I'm sure as the game progresses from alpha to beta and more and more features start being added the commander will still be an important, and not boring role. The main thing for the commander is not only base building but mainly for the strategy as he has an over view of the whole map. I think that having the commander being able to focus more on strategy then building is better. Especially when dynamic infestation comes out and maps get ever more complex as possible routes are closed off and the commander needs to almost lead his men.
<!--quoteo(post=1789527:date=Jul 31 2010, 03:10 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 03:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789527"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no need to have both, you can't please both crowds. I've said it plenty of times this is not about giving or taking away from the marine on the ground it's about making the commanders game more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They are making the commanders game more interesting but at the same time they're also taking away from the marine on the ground.
I'm all for giving commanders bots to use, but I think it'd be best if players were also able to build themselves. I can't imagine why that would not please 'both crowds' or would cause any problems.
<!--quoteo(post=1789553:date=Jul 31 2010, 03:46 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 03:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no point though, why does everyone believe that pressing 'e' on a target is the be all and end all of natural selection. It's not fun and it's not engaging. It's boring and pointless when you can have a robot do it for you whilst you do the fun things like shoot stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a point you just don't get it, it's not about the act of pressing 'e.' We want the capability to build as players instead of relying solely on the commander's bots.
<!--quoteo(post=1789655:date=Jul 30 2010, 08:55 PM:name=Snazz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Snazz @ Jul 30 2010, 08:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789655"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are making the commanders game more interesting but at the same time they're also taking away from the marine on the ground.
I'm all for giving commanders bots to use, but I think it'd be best if players were also able to build themselves. I can't imagine why that would not please 'both crowds' or would cause any problems.
There is a point you just don't get it, it's not about the act of pressing 'e.' <b>We want the capability to build as players instead of relying solely on the commander's bots.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does this expand on game play though, in what way does this somehow make the game any more exciting or appealing. There is no reason for it to be in the game it just makes the build robots redundant in their soul role which is what YOU just don't get.
Just food for thought, have the MAC be able to build stuff on their own, but if the Marines want to build, they need to like swap out their pistol or axe for a 1 use building kit for a certain building, so say you want to be able to deploy a turret, a marine would give up his pistol for a deploy-able turret. While a MAC could just fly some where and build one without having any other requirements
<!--quoteo(post=1789610:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:07 PM:name=Stardog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stardog @ Jul 30 2010, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. The person building probably has the most engaged role. You have to check every vent, keep as many entrances in sight as possible and listen for alien footsteps. And you can stop building and contribute to attacking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1789629:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:25 PM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (glimmerman @ Jul 30 2010, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are just as valid as your argument for pressing 'w' and 'MOUSE 1'.
Some people like to build, some like to shoot, most like to do both. To be honest I think the old system was much better than this MAC thing but maybe I''m just "old school".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is, you're still left with the commander to drop things. Yes, I loved running around with a welder, but this whole "tension of building" thing is a poor excuse for having marines building. When was it ever fun to be working on something and get ganked in the back? More importantly, what kind of horrible lone wolf player were you where you'd be alone constructing? If you were covered by teammates, then this was never really an issue, and if you were running off solo, then you were playing the wrong game. "But I was successful building alone" you say. Pish posh, it's a team game and you aren't being clever or making the team better by running off alone doing your thing with your welder. It's a team game, and unfortunately, you have to admit that multiple players defending a priority target does more to improve teamwork than running off "constructing," especially given the target is a helpless automaton that can't cower and flee. Yes, I think they'll add welders. Why? Because there's still armor that's going to bleed out when in battle, and quite frankly, it's either going to be up to the comm to manage everyone's armor which is a ridiculously tough job which will again relegate the comm to lawn chair commanding whenever (read always) someone demands armor repairs because a skulk bit them once. Will they help build? Who knows. But saying that the game can only be tense because you're defenseless is kind of demeaning to the generations of horror films that have guys with guns getting shredded to death by not guys with bigger claws. Oh, and doesn't NS take inspiration from those?
<!--quoteo(post=1789634:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:30 PM:name=Asimov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asimov @ Jul 30 2010, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789634"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If all we did was want to shoot aliens we would all just be playing alien swarm. The whole idea behind NS and the reason I loved it so much was I got to build stuff and you had to support your commanders build selection or boot him in favor of someone else.
My guess is Revi.uk was that guy on the team that would run out and get a ton of alien kills but not help build the base or RT's because he felt it was beneath him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying if the comm didn't do what you wanted you'd boot him? That's ridiculous, but I guess being the eye in the sky doesn't give you any better awareness, no sir'e bob. I loved welding. Heck, for the most part, I always was the welding/repair guy that went along with the squad, and you know what? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A WELDER. The guy who made the SC2 reference kind of shot himself in the foot with that reference. Yes, the team with the repair SCVs and tanks does better than pure tanks. Oh, but your SCVs were hanging back in the main base building things? Guess it's just tanks vs. tanks then. Herp derp, your team loses. "But we had all the right units." Yes, but you were using them wrong. Sorry if all you did was build, but I'm going to have to say you played the game wrong. Yes, maybe your idea of playing the game is different from mine, but building with no framework of teamwork is not what the game is about. Your job isn't to build and be comm slave and RT builder, your job is to make sure your forces are up to snuff, either by building defenses or getting bases built and most importantly keeping your forces alive. That's what an engineer does. If it was only building, you'd be a construction worker.
<!--quoteo(post=1789649:date=Jul 30 2010, 01:46 PM:name=Asimov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asimov @ Jul 30 2010, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789649"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree it will up the survival rate, but what happens when the skulk just kills the MAC in route or the new RT is behind enemy lines? I think the MAC can have a role, but I don't like it being the only option for the team in terms of building. I really believe it takes the commanders on both sides out of the game, and it becomes a simple marines vs aliens shooter with partial convoy coverage missions.
There has to be some middle ground we can work towards in this Alpha.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Could you explain more? How do you feel it takes the commanders out of the game moreso than having marines build did?
Do you mean it takes them out of the strategic game and puts them in a more tactical position? I think it's probably too early to say how the strategic options of the Commander are going to play out -- I see a large part of that only coming into effect once we get the power grid and the DI running. If anything, I think the MACs draw the commander into the game even more, because they can't just be doing their thing and then get a report from a marine, "Ahoy, commander, I'm sitting under their hive, drop a TF pls." The commander has to be actively involved with any sneak-strategies he's trying to accomplish.
<!--quoteo(post=1789661:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:02 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Jul 30 2010, 03:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could you explain more? How do you feel it takes the commanders out of the game moreso than having marines build did?
Do you mean it takes them out of the strategic game and puts them in a more tactical position? I think it's probably too early to say how the strategic options of the Commander are going to play out -- I see a large part of that only coming into effect once we get the power grid and the DI running. If anything, I think the MACs draw the commander into the game even more, because they can't just be doing their thing and then get a report from a marine, "Ahoy, commander, I'm sitting under their hive, drop a TF pls." The commander has to be actively involved with any sneak-strategies he's trying to accomplish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure thing. When I am in games it feels like the MACs just go do their thing and all the marines pretty much head off to do whatever they want. Why bother listening to a commander when you're not actively helping other than as a guard to a mindless AI? It may be that I have been in games with crappy commanders but I just feel disconnected. Guarding a MAC is like watching grass grow, I don't feel any of the tension or excitement when I get something built.
With the MACs you limit the team and commander to whatever the MAC can accomplish. It makes it very hard to push if all the aliens have to do is kill the MACs. Lets say you stablish your beach head outside the Hive. The aliens charge and you kill them all, but they killed your MACs. Now instead of replenishing your forces quickly and moving in, you have to go make sure the MAC can safely get to your base again, which means a large contingent has to go back and get it and re escort it back to the front.
I really just think it kills a portion of the strategies available by limiting the build area to where you can safely escort a MAC. NS1 was amazing because of the flexability of the strats and every time you played the map there were 3 or 4 different options. With the MACs I think that goes away for a large extent.
And give me a reason why we can't have both? If you don't want to help build then don't, but at least let us feel like we are building (reduce our ability to build quickly or give us a tech dude that only runs with a pistol...I liked clicking e.
<!--quoteo(post=1789658:date=Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does this expand on game play though, in what way does this somehow make the game any more exciting or appealing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's more of a retainment of a key feature from NS1 than an expansion of NS2. As for excitement and appeal that is completely subjective, personally I appreciate the independence for one thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1789658:date=Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no reason for it to be in the game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've already explained the reason/point for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1789658:date=Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it just makes the build robots redundant in their soul role which is what YOU just don't get.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually contrary to your assumptions I already mentioned it's redundancy in another thread about the same subject.
Apart from the positives of redundancy (eg. a RAID of hard drives in case one fails) both players and bots have their advantages and disadvantages so it's actually 2 different build options for the team.
With the bots the commander has a fairly reliable way of building whether their team is organized or not, but of course bots have various drawbacks compared to a real person. Real players naturally vary making them overall less reliable but when they want to build and coordinate with the commander they should be able to do so, I find that direct involvement more satisfying than escorting a bot.
<!--quoteo(post=1789675:date=Jul 30 2010, 02:26 PM:name=Asimov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asimov @ Jul 30 2010, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789675"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure thing. When I am in games it feels like the MACs just go do their thing and all the marines pretty much head off to do whatever they want. Why bother listening to a commander when you're not actively helping other than as a guard to a mindless AI? It may be that I have been in games with crappy commanders but I just feel disconnected. Guarding a MAC is like watching grass grow, I don't feel any of the tension or excitement when I get something built.
With the MACs you limit the team and commander to whatever the MAC can accomplish. It makes it very hard to push if all the aliens have to do is kill the MACs. Lets say you stablish your beach head outside the Hive. The aliens charge and you kill them all, but they killed your MACs. Now instead of replenishing your forces quickly and moving in, you have to go make sure the MAC can safely get to your base again, which means a large contingent has to go back and get it and re escort it back to the front.
I really just think it kills a portion of the strategies available by limiting the build area to where you can safely escort a MAC. NS1 was amazing because of the flexability of the strats and every time you played the map there were 3 or 4 different options. With the MACs I think that goes away for a large extent.
And give me a reason why we can't have both? If you don't want to help build then don't, but at least let us feel like we are building (reduce our ability to build quickly or give us a tech dude that only runs with a pistol...I liked clicking e.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, I'm not opposed to marines building.. although I think that marines on their own should only be able to build limited things (such as turrets)
But it sounds to me like what you're saying isn't so much that it pulls the commander out of the game as much as it pulls the marines out of the strategic game that the commander plays. I would suggest that yes, this is your commander's fault. Better lines of communication can help with that -- make sure your commander is paying attention to your squad, and if you get into a fire-fight, have him/her stop the MAC, pull it back, etc.. do what needs to be done to protect it. If the commander isn't paying attention.. well.. that suggests another commander might be useful.
However, as to why we perhaps shouldn't have both? Because your description makes it obvious that the MACs are roving chokepoints for the marines (much like drifters are for aliens). Chokepoints which they must protect unless they're going to be put at a serious disadvantage. This forces the battles into more definable fronts. Now it can be argued whether that's a good thing or not, but I believe it is part of the design philosophy of NS2 -- for the fighting to be more focused and intense. It also makes the game more compatible for esports viewing. Give marines building ability and all of the sudden that's gone. MAC didn't make it? Oh well.. I'll do it myself then. See? No chokepoint. Losing the MAC isn't such a big deal in that case, so there's less incentive to protect it.
When you think about it, what is the difference between a marine being able to build and a MAC building? You still need the commander to drop the structure. The only change is whether the commander has to be paying attention on the route there. Yeah, if the MAC dies you have to go back and escort another one. On the other hand, if you're the builder and you die, you have to sit in the respawn queue and then have to bring yourself back. Really not much has actually changed except that building has gotten slightly more difficult.. isn't that a good thing? Part of the "hard to master" bit?
And I do realize that some people prefer to be in the support roles, I'm one of them.. primarily because I'm pretty bad at the killing.. but I think support roles are going to evolve yet as well. Fixing armor, making sure the MAC is fully repaired, taking back territory via the power-grid and welding doors shut, etc.. I'm still quite hopeful that there's going to be a lot of stuff for us support oriented players to do on the marine side.. I just don't think it's in place yet.
I see what you are saying with the choke points, but I fee like thats all the game will become. Escorting around MACs. Just allow players to build at a much decreased rate. It gives incentives to make sure the bot gets there but doesn't kill 4 mins or your life if the aliens kill your builder. If I am an alien, I am not going to try to kill the marines first, I am going to kill the slow and dumb MAC. With leap its going to be a lot easier to get closer faster and tear that thing down before anyone can stop me.
One of the interesting things about NS1 was that even if you were a horrible shot you were still useful as a builder. Plus, there was a decent amount of planning when building so that you can avoid being shot and choices about if you will be able to finish the building versus have time to shoot the attacking Aliens.
Adding in either a build tool or the ability for Marines to aid in building gives an option to help speed things up and provides that choice. Sure MACs will be the primary builder unit and the only one to start building, but you can still power build or you can delegate one person to building while others defend and so on.
And if you think pressing 'e' is boring then don't do it. You're on defense. Let the MAC do it.
EDIT: spawned I&S topic on players building. <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110709" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=110709</a>
MACs being "moving chokepoints" is a good point, but I don't think it's... enough. Defending an AI unit isn't much fun in singleplayer either, and there you can at least reload and try again if it does something no-one wanted it to do. Plus it's kind of humiliating to have to rely on and escort some machine around like it's a pretty little princess.
A simple fix would be an upgrade or add-on for marines that would enable them to build. So those who want to assist with the build process can utilize said upgrade to help out. This might also form a sub-team dynamic of builders and fighters, of course neither role needs to be exclusive.
<!--quoteo(post=1789734:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:32 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 30 2010, 03:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789734"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MACs being "moving chokepoints" is a good point, but I don't think it's... enough. Defending an AI unit isn't much fun in singleplayer either, and there you can at least reload and try again if it does something no-one wanted it to do. Plus it's kind of humiliating to have to rely on and escort some machine around like it's a pretty little princess.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it humiliating escorting a wounded partner who can't fight? Remember, the MAC doesn't have to be a dumb AI unit, and I think that's part of what we're seeing here, is commanders haven't yet realized how much of an active role they have to take in the battlefield now with making sure the MACs stay safe. When that happens, I expect the complaints about them being simple escort missions will fade.
It is not fun being forced to defend an AI unit in order to accomplish ANY expansion. Having AI units there for support and to assist makes much more sense.
Allowing marines to build as well does not make the MAC useless whatsoever and those who say it does are just not thinking it through correctly. The MAC is great to have for repairing/building base and I can also see it nice to have to build an RT while you guard it, however THIS IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR SMALL GAMES (something NS1 wasn't so good with). As soon there are enough marines to cover eachother it is just a nuisance to have to focus on guarding the noisy yellow thing. Not to mention an entire marine squad can instantly be rendered useless if their MAC gets taken out.
Marines <b>should</b> be capable of building. It is NOT going to make the MAC useless, and will take away from the horrible frustration of the entire marine game being based around guarding an AI unit the whole time. MACs in their current state are just way to frustrating and from general opinion it seems most agree. I fail to see marines incapable of building as a benefit in any way. It just disconnects players even more from the commander and from every game of NS2 I have played so far this is exactly the case.
OP has a point...both marine and alien gameplay at the moment is buildbot/drifter escorting....i dont know about you guys, BUT I HATE ESCORTING >.<
Im not saying to remove the MAC/Drifter machinisims...but at the moment, the concept of building everything is 100% dependent on these things and most of the game is all about keeping them alive....
<!--quoteo(post=1789739:date=Jul 30 2010, 04:49 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Jul 30 2010, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789739"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is it humiliating escorting a wounded partner who can't fight? Remember, the MAC doesn't have to be a dumb AI unit, and I think that's part of what we're seeing here, is commanders haven't yet realized how much of an active role they have to take in the battlefield now with making sure the MACs stay safe. When that happens, I expect the complaints about them being simple escort missions will fade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. In NS1 commanders had plenty to do. Drop structures, drop meds, drop ammo, coordinate offense and pop back to base to start up research. A good commander was never bored and played a very active role.
In NS2, on top of all of that (none of it's been removed as far as I can tell) the commander is now also responsible for babysitting MACs. If he isn't actively watching over them, then the MAC is a dumb AI unit and nothing else, and it's an escort mission. I like the idea of the MAC. I don't like the fact that it's a mandatory additional layer of complexity for the commander and nothing more.
I really hope they dont change the macs, because i think they will create more interaction between coms and marines. I wanna see it play out.
If you could help the bot build faster, meta game would evolve to that being the standard, if im chilling next to a bot thats building something the com would yell at me to help it. So theres no way to please both crowds.
one thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that we're only talking about the marines being able to build their structures. keep in mind that gorges no longer drop resources towers or upgrade structures so unless UWE plans on letting the aliens assist in building their structures as well then what everyone is suggesting will end in a huge imbalance between the teams.
i for one like the direction UWE is taking ns2 in with the drifters/macs. it promotes team work all around and forces the commanders to work with their foot units.
<!--quoteo(post=1789758:date=Jul 30 2010, 04:19 PM:name=Gadzuko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gadzuko @ Jul 30 2010, 04:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree. In NS1 commanders had plenty to do. Drop structures, drop meds, drop ammo, coordinate offense and pop back to base to start up research. A good commander was never bored and played a very active role.
In NS2, on top of all of that (none of it's been removed as far as I can tell) the commander is now also responsible for babysitting MACs. If he isn't actively watching over them, then the MAC is a dumb AI unit and nothing else, and it's an escort mission. I like the idea of the MAC. I don't like the fact that it's a mandatory additional layer of complexity for the commander and nothing more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmmm.. sounds like a good reason for a marine team to consider having a second commander, hm?
<!--quoteo(post=1789761:date=Jul 30 2010, 06:22 PM:name=Dank McShwagger)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dank McShwagger @ Jul 30 2010, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789761"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->keep in mind that gorges no longer drop resources towers or upgrade structures so unless UWE plans on letting the aliens assist in building their structures as well then what everyone is suggesting will end in a huge imbalance between the teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true at all. The gorge used to be the alien builder unit while on the other hand every marine acted as a builder too. By swapping the building role of the gorge to the alien comm/drifter it frees up the gorge to build attack structures and actively be on the field defending. This is actually not so bad since the aliens where never builders to begin with and when an alien wanted to build they still had to change to the builder class.
For the marines, taking away a basic fundamental functionality from the primary unit is making marine gamepley feel dramatically different and extremely tedious. Before groups of marines could go places and build when the commander dropped them stuff. Now the marines have to clear a path for a unit to come in and do all the work for them while they sit around saying "damn I wish I could just build these structures myself". Commander/Marine interaction has been weekend because instead of directly helping the comm, they are helping the buildbots which are the comm's real helpers now.
Again, it is very frustrating having to follow an AI to accomplish ANY expansion. At least the gorge can still lame up a room etc. (which on another note is causing lag btw)
I actually think the buildbot could be an interesting feature,but not in the way it currently works.
Perhaps having it work as a commander controlled builder that also acts as a toolchest for marines to link up torches or welders to? Allowing the marines the ability to grab a proximity linked(to the buildbot) blowtorch and choose to assist in the building or just defend the buildbot?
This could add a wealth of strategy to various situations and still allows the commander the ability to build by himself(though at a slower rate)
I'm still confused as to why people think NS1's system is somehow perfect. No one except hardcore players wanted to go commander because others found it so boring. I don't understand how building the commanders structure is such an involving experience. If you think staring at a structure and holding E was an involving experience then defending the commanders weldbots should be more so.
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1789807:date=Jul 30 2010, 06:49 PM:name=TempesT487)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TempesT487 @ Jul 30 2010, 06:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm still confused as to why people think NS1's system is somehow perfect. No one except hardcore players wanted to go commander because others found it so boring. I don't understand how building the commanders structure is such an involving experience. If you think staring at a structure and holding E was an involving experience then defending the commanders weldbots should be more so.
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
Give it a chance, NS2 isn't going to be NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you think would be more intense, being the guy who is trying to disarm a bomb, or someone standing back, watching and doing nothing?
I have had MANY intense moments trying to put up a TF or sieges hoping the aliens didn't notice, and what made it intense was actually DOING it, not sitting around waiting for some AI to do it for me. I also liked when you got attacked while building, you HAD to win that fight so you could continue to build it and basically that one fight could have determined the game, it adds a lot of self achievement and a sense of victory, more so then, well I held of the skulk long enough for this robot to do all the work for me. I don't know I guess I get more sense of accomplishment by doing something then watching others do it.
<!--quoteo(post=1789764:date=Jul 30 2010, 05:31 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Jul 30 2010, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmmm.. sounds like a good reason for a marine team to consider having a second commander, hm?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or instead of adding yet another layer of complexity, we could just allow marines to build and make MACs an optional way for the commander to interact with the battlefield, if his attention isn't needed elsewhere. It keeps the increased skill ceiling for commanders and makes marines feel less like a unit in someone else's RTS.
<!--quoteo(post=1789807:date=Jul 30 2010, 07:49 PM:name=TempesT487)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TempesT487 @ Jul 30 2010, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789807"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm still confused as to why people think NS1's system is somehow perfect. No one except hardcore players wanted to go commander because others found it so boring. I don't understand how building the commanders structure is such an involving experience. If you think staring at a structure and holding E was an involving experience then defending the commanders weldbots should be more so.
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
Give it a chance, NS2 isn't going to be NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 Commanding was awesome in the beginning. Then people started becoming back-seat commanders, and it just got frustrating being mic spammed non stop for every selfish player. I think the UWE team is on the right road as far as breaking out some com decisions and adding to his ability to be self sufficient, but there should be a healthy balance of "do it yourself" and "do it for the team". Having a builder bot when nobody is willing to work together is awesome. However, I don't think it should be one or the other. It can be both.
One of the best things about NS1 was that you did not have to be an FPS god to have an awesome game. You could take a laid back support roll for your team, or be aggressive and destroy the enemy. There was something for everyone, and it allowed for a steeper learning curve without running off new players.
<!--quoteo(post=1789819:date=Jul 30 2010, 08:09 PM:name=Gadzuko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gadzuko @ Jul 30 2010, 08:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789819"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or instead of adding yet another layer of complexity, we could just allow marines to build and make MACs an optional way for the commander to interact with the battlefield, if his attention isn't needed elsewhere. It keeps the increased skill ceiling for commanders and makes marines feel less like a unit in someone else's RTS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. If the marines aren't listening at least MACs can be sent out. If they are then allow MACs to tend to base and tag along with the squads as support and an optional builder for times when marines building isn't practical (aliens nearby etc). It isn't like MACs wouldn't be used, they just won't be what the entire marine game relies on now. They will still be a useful tool for commanders but won't cut out half of what made being a marine such a hands on experience.
<!--quoteo(post=1789826:date=Jul 30 2010, 07:20 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jul 30 2010, 07:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789826"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. If the marines aren't listening at least MACs can be sent out. If they are then allow MACs to tend to base and tag along with the squads as support and an optional builder for times when marines building isn't practical (aliens nearby etc). It isn't like MACs wouldn't be used, they just won't be what the entire marine game relies on now. They will still be a useful tool for commanders but won't cut out half of what made being a marine such a hands on experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not even just that, if you really think about it, so many strategies open up if you have both MAC's and Marines building for example at the start of the game, you could either send out the marines and have MAC's build base, or power build base first with marines, saving res and getting an upgrade sooner. Or you could branch out to control the map, send a squad of marines to one RT and a MAC/marine to another rt, and which ever one survives is where you will build an rt and etc. etc. etc..
Comments
They are making the commanders game more interesting but at the same time they're also taking away from the marine on the ground.
I'm all for giving commanders bots to use, but I think it'd be best if players were also able to build themselves. I can't imagine why that would not please 'both crowds' or would cause any problems.
<!--quoteo(post=1789553:date=Jul 31 2010, 03:46 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 03:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no point though, why does everyone believe that pressing 'e' on a target is the be all and end all of natural selection. It's not fun and it's not engaging. It's boring and pointless when you can have a robot do it for you whilst you do the fun things like shoot stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a point you just don't get it, it's not about the act of pressing 'e.' We want the capability to build as players instead of relying solely on the commander's bots.
I'm all for giving commanders bots to use, but I think it'd be best if players were also able to build themselves. I can't imagine why that would not please 'both crowds' or would cause any problems.
There is a point you just don't get it, it's not about the act of pressing 'e.' <b>We want the capability to build as players instead of relying solely on the commander's bots.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does this expand on game play though, in what way does this somehow make the game any more exciting or appealing. There is no reason for it to be in the game it just makes the build robots redundant in their soul role which is what YOU just don't get.
<!--quoteo(post=1789629:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:25 PM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (glimmerman @ Jul 30 2010, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are just as valid as your argument for pressing 'w' and 'MOUSE 1'.
Some people like to build, some like to shoot, most like to do both. To be honest I think the old system was much better than this MAC thing but maybe I''m just "old school".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is, you're still left with the commander to drop things. Yes, I loved running around with a welder, but this whole "tension of building" thing is a poor excuse for having marines building. When was it ever fun to be working on something and get ganked in the back? More importantly, what kind of horrible lone wolf player were you where you'd be alone constructing? If you were covered by teammates, then this was never really an issue, and if you were running off solo, then you were playing the wrong game. "But I was successful building alone" you say. Pish posh, it's a team game and you aren't being clever or making the team better by running off alone doing your thing with your welder. It's a team game, and unfortunately, you have to admit that multiple players defending a priority target does more to improve teamwork than running off "constructing," especially given the target is a helpless automaton that can't cower and flee. Yes, I think they'll add welders. Why? Because there's still armor that's going to bleed out when in battle, and quite frankly, it's either going to be up to the comm to manage everyone's armor which is a ridiculously tough job which will again relegate the comm to lawn chair commanding whenever (read always) someone demands armor repairs because a skulk bit them once. Will they help build? Who knows. But saying that the game can only be tense because you're defenseless is kind of demeaning to the generations of horror films that have guys with guns getting shredded to death by not guys with bigger claws. Oh, and doesn't NS take inspiration from those?
<!--quoteo(post=1789634:date=Jul 30 2010, 03:30 PM:name=Asimov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asimov @ Jul 30 2010, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789634"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If all we did was want to shoot aliens we would all just be playing alien swarm. The whole idea behind NS and the reason I loved it so much was I got to build stuff and you had to support your commanders build selection or boot him in favor of someone else.
My guess is Revi.uk was that guy on the team that would run out and get a ton of alien kills but not help build the base or RT's because he felt it was beneath him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying if the comm didn't do what you wanted you'd boot him? That's ridiculous, but I guess being the eye in the sky doesn't give you any better awareness, no sir'e bob. I loved welding. Heck, for the most part, I always was the welding/repair guy that went along with the squad, and you know what? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A WELDER. The guy who made the SC2 reference kind of shot himself in the foot with that reference. Yes, the team with the repair SCVs and tanks does better than pure tanks. Oh, but your SCVs were hanging back in the main base building things? Guess it's just tanks vs. tanks then. Herp derp, your team loses. "But we had all the right units." Yes, but you were using them wrong. Sorry if all you did was build, but I'm going to have to say you played the game wrong. Yes, maybe your idea of playing the game is different from mine, but building with no framework of teamwork is not what the game is about. Your job isn't to build and be comm slave and RT builder, your job is to make sure your forces are up to snuff, either by building defenses or getting bases built and most importantly keeping your forces alive. That's what an engineer does. If it was only building, you'd be a construction worker.
There has to be some middle ground we can work towards in this Alpha.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you explain more? How do you feel it takes the commanders out of the game moreso than having marines build did?
Do you mean it takes them out of the strategic game and puts them in a more tactical position? I think it's probably too early to say how the strategic options of the Commander are going to play out -- I see a large part of that only coming into effect once we get the power grid and the DI running. If anything, I think the MACs draw the commander into the game even more, because they can't just be doing their thing and then get a report from a marine, "Ahoy, commander, I'm sitting under their hive, drop a TF pls." The commander has to be actively involved with any sneak-strategies he's trying to accomplish.
Do you mean it takes them out of the strategic game and puts them in a more tactical position? I think it's probably too early to say how the strategic options of the Commander are going to play out -- I see a large part of that only coming into effect once we get the power grid and the DI running. If anything, I think the MACs draw the commander into the game even more, because they can't just be doing their thing and then get a report from a marine, "Ahoy, commander, I'm sitting under their hive, drop a TF pls." The commander has to be actively involved with any sneak-strategies he's trying to accomplish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure thing. When I am in games it feels like the MACs just go do their thing and all the marines pretty much head off to do whatever they want. Why bother listening to a commander when you're not actively helping other than as a guard to a mindless AI? It may be that I have been in games with crappy commanders but I just feel disconnected. Guarding a MAC is like watching grass grow, I don't feel any of the tension or excitement when I get something built.
With the MACs you limit the team and commander to whatever the MAC can accomplish. It makes it very hard to push if all the aliens have to do is kill the MACs. Lets say you stablish your beach head outside the Hive. The aliens charge and you kill them all, but they killed your MACs. Now instead of replenishing your forces quickly and moving in, you have to go make sure the MAC can safely get to your base again, which means a large contingent has to go back and get it and re escort it back to the front.
I really just think it kills a portion of the strategies available by limiting the build area to where you can safely escort a MAC. NS1 was amazing because of the flexability of the strats and every time you played the map there were 3 or 4 different options. With the MACs I think that goes away for a large extent.
And give me a reason why we can't have both? If you don't want to help build then don't, but at least let us feel like we are building (reduce our ability to build quickly or give us a tech dude that only runs with a pistol...I liked clicking e.
It's more of a retainment of a key feature from NS1 than an expansion of NS2. As for excitement and appeal that is completely subjective, personally I appreciate the independence for one thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1789658:date=Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no reason for it to be in the game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already explained the reason/point for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1789658:date=Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it just makes the build robots redundant in their soul role which is what YOU just don't get.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually contrary to your assumptions I already mentioned it's redundancy in another thread about the same subject.
Apart from the positives of redundancy (eg. a RAID of hard drives in case one fails) both players and bots have their advantages and disadvantages so it's actually 2 different build options for the team.
With the bots the commander has a fairly reliable way of building whether their team is organized or not, but of course bots have various drawbacks compared to a real person. Real players naturally vary making them overall less reliable but when they want to build and coordinate with the commander they should be able to do so, I find that direct involvement more satisfying than escorting a bot.
With the MACs you limit the team and commander to whatever the MAC can accomplish. It makes it very hard to push if all the aliens have to do is kill the MACs. Lets say you stablish your beach head outside the Hive. The aliens charge and you kill them all, but they killed your MACs. Now instead of replenishing your forces quickly and moving in, you have to go make sure the MAC can safely get to your base again, which means a large contingent has to go back and get it and re escort it back to the front.
I really just think it kills a portion of the strategies available by limiting the build area to where you can safely escort a MAC. NS1 was amazing because of the flexability of the strats and every time you played the map there were 3 or 4 different options. With the MACs I think that goes away for a large extent.
And give me a reason why we can't have both? If you don't want to help build then don't, but at least let us feel like we are building (reduce our ability to build quickly or give us a tech dude that only runs with a pistol...I liked clicking e.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I'm not opposed to marines building.. although I think that marines on their own should only be able to build limited things (such as turrets)
But it sounds to me like what you're saying isn't so much that it pulls the commander out of the game as much as it pulls the marines out of the strategic game that the commander plays. I would suggest that yes, this is your commander's fault. Better lines of communication can help with that -- make sure your commander is paying attention to your squad, and if you get into a fire-fight, have him/her stop the MAC, pull it back, etc.. do what needs to be done to protect it. If the commander isn't paying attention.. well.. that suggests another commander might be useful.
However, as to why we perhaps shouldn't have both? Because your description makes it obvious that the MACs are roving chokepoints for the marines (much like drifters are for aliens). Chokepoints which they must protect unless they're going to be put at a serious disadvantage. This forces the battles into more definable fronts. Now it can be argued whether that's a good thing or not, but I believe it is part of the design philosophy of NS2 -- for the fighting to be more focused and intense. It also makes the game more compatible for esports viewing. Give marines building ability and all of the sudden that's gone. MAC didn't make it? Oh well.. I'll do it myself then. See? No chokepoint. Losing the MAC isn't such a big deal in that case, so there's less incentive to protect it.
When you think about it, what is the difference between a marine being able to build and a MAC building? You still need the commander to drop the structure. The only change is whether the commander has to be paying attention on the route there. Yeah, if the MAC dies you have to go back and escort another one. On the other hand, if you're the builder and you die, you have to sit in the respawn queue and then have to bring yourself back. Really not much has actually changed except that building has gotten slightly more difficult.. isn't that a good thing? Part of the "hard to master" bit?
And I do realize that some people prefer to be in the support roles, I'm one of them.. primarily because I'm pretty bad at the killing.. but I think support roles are going to evolve yet as well. Fixing armor, making sure the MAC is fully repaired, taking back territory via the power-grid and welding doors shut, etc.. I'm still quite hopeful that there's going to be a lot of stuff for us support oriented players to do on the marine side.. I just don't think it's in place yet.
One of the interesting things about NS1 was that even if you were a horrible shot you were still useful as a builder. Plus, there was a decent amount of planning when building so that you can avoid being shot and choices about if you will be able to finish the building versus have time to shoot the attacking Aliens.
Adding in either a build tool or the ability for Marines to aid in building gives an option to help speed things up and provides that choice. Sure MACs will be the primary builder unit and the only one to start building, but you can still power build or you can delegate one person to building while others defend and so on.
And if you think pressing 'e' is boring then don't do it. You're on defense. Let the MAC do it.
EDIT: spawned I&S topic on players building.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110709" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=110709</a>
Is it humiliating escorting a wounded partner who can't fight? Remember, the MAC doesn't have to be a dumb AI unit, and I think that's part of what we're seeing here, is commanders haven't yet realized how much of an active role they have to take in the battlefield now with making sure the MACs stay safe. When that happens, I expect the complaints about them being simple escort missions will fade.
Allowing marines to build as well does not make the MAC useless whatsoever and those who say it does are just not thinking it through correctly. The MAC is great to have for repairing/building base and I can also see it nice to have to build an RT while you guard it, however THIS IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR SMALL GAMES (something NS1 wasn't so good with). As soon there are enough marines to cover eachother it is just a nuisance to have to focus on guarding the noisy yellow thing. Not to mention an entire marine squad can instantly be rendered useless if their MAC gets taken out.
Marines <b>should</b> be capable of building. It is NOT going to make the MAC useless, and will take away from the horrible frustration of the entire marine game being based around guarding an AI unit the whole time. MACs in their current state are just way to frustrating and from general opinion it seems most agree. I fail to see marines incapable of building as a benefit in any way. It just disconnects players even more from the commander and from every game of NS2 I have played so far this is exactly the case.
Im not saying to remove the MAC/Drifter machinisims...but at the moment, the concept of building everything is 100% dependent on these things and most of the game is all about keeping them alive....
I disagree. In NS1 commanders had plenty to do. Drop structures, drop meds, drop ammo, coordinