACH and EVERY marine on his team, then real teamwork can be used.
A common problem is that commanders must stay in one or two places activaly keeping tabs on his marines, not having hotkeys is a huge burden on the comm, making him rely on mad point and click frenzy skills.
However, with 1.1, this problem should dissapate in theory, as the comm has a 'select all' button, which is extreamlly useful. He also has hotgroups, and an order bar, so he can keep track of his marine team's needs.
However, additional improvements need to be done to the commander's interface I feel:
- 'Go to next marine' button. Click on this repeatadly would cycle through all of your marines. - If you select a group of marines, then a la starcraft or warcraft style, you should see each and every marine's health bar with a little picture above them also. The picture would be a marine's face, with the armor he is wearing. If possible, include on the picture a little letter for the main weapon he is carrying. A 'L' for LMG. A 'S' for Shotgun. A 'H' for HMG. A 'G' for Grenade Laucher. If the marine has a weilder, he has a 'W' somewhere else in his pic. A 'M' for mines. - Left clicking on a marine picture would select that marine. Right clicking would center the camera on the marine. - Shift then click makes it so it you can set multiple orders for a marine. - Make it so you can 'bookmark' parts of the map with the F1-F8 keys.
The best way for marine organization, and thus better teamwork, is if the comm is better organized to use teamwork.
Another thing that should be mandatory of the comm, this would promote active scanning of all of the marine's under his command:
- Make it so that a comm must click on an alien corpse to get the res for kill for his team.
This would make it so if the comm has a lot of marine rambo's, if he wants to maximize the res he gets from killing aliens, he must actually be a part of their marine's life to do so.
What's the point of adding rewards and punishments for team players and rambos when there is already an innate incentive to be in a team and reprimand for going rambo? All you have to do is allow the marines easier ways to focus on teamwork like being grouped by commander to do specific tasks or allowing your friends to be tracked through walls and such.
I also think you should be able to spawn with whatever weapon you want instead of commander being distracted by just handing them out randomly. The weapons could be incorperated into the tech tree so you only get to choose from weapons your commander researched. The same system should work for JP/HA. But each weapon or JP/HA tech would need to cost a tremendous amount. Like JP would cost 100 res to research and HA can be from 150 to 200. This system would be much less frustrating and more strategic for both commander and marines. And if balance issues persist, then get rid of weapon and armor upgrades. Saying "Don't put it in, it will be hard to balance" is just too simple-minded of an assumption.
Let me just be blunt, complex score systems won't have the desired effect and should never ever be put in.
The game doesn't need point incentives for playing in a team. It's been done before, and it never works; most rambos play to have fun killing things, not necessarily get the highest score if the path to doing so is "boring".
What the game needs, and I can only hope works out this way in 1.1 Final, is a large disincentive to running out on your own. Simply put, if a marine is by himself he should get owned by a lone alien, every time. A marine with an HMG should have at least a good chance of getting killed by a skulk who gets the jump on him, and shouldn't be able to fight off a group of them unless the skulks are severely incompetent. I don't know what the best way to do this without overpowering organized aliens would be, but I think in the long run it would really improve the game.
Of course for a while bad pub marine teams would get destroyed, and would probably come onto the forum to whine about how underpowered marines are. Eventually the pure rambos would quit and the rest of the players would be forced to adapt, hopefully creating the kind of teamwork that NS was designed for. Of course teamwork will always be the most effective method of winning this game, but that just isn't enough to fix the pub server problem.
That concept is already in the game. A skulk with some skill (and maybe some friends) can take a JP-HMG pretty easily. I never played 1.1 but I'm sure this is emphasized even more.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also think you should be able to spawn with whatever weapon you want instead of commander being distracted by just handing them out randomly. The weapons could be incorperated into the tech tree so you only get to choose from weapons your commander researched. The same system should work for JP/HA. But each weapon or JP/HA tech would need to cost a tremendous amount. Like JP would cost 100 res to research and HA can be from 150 to 200. This system would be much less frustrating and more strategic for both commander and marines. And if balance issues persist, then get rid of weapon and armor upgrades. Saying "Don't put it in, it will be hard to balance" is just too simple-minded of an assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel that this would not be the best solution for a few reasons...
1) It takes power away from everyone's good friend, the commander. It's bad enough no one listens to him, but now marines can just take weapons without his go ahead? 2) With regards to the "tremendous amount" of money required for researching JPs or Heavys, what if the marines need to research heavy armor, drop one or two for base defense because of fades? They couldn't do that anymore...and more then likely wouldn't be able to aford anything over 100 resources at any point in the game anyway. **EDIT** I also think the marines would be hardpressed to accumulate those resources without the aid of JPs and Heavy armor. 3) It would be hard to balance? ..Not anymore then these "aura" things though. (Viva la Chopper Dave!)
SeraphyGoodness wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I honestly don't recall if this has been implemented or not, but having a key that allows you to send a voice message ONLY to your squadmates (like the commander can speak to selected marines) would probably help a squad organise itself somewhat in the field. Using a new colour for the Voice indicator (Black on red?) to differentiate squad coms from general would be useful too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be nice, but then you also run into another problem. Team communication. Let's say you have three squads out there and they all are talking on their own channels. (if it is possible to implement) Now none of the squads knows what the other squads are saying, and they don't know if the other squads are talking to the commander. If another squad is talking with the commander and your squad starts talking to the commander, neither will be heard properly. The alternate is true as well. Let's say the commander does a 'talk all' message to the team but the squads were talking amongst themselves, again you would not be able to understand what it being said.
To make this work the voice system would need to be complex, which basically rules it out for this version.
Deacon wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that comm<->player is heavily trust-based relationship. And on public servers, there is no framework for this trust. Without that trust, you get the two classic marine problems: either no one wants to comm, or no one listens to the comm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While this does happen often, what if there was a REWARD for trusting the comm? That's something I touched on. IE, following a waypoint (of a minimum length) will garner you a medpack/ammo pack drop when you reach it. While you shouldn't have to reward a person for following orders (the reward should be a win) if we DID have a 'reward' and it did encourage teamwork would that not make the game more fun to play?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I'm suggesting is allowing these trust relationships to grow organically. The implementation is really immaterial.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that the time it takes to grow these relationships is CRUITIAL in winning the game. An early game where people don't trust the commander and don't follow orders is a game they will lose. By the time they start trusting the commander it is too late since the aliens will have gained too much ground. Right now the game moves FAST.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Somehow different from the de-facto alien system (classes and hive sight) 2. Intuitive and well-integrated into the game, not artificial and obvious 3. An ALTERNATIVE to the commander<->grunts system. A good commander should still be a significant advantage. But the marines should have the tools to cooperate and set objectives without direct commander intervention.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think #3 should moreso be that it is not an ALTERNATIVE to the commander but a method to AUGMENT the commander's role by making marines somewhat more self-sufficicent in ways that are NOT presently controled by the comm.
That means we can't have peple setting their own waypoints and such, but perhaps the ability to group into a squad or the like. (if the commander has not designated them as such.) Any system should be something that in NO way detracts or interferes with the commander's abilities.
Forlorn wrote: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, additional improvements need to be done to the commander's interface I feel: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll make a few comments here: <i>- 'Go to next marine' button. Click on this repeatadly would cycle through all of your marines.</i> A version of this HAS been implemented. When a marine hits their 'request orders' hotkey, and icon wil popup on the bottom left of the command display. Clicking it will take the commander to the next marine who has requested orders.
<i>- If you select a group of marines, then a la starcraft or warcraft style, you should see each and every marine's health bar with a little picture above them also. The picture would be a marine's face, with the armor he is wearing. If possible, include on the picture a little letter for the main weapon he is carrying. A 'L' for LMG. A 'S' for Shotgun. A 'H' for HMG. A 'G' for Grenade Laucher. If the marine has a weilder, he has a 'W' somewhere else in his pic. A 'M' for mines.</i> Part of this has been implemented. When you select a group of marines, their health bars DO stay visible when looking at them until you select something else. As for what they have, it's usually pretty obvious since you can see/hear what is going on. However, you also don't want to clutter the comander HUD with TOO much information or it will be hard to use in combat situations.
Remember folks, we need to keep in mind that concepts should NOT remove power from the commander. The commander will always be the one in control, and we want to ENCOURAGE people to want to obey the commander's orders as well as work as a team, without rewriting the game or making major modifications.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Jun 29 2003, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Jun 29 2003, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also think you should be able to spawn with whatever weapon you want instead of commander being distracted by just handing them out randomly. The weapons could be incorperated into the tech tree so you only get to choose from weapons your commander researched. The same system should work for JP/HA. But each weapon or JP/HA tech would need to cost a tremendous amount. Like JP would cost 100 res to research and HA can be from 150 to 200. This system would be much less frustrating and more strategic for both commander and marines. And if balance issues persist, then get rid of weapon and armor upgrades. Saying "Don't put it in, it will be hard to balance" is just too simple-minded of an assumption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel that this would not be the best solution for a few reasons...
1) It takes power away from everyone's good friend, the commander. It's bad enough no one listens to him, but now marines can just take weapons without his go ahead? 2) With regards to the "tremendous amount" of money required for researching JPs or Heavys, what if the marines need to research heavy armor, drop one or two for base defense because of fades? They couldn't do that anymore...and more then likely wouldn't be able to aford anything over 100 resources at any point in the game anyway. **EDIT** I also think the marines would be hardpressed to accumulate those resources without the aid of JPs and Heavy armor. 3) It would be hard to balance? ..Not anymore then these "aura" things though. (Viva la Chopper Dave!)
With love,
Crisqo <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you have to take 1.1 into account. That's what this topic is about. Apperantly, marines in 1.1 are outmatched. I also think any reasonable commander would rather the marines pick their own weapons instead of having to give them out one by one, every time they respawn. I don't usually ever see a game where commander uses his weapon giving ability as "leverage". The commander is still the on in control of what's researched. I think it can be balanced to be techincally equal to the current system, you just throw the weight of the res around. The important thing is that it would change game mechanics and make the game more strategic and less frustrating ("Comm, can I get a shotgun! COME ON!" for the 1,000,000th time).
And speaking from my 1.04 experience, marines don't use HA or JP to acquire res nozzles. How often do commanders decide to wait for HA or JP to build RT in places like atmospheric or holoroom?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, you have to take 1.1 into account. That's what this topic is about. Apperantly, marines in 1.1 are outmatched.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly. Marines are losing games even though they tend to mop up on an INDIVIDUAL basis. That's the weird part. The individual strengths are there, but the TEAM strengths are lacking. That's why I wanted to explore team-work concepts.
I think a combination of commander power and marine self-sufficiency would help out the teamwork problem, without giving any incentives or punishments.
For example, A "Fireteam" system could be implemented, where the commander would assign the role of fireteam leader to a marine, and then the marine could either invite other marines to join the fireteam, or the commander would have to assign the marines to his group. This would, pretty much, work like in 1.1, except that the groups are not for the commander alone, but for the marines too. There could be a small addition to the hud, somewhat like in RTCW:ET, where the health, location, and weapons of a marine are displayed. Also, the addition of icons that appear over marines who are members of your fireteam would help out with teamwork, without giving rewards or punishment. Simply have around 3-5 different icons, one for each fireteam, and let the commander assign them to groups. The benefits of being in a fireteam would only be knowing where your teammates are in the map, perhaps even showing the fireteam members the position of their teammates (only the people in their fireteam) or perhaps even only the position of their fireteam leader, to make things less cluttered and complicated.
The role of the leader would just be that, a person who helps the commander keep the marines in line, his right hand man when it comes to spotting situations in the battlefield. He would have no special abilities, he could not set up waypoints or hand out weapons, the only ability he would get is showing up in their teammates map so that the rest of his fireteam can locate him.
As you can see, the system i'm talking about would involve no "punishment" for people who go out on their own to complete an assigned objective, or no bonus for moving in groups, there would not be ANY changes in gameplay or balance, only the teamplay elements would be reinforced. If a person does not want to go around following their fireteam, they don't have to, however, should they choose to do it, they can always know where their leader/team is, and perhaps communicate with them to achieve an objective.
First, some people assume that teamwork means being close together, at least that's what is suggested for detecting teamwork: see if marines are within some radius from other marines. Bad idea.
There is the obvious case of the lone rambo building a phasegate or siege base deep behind enemy lines (ns_bast is an excellent map for such tricks, as it has a fairly marine-friendly vent system, just make sure you build enough sieges before pinging the hive as that lone rambo will go down quickly as soon as he's found). Actually, the common NS use of rambo as someone who runs off and gets killed without any good effect is flawed. Look at the Rambo movies, he mostly goes around alone but he does get results. Early game gorge ramboing can also be pretty effective, though I prefer two-man teams for that once it's found, to reduce the chance he gets away or gets backup.
Then, there is the case of teams who can be more effective when not standing right next to each other. For example, a team defending a room. I find it's usually best to spread out and stand in opposite corners of the room, makes it much harder for a lone skulk to take out the whole team, and you can still cover teammates just fine because you have ranged weapons. The team can be more effective if they aren't too close to each other.
In general, I think the idea is somewhat misguided. It aims to make people conform to an idea of how they should play, so it might delay the discovery of more effective tactics that do not conform to the "teamplay or death" principle. A similar effect exists for the res for kills system. I expect I'll have to change my skulk tactics a lot now, as I tend to attack buildings more than marines (unupgraded marines aren't interesting in 1.04 unless they're at an important spot or defending an expensive structure I want to bite). My kills/deaths ratio as an alien tends to be horrible, as I don't care about it even though it actually is displayed for the aliens. I also will throw myself into a minefield te create a gap to exploit after respawning. The res for kills system (which, unlike the score, does have an effect on winning) will probably make those suicide skulk tactics no longer viable and reduce the number of ways to play skulk.
Exactly, that is why the "aura" system/idea seems like an afterthought to add in teamplay. ChopperDave got it right when he proposed that the weapons be made weaker and more specialized so that no one weapon could handle every situation, forcing the marines to pair up. (This is also what the people in the beta forums have been suggesting and implementing in the game.)
<!--QuoteBegin--Savant+Jun 29 2003, 06:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Savant @ Jun 29 2003, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not exactly. Marines are losing games even though they tend to mop up on an INDIVIDUAL basis. That's the weird part. The individual strengths are there, but the TEAM strengths are lacking. That's why I wanted to explore team-work concepts.
Regards,
Savant <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And I don't mean the marines to get a technical boost in fighting. If you think about it, it would really change the way the game is played and that's why I think this system would be worth it. Marines wouldn't stand around base asking for weapons and commander wouldn't have to worry about giving weapons (he can focus on people already out and fighting). It would get the marines moving around.
ZunniThe best thing to happen to I&S in a long whileJoin Date: 2002-11-26Member: 10016Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exactly, that is why the "aura" system/idea seems like an afterthought to add in teamplay. ChopperDave got it right when he proposed that the weapons be made weaker and more specialized so that no one weapon could handle every situation, forcing the marines to pair up. (This is also what the people in the beta forums have been suggesting and implementing in the game.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bakes my bacon is the number of people who feel that rushing to the 2 hives right away and because a comm drops med and ammo and they can stay alive and proceed to lockdown the hives that this isn't ramboing, or even if "most" of the team travels to both hives that this is "good" teamwork... Aliens have to work alone for the first part of the game and thanks to mines, a single marine can stake out his base and keep alive... So in most large games before a gorge can get a single O tower up, both hives are locked down and the game is over...
I hope with 1.1 that more emphasis is put on res captures,spread the battle field out and allow the aliens a chance...
However to the conversation at hand, I agree with ChopperDave... If the weapons were "tweaked" slightly, they would require much more interaction by default..
My thought about the HMG is that it should be as powerful but your movement is cut WAY back and your ability to "turn" your view is also slower.. This would mean a HMG would need a faster firing team to go with him to make sure he didn't get circled and chomped.. A slight delay in starting firing again would also ensure that he didn't just stop firing and then turn and start again..
The GL as it is, is a tough weapon to handle close combat...
Deacon's idea is interesting, but it Flayra doesn't want a chain of command system. The best way to approximate this is to keep marines informed about the location, HP/armor, etc. about fellow marines in the same squad.
I definitely agree with Chopper Dave.
Forlorn's GUI ideas are good. (GUI ideas usually are <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Don't like any artificial "aura." wlibaers makes an excellent point: teamwork does not mean staying together. For example, a scouting squad may split up very often to recon as efficiently as possible. Another example: a marine may stay behind to watch the squad's back. Another: a marine runs ahead and sacrifices itself to draw skulks into a trap of heavy LMG fire.
I really hate the idea of points for grouping etc. I am no rambo, but rather a stratgic suicider (hence the name Fodder in game). On aliens, I will tend to keep attacking an outpost until I have it while a lareg portion of the team attacks another section and keeps the marines busy. I will also organize deathsquad marches to attack fortifide points. While a group dies in a blaze of glory, 1 or two teammates attack a key point. Very effective. On marines I will often scount since I can quickly relay information over voice comm. I am not by any measure a great fragger, though I will often have teh highest numbers of kills on the server. This is usually about 1/3 of my deaths. The purposed system would really discourage strategic attacks such as this. I like the idea of complimented weapons/items. I know the idea of a protable medic is been nixed, but I think a medic pack that took up all the slots would be a nice teambuilder. Since anyone can grab it you don't limit people to preet classes, but rather allow them to choose the right "tool" for the mission. Need extra ammo for an outing? Give one squad member and ammo pack..takes up 2 slots, but others can "use" him to get more ammo. why not allow someone to giev up weapons to carry a "phase beacon" that marines can phase to, but not from. Great for assualts, but not so great for the return trip (in a box) Make lmg a weaker, but all-purpose weapon. Have pistol become a nice long ditsance gun and shotgun useless for anything but close range. HMG gets limited on ammo so a ammo carrier would be needed. Want field healing? Medic!
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
I think the marines' ability to dodge alien melee attacks, either by jumping or running, should be removed completely. This would greatly increase teamwork because it would force the marines to rely on concentrated firepower, instead of good dodging skills, to prevent aliens from entering melee range.
Comments
The stock lmg marine is basically average in all traits, there are no obvious advantages/disadvantages. If a strongpoint and a weakpoint were to be added it would cause (at least) 2 marines to group up. It reminds me of when i played everquest, you could go out alone and do an ok job at leveling, or you could group up and level tons faster. If you were a wizard, you would want to team up with a tank class since you wouldnt be able to take the damage. You could sit back and hit the monster for tons of magic damage with little to no risk of dying. The wizards lack of health combined with the tanks super health would even out sorta, it would be like playing 1 really strong character.
I know people really dont like to hear the suggestion for different classes, but in all seriousness, it really does insure teamwork. Everygame i like for the gameplay/teamwork has a class-based system. (FLF,TFC,BF942,RTCW:ET) Since each class has advantages/disadvantages it basically <i>almost</i> makes teamwork needed. I dont think you should have to be with a teamate 100% of the time(maybe like 95% haha) because sometimes sneaking around the backside of the enemy base alone and setting stuff up for a secret attack is what needs to be done to win.
Im not saying that there should be a screen that pops up and you select what class you want. The "class system"(its not even really a class system lol) would be whether you got a shotty,lmg,hmg,nadelauncher. If you have a lmg then you would want to be around a shotgun user, and since the hmg is basically just a bigger lmg the same would pertain to it. If each gun was basically your "class", it would make teamwork <i>almost</i> needed, and would make the game more fun since people would actually work together. Could maybe even add what gun each person has on the scoreboard to make it easier to group up.
Some ideas for changing the weapons advantages/disadvantages:
lmg-like chopper dave said, reduce clip size to about 30 so a marine cant take on 4 skulks rushing him 15 feet away. possibly slow the fire speed down just a tad and raise accuracy.(i mean a really small amount for both) would help with fighting long range, but if an alien is close youre gonna want a buddy with a shotty.
shotty-make a full upclose blast devastating, but make anything at range a waste of time. like cd said change the spread/damage to get these results.
hmg-hmg is a big gun and once they get it i think they kinda deserve everything it offers now, not too sure on what, if anything, should be changed.
nadelauncher-if you have a nl and are trying to go up against skulks then you should die everytime. make the nl take your pistol away so all you would have is knife and the nl. might raise the amount of nades you can hold on the side from 30 to like 40 or 50, since you can run out of nades really fast.
mines-should be placed in slot4, since after you put them down youre left with an empty slot which just sucks imo.(welder should still take away pistol though)
k im tired of typing, and there will probably be like 50 people that replied saying the same thing as me while i was typing this, but oh well. /me types slooow haha
If I went out alone and slaughtered the entire alien team, and got no score for it. Im pretty sure it wont stop me from doing it over and over. People wont care about the scoreboard. Its about personal victory. If you completely cleaned house by yourself and got no score for it? Who cares? Everyone knows you did it, and they will all be worshipping you and your skills.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the mechanics of the game enforce teamwork (ie if not working together = dying a lot = not much fun to play) then people will adapt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The game already forces teamwork in that without teamwork when needed you simply lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes I know that the ultimate result of 'lack of teamwork' will often be a loss for the TEAM. However, loss of the game for the TEAM does not necessarily mean loss of the game for the player if he 'enjoyed himself'. How many 'griefers' have you seen on pubs that have completely enjoyed screwing things up yet didn't leave? Just because the team loses doesn't necessarily mean people will care if it doesn't affect them DIRECTLY. (which was why I brought up the score concept)
Deacon wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. If the commander doesn't actively group people, people will not reliably group.
2. If the commander doesn't establish rally and strike points, people will try their best to rambo their way to victory.
3. If the commander doesn't actively task people, people will start to wander off, on, uh, "scouting missions."
4. If people do not trust the commander, it's really pretty much the same as the commander doing nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was reading through your post (nicely done) and I agree with your points in principle. Basically you are suggesting that a poor commander will lead to a poorly organized team. In of itself that's not unexpected. The game does demand a lot of the commander, and there is no replacement for a good commander. That's why the ability to eject the commander is present.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Allow the commander to delegate some elements of plan implementation (waypointing, group membership, timing) to people who are actually on the ground, playing the game.
2. Give players some visual cue to indicate what group they are in, where their group leaders/goals are, which other players are in the group, and how many group members are in the immediate vicinity.
3. Allow players to start their own groups, and join other groups. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed the suggestion on 'delegation of duty'. Unfortunately this is something Flayra has never been keen on. While his position on this may change, for now we should operate on the assumption that we won't be moving in this direction. However, we may be able to accomplish something similar if we look at it in a different way.
Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another?
Bosnian wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When movement tracking goes up, you should be able to see your teammates.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bosnian, a marker for 'friendlies' has been suggested before, and it is something we should likely look at again. I know it is something I would appreciate.
Chopper Dave wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, all of the guns in the marine armory, save the grenade launcher, really gives you a sense of confidence in your ability to defend yourself. I really think this confidence should be taken away almost completely by giving each gun more distinct strengths and weaknesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chopper Dave, also a well thought out post. Let's take a closer look at the psychology here. It's quite true for many people, that when playing as alien you tend to feel far more vulnerable then when playing as marine. Even when playing as Onos, you can still feel vulnerable, while playing as an HA/HMG you feel invincible.
On your point of reduced clip size, while it sounds good in principle, it may not necessarily work as planned. For example, if you have 3 marines and a skulk comes up, then they will likely ALL start firing at once and that will likely mean they will ALL drain their clips. At this point a single skulk might be able to come in and kill them all.
I would suggest if we wanted to go this route, to balance it we make clip size START at 30 and increase by 10 bullets for each level of weapon upgrade that you get at the arms lab. This would make marines more likely to stay in groups in the early game, while not forcing LMG marines to a 30 bullet clip when facing late game aliens. (in fact they could upgrade to a 60 bullet clip at weapon level 3 - giving them better ability to take on late game aliens.)
As for marine specialization, that's already something the commander has at his disposal. He can equip marines with 3 other weapon types and 2 other armour/jetpack options. While it may not seem like much, there are many combinations. Flayra has said he doesn't want to get into a class system for marines, so that's really not an option.
However, let's continue to discuss this. When looking at concepts most respondents agree that a POSITIVE reinforcement system would be preferable. So what kind of concepts should we look at?
-As has been suggested in the past, make marines show up on each other HUDs in some form. This would likely encourage teamwork since marines would be more likely to search out nearby marines, and it would also help marines stay in a group. The back-story for this would be that this is a 'friendly fire protection mechanism' built in to all marine armour suits. It should be easy to implement since it would be similar to the alien system.
-Variable clip size tied to the weapon upgrade of the arms lab. This would give LMG marines more of an incentive to stick together in the early game, while giving them the ability to expand clip size through the arms lab in the later game.
What's still missing is some way we can give stock marines incentive to work together from THEIR perspective. Some examples of possible concepts: (these are not ALL meant to be implemented.)
-a small bonus to marine damage when marines are in a group of 3 or more
-a small bonus to marine armour when marines are in a group of 3 or more
-marines heal slowly when in groups of 3 or more
-when a group of marines follows a waypoint, (of a set minimum distance - like between hives) they would all receive one medpack and one ammo pack.
Again, these are just concepts for discussion. The thing to keep in mind is that we can't radically alter gameplay by suggesting classes or other ideas that will take control away from the commander.
Good discussion folks, keep it coming. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Regards,
Savant
Thanks for reply... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I suggested the aura idea already and I think its the <b>Easiest</b> solution we can afford. More armor seems abit too "unrealistic" but the heal and damage and also speed factor could be developed or even tested. As for weapons players will always find a way to go around the suggest "restrictions" from Chopper Dave. Im pretty sure players would play in squad togheter and when the community would realise that players that cooperate kills more than Rambo Joe they will eventually stick with mates.
I like the idea of the clip size and also the one about the HUD.
Marines should also have a costly upgrade that tells them trouble near by.. (like res tower is under attack something like that). It would be very close tough to not give an alien "trait" to the marines.
Sorry if my post isn't as well presented as Chopper Dave I'm still rushing sometimes in English so I would rather check my mistakes than my presentation... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
If operating in larger groups really is beneficial to your team, that is what the majority of players will ultimately do. Vets faster, pubs more slowly, as always. If going rambo can get you frags, it'll happen, and it should.
I'm all for giving the players more tools to help them coordinate on a voluntary basis though. That DoD-inspired minimap Flayra planned would have been very helpful. Unfortunately it didn't work due to technical problems, IIRC. Knowing where your teammates are if your commander is too busy to guide you (which he always is) would make a big difference already. It did in DoD.
Ok, I played FLF since it came out and im still in the clan that i was in while playing it( -RoT- is the clan if anybody plays flf). What Twex said is exactly how it is. In the game you get +2 points for being next to a capture point when a teamate captures it. You can almost always find somebody that runs over in the "aura zone" to get the +2 points, even though they arent helping the team at all.
I dont like the idea of getting a skill bonus just for being within a certain radius of somebody, because when you eventually find yourself alone(team dies and your last one standing) you end up being "punished" with regular stats. It would work so much better if the weapons themselves dictated how you played. The commander has a decision on who to give new guns and how he wants them to play, so he never loses "control" over his men. People will start to realize quickly that they wont stand a chance if they try to rambo with a shotty(or whatever other gun), and they will begin teaming up more on their own.
IMO there should never be "punishments", unless given by the other team in some way.(like web makes you run slow and takes your gun away) And yes, having no bonus due to getting lost/split up/etc from your team, feels like a punishment when youre able to go from regenerating 5 health and doing more damage, to not regenerating and doing weaker damage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Allow the commander to delegate some elements of plan implementation (waypointing, group membership, timing) to people who are actually on the ground, playing the game.
2. Give players some visual cue to indicate what group they are in, where their group leaders/goals are, which other players are in the group, and how many group members are in the immediate vicinity.
3. Allow players to start their own groups, and join other groups. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...<snip>...
Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't recall if this has been implemented or not, but having a key that allows you to send a voice message ONLY to your squadmates (like the commander can speak to selected marines) would probably help a squad organise itself somewhat in the field. Using a new colour for the Voice indicator (Black on red?) to differentiate squad coms from general would be useful too.
The problem is that comm<->player is heavily trust-based relationship. And on public servers, there is no framework for this trust. Without that trust, you get the two classic marine problems: either no one wants to comm, or no one listens to the comm.
You cannot legislate that trust into existence. You can only punish players for not implicitly trusting whoever is in the chair.
What I'm suggesting is allowing these trust relationships to grow organically. The implementation is really immaterial.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why the ability to eject the commander is present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bleh, too binary. You either completely affirm the commander's role as sole strategic visionary, tactical mastermind, and inspirational leader. Or you kick him to the curb. There has to be a middle ground. As humans, our relationships with strangers don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there some other way we can approach this to give marines more of an ability to self-organise WITHOUT taking any control away from the commander or making one marine any more 'important' than another?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have self-organization without any concept of hierarchy, you have... wait for it... aliens!
I'm only half-kidding. I do think any marine system for self-organization needs to be:
1. Somehow different from the de-facto alien system (classes and hive sight)
2. Intuitive and well-integrated into the game, not artificial and obvious
3. An ALTERNATIVE to the commander<->grunts system. A good commander should still be a significant advantage. But the marines should have the tools to cooperate and set objectives without direct commander intervention.
Besides, why do guys seem to think that pubs cannot self-organize so therefore some kind of carrot/candy has to be placed in front of them. People who can work together will. They only need a good leader to organize them (e.g. the commander). Those who don't want to work together will not. They just won't, simple as that.
I don't think that doors that need two marines to open and one to fetch the gizmo inside (IE: Firearms, one of the maps has that). That is something that is not needed and is actually pissant, since one team will probably secure a base around that obvious chokepoint, like Processing is in ns_hera or Mess Hall in ns_nothing I believe it is.
Rewards and such for "teamwork", such as in Firearms, are really cheap. All it takes is some uber rambo to steal all the kills in a group of +3, get a really high score, while deflating the egos of his teammates who have something like 5 kills to 13 deaths. I'd know, since in CS, when your ratio is so low its in hades, you tend to play worse since everytime you click tab to see whos alive on your team, you see that evil ratio mocking you in the face.
TRANSLATION: No ratios. Pubs have their own society. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> they wil sort it out themselves. always has, always will be. like in ns_siege005, the counter to JP/HMG rush is webs that shoot up from the floor to the roof, so that they get stuck, crash, and then die. They will find a way, always has, always will be.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there is.
It's called better commander organization.
By allowing the commander to stay ALL over EACH and EVERY marine on his team, then real teamwork can be used.
A common problem is that commanders must stay in one or two places activaly keeping tabs on his marines, not having hotkeys is a huge burden on the comm, making him rely on mad point and click frenzy skills.
However, with 1.1, this problem should dissapate in theory, as the comm has a 'select all' button, which is extreamlly useful. He also has hotgroups, and an order bar, so he can keep track of his marine team's needs.
However, additional improvements need to be done to the commander's interface I feel:
- 'Go to next marine' button. Click on this repeatadly would cycle through all of your marines.
- If you select a group of marines, then a la starcraft or warcraft style, you should see each and every marine's health bar with a little picture above them also. The picture would be a marine's face, with the armor he is wearing. If possible, include on the picture a little letter for the main weapon he is carrying. A 'L' for LMG. A 'S' for Shotgun. A 'H' for HMG. A 'G' for Grenade Laucher. If the marine has a weilder, he has a 'W' somewhere else in his pic. A 'M' for mines.
- Left clicking on a marine picture would select that marine. Right clicking would center the camera on the marine.
- Shift then click makes it so it you can set multiple orders for a marine.
- Make it so you can 'bookmark' parts of the map with the F1-F8 keys.
The best way for marine organization, and thus better teamwork, is if the comm is better organized to use teamwork.
Another thing that should be mandatory of the comm, this would promote active scanning of all of the marine's under his command:
- Make it so that a comm must click on an alien corpse to get the res for kill for his team.
This would make it so if the comm has a lot of marine rambo's, if he wants to maximize the res he gets from killing aliens, he must actually be a part of their marine's life to do so.
I also think you should be able to spawn with whatever weapon you want instead of commander being distracted by just handing them out randomly. The weapons could be incorperated into the tech tree so you only get to choose from weapons your commander researched. The same system should work for JP/HA. But each weapon or JP/HA tech would need to cost a tremendous amount. Like JP would cost 100 res to research and HA can be from 150 to 200. This system would be much less frustrating and more strategic for both commander and marines. And if balance issues persist, then get rid of weapon and armor upgrades. Saying "Don't put it in, it will be hard to balance" is just too simple-minded of an assumption.
Let me just be blunt, complex score systems won't have the desired effect and should never ever be put in.
What the game needs, and I can only hope works out this way in 1.1 Final, is a large disincentive to running out on your own. Simply put, if a marine is by himself he should get owned by a lone alien, every time. A marine with an HMG should have at least a good chance of getting killed by a skulk who gets the jump on him, and shouldn't be able to fight off a group of them unless the skulks are severely incompetent. I don't know what the best way to do this without overpowering organized aliens would be, but I think in the long run it would really improve the game.
Of course for a while bad pub marine teams would get destroyed, and would probably come onto the forum to whine about how underpowered marines are. Eventually the pure rambos would quit and the rest of the players would be forced to adapt, hopefully creating the kind of teamwork that NS was designed for. Of course teamwork will always be the most effective method of winning this game, but that just isn't enough to fix the pub server problem.
I feel that this would not be the best solution for a few reasons...
1) It takes power away from everyone's good friend, the commander. It's bad enough no one listens to him, but now marines can just take weapons without his go ahead?
2) With regards to the "tremendous amount" of money required for researching JPs or Heavys, what if the marines need to research heavy armor, drop one or two for base defense because of fades? They couldn't do that anymore...and more then likely wouldn't be able to aford anything over 100 resources at any point in the game anyway. **EDIT** I also think the marines would be hardpressed to accumulate those resources without the aid of JPs and Heavy armor.
3) It would be hard to balance? ..Not anymore then these "aura" things though. (Viva la Chopper Dave!)
With love,
Crisqo
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I honestly don't recall if this has been implemented or not, but having a key that allows you to send a voice message ONLY to your squadmates (like the commander can speak to selected marines) would probably help a squad organise itself somewhat in the field. Using a new colour for the Voice indicator (Black on red?) to differentiate squad coms from general would be useful too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be nice, but then you also run into another problem. Team communication. Let's say you have three squads out there and they all are talking on their own channels. (if it is possible to implement) Now none of the squads knows what the other squads are saying, and they don't know if the other squads are talking to the commander. If another squad is talking with the commander and your squad starts talking to the commander, neither will be heard properly. The alternate is true as well. Let's say the commander does a 'talk all' message to the team but the squads were talking amongst themselves, again you would not be able to understand what it being said.
To make this work the voice system would need to be complex, which basically rules it out for this version.
Deacon wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that comm<->player is heavily trust-based relationship. And on public servers, there is no framework for this trust. Without that trust, you get the two classic marine problems: either no one wants to comm, or no one listens to the comm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this does happen often, what if there was a REWARD for trusting the comm? That's something I touched on. IE, following a waypoint (of a minimum length) will garner you a medpack/ammo pack drop when you reach it. While you shouldn't have to reward a person for following orders (the reward should be a win) if we DID have a 'reward' and it did encourage teamwork would that not make the game more fun to play?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I'm suggesting is allowing these trust relationships to grow organically. The implementation is really immaterial.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that the time it takes to grow these relationships is CRUITIAL in winning the game. An early game where people don't trust the commander and don't follow orders is a game they will lose. By the time they start trusting the commander it is too late since the aliens will have gained too much ground. Right now the game moves FAST.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Somehow different from the de-facto alien system (classes and hive sight)
2. Intuitive and well-integrated into the game, not artificial and obvious
3. An ALTERNATIVE to the commander<->grunts system. A good commander should still be a significant advantage. But the marines should have the tools to cooperate and set objectives without direct commander intervention.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think #3 should moreso be that it is not an ALTERNATIVE to the commander but a method to AUGMENT the commander's role by making marines somewhat more self-sufficicent in ways that are NOT presently controled by the comm.
That means we can't have peple setting their own waypoints and such, but perhaps the ability to group into a squad or the like. (if the commander has not designated them as such.) Any system should be something that in NO way detracts or interferes with the commander's abilities.
Forlorn wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, additional improvements need to be done to the commander's interface I feel:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll make a few comments here:
<i>- 'Go to next marine' button. Click on this repeatadly would cycle through all of your marines.</i>
A version of this HAS been implemented. When a marine hits their 'request orders' hotkey, and icon wil popup on the bottom left of the command display. Clicking it will take the commander to the next marine who has requested orders.
<i>- If you select a group of marines, then a la starcraft or warcraft style, you should see each and every marine's health bar with a little picture above them also. The picture would be a marine's face, with the armor he is wearing. If possible, include on the picture a little letter for the main weapon he is carrying. A 'L' for LMG. A 'S' for Shotgun. A 'H' for HMG. A 'G' for Grenade Laucher. If the marine has a weilder, he has a 'W' somewhere else in his pic. A 'M' for mines.</i>
Part of this has been implemented. When you select a group of marines, their health bars DO stay visible when looking at them until you select something else. As for what they have, it's usually pretty obvious since you can see/hear what is going on. However, you also don't want to clutter the comander HUD with TOO much information or it will be hard to use in combat situations.
Remember folks, we need to keep in mind that concepts should NOT remove power from the commander. The commander will always be the one in control, and we want to ENCOURAGE people to want to obey the commander's orders as well as work as a team, without rewriting the game or making major modifications.
Regards,
Savant
I feel that this would not be the best solution for a few reasons...
1) It takes power away from everyone's good friend, the commander. It's bad enough no one listens to him, but now marines can just take weapons without his go ahead?
2) With regards to the "tremendous amount" of money required for researching JPs or Heavys, what if the marines need to research heavy armor, drop one or two for base defense because of fades? They couldn't do that anymore...and more then likely wouldn't be able to aford anything over 100 resources at any point in the game anyway. **EDIT** I also think the marines would be hardpressed to accumulate those resources without the aid of JPs and Heavy armor.
3) It would be hard to balance? ..Not anymore then these "aura" things though. (Viva la Chopper Dave!)
With love,
Crisqo <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you have to take 1.1 into account. That's what this topic is about. Apperantly, marines in 1.1 are outmatched. I also think any reasonable commander would rather the marines pick their own weapons instead of having to give them out one by one, every time they respawn. I don't usually ever see a game where commander uses his weapon giving ability as "leverage". The commander is still the on in control of what's researched. I think it can be balanced to be techincally equal to the current system, you just throw the weight of the res around. The important thing is that it would change game mechanics and make the game more strategic and less frustrating ("Comm, can I get a shotgun! COME ON!" for the 1,000,000th time).
And speaking from my 1.04 experience, marines don't use HA or JP to acquire res nozzles. How often do commanders decide to wait for HA or JP to build RT in places like atmospheric or holoroom?
Not exactly. Marines are losing games even though they tend to mop up on an INDIVIDUAL basis. That's the weird part. The individual strengths are there, but the TEAM strengths are lacking. That's why I wanted to explore team-work concepts.
Regards,
Savant
For example, A "Fireteam" system could be implemented, where the commander would assign the role of fireteam leader to a marine, and then the marine could either invite other marines to join the fireteam, or the commander would have to assign the marines to his group. This would, pretty much, work like in 1.1, except that the groups are not for the commander alone, but for the marines too. There could be a small addition to the hud, somewhat like in RTCW:ET, where the health, location, and weapons of a marine are displayed. Also, the addition of icons that appear over marines who are members of your fireteam would help out with teamwork, without giving rewards or punishment. Simply have around 3-5 different icons, one for each fireteam, and let the commander assign them to groups. The benefits of being in a fireteam would only be knowing where your teammates are in the map, perhaps even showing the fireteam members the position of their teammates (only the people in their fireteam) or perhaps even only the position of their fireteam leader, to make things less cluttered and complicated.
The role of the leader would just be that, a person who helps the commander keep the marines in line, his right hand man when it comes to spotting situations in the battlefield. He would have no special abilities, he could not set up waypoints or hand out weapons, the only ability he would get is showing up in their teammates map so that the rest of his fireteam can locate him.
As you can see, the system i'm talking about would involve no "punishment" for people who go out on their own to complete an assigned objective, or no bonus for moving in groups, there would not be ANY changes in gameplay or balance, only the teamplay elements would be reinforced. If a person does not want to go around following their fireteam, they don't have to, however, should they choose to do it, they can always know where their leader/team is, and perhaps communicate with them to achieve an objective.
First, some people assume that teamwork means being close together, at least that's what is suggested for detecting teamwork: see if marines are within some radius from other marines. Bad idea.
There is the obvious case of the lone rambo building a phasegate or siege base deep behind enemy lines (ns_bast is an excellent map for such tricks, as it has a fairly marine-friendly vent system, just make sure you build enough sieges before pinging the hive as that lone rambo will go down quickly as soon as he's found). Actually, the common NS use of rambo as someone who runs off and gets killed without any good effect is flawed. Look at the Rambo movies, he mostly goes around alone but he does get results. Early game gorge ramboing can also be pretty effective, though I prefer two-man teams for that once it's found, to reduce the chance he gets away or gets backup.
Then, there is the case of teams who can be more effective when not standing right next to each other. For example, a team defending a room. I find it's usually best to spread out and stand in opposite corners of the room, makes it much harder for a lone skulk to take out the whole team, and you can still cover teammates just fine because you have ranged weapons. The team can be more effective if they aren't too close to each other.
In general, I think the idea is somewhat misguided. It aims to make people conform to an idea of how they should play, so it might delay the discovery of more effective tactics that do not conform to the "teamplay or death" principle. A similar effect exists for the res for kills system. I expect I'll have to change my skulk tactics a lot now, as I tend to attack buildings more than marines (unupgraded marines aren't interesting in 1.04 unless they're at an important spot or defending an expensive structure I want to bite). My kills/deaths ratio as an alien tends to be horrible, as I don't care about it even though it actually is displayed for the aliens. I also will throw myself into a minefield te create a gap to exploit after respawning. The res for kills system (which, unlike the score, does have an effect on winning) will probably make those suicide skulk tactics no longer viable and reduce the number of ways to play skulk.
Sincerely,
Crisqo
Regards,
Savant <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't mean the marines to get a technical boost in fighting. If you think about it, it would really change the way the game is played and that's why I think this system would be worth it. Marines wouldn't stand around base asking for weapons and commander wouldn't have to worry about giving weapons (he can focus on people already out and fighting). It would get the marines moving around.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bakes my bacon is the number of people who feel that rushing to the 2 hives right away and because a comm drops med and ammo and they can stay alive and proceed to lockdown the hives that this isn't ramboing, or even if "most" of the team travels to both hives that this is "good" teamwork... Aliens have to work alone for the first part of the game and thanks to mines, a single marine can stake out his base and keep alive... So in most large games before a gorge can get a single O tower up, both hives are locked down and the game is over...
I hope with 1.1 that more emphasis is put on res captures,spread the battle field out and allow the aliens a chance...
However to the conversation at hand, I agree with ChopperDave... If the weapons were "tweaked" slightly, they would require much more interaction by default..
My thought about the HMG is that it should be as powerful but your movement is cut WAY back and your ability to "turn" your view is also slower.. This would mean a HMG would need a faster firing team to go with him to make sure he didn't get circled and chomped.. A slight delay in starting firing again would also ensure that he didn't just stop firing and then turn and start again..
The GL as it is, is a tough weapon to handle close combat...
I definitely agree with Chopper Dave.
Forlorn's GUI ideas are good. (GUI ideas usually are <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Don't like any artificial "aura." wlibaers makes an excellent point: teamwork does not mean staying together. For example, a scouting squad may split up very often to recon as efficiently as possible. Another example: a marine may stay behind to watch the squad's back. Another: a marine runs ahead and sacrifices itself to draw skulks into a trap of heavy LMG fire.
On marines I will often scount since I can quickly relay information over voice comm. I am not by any measure a great fragger, though I will often have teh highest numbers of kills on the server. This is usually about 1/3 of my deaths. The purposed system would really discourage strategic attacks such as this.
I like the idea of complimented weapons/items. I know the idea of a protable medic is been nixed, but I think a medic pack that took up all the slots would be a nice teambuilder. Since anyone can grab it you don't limit people to preet classes, but rather allow them to choose the right "tool" for the mission. Need extra ammo for an outing? Give one squad member and ammo pack..takes up 2 slots, but others can "use" him to get more ammo. why not allow someone to giev up weapons to carry a "phase beacon" that marines can phase to, but not from. Great for assualts, but not so great for the return trip (in a box)
Make lmg a weaker, but all-purpose weapon. Have pistol become a nice long ditsance gun and shotgun useless for anything but close range. HMG gets limited on ammo so a ammo carrier would be needed. Want field healing? Medic!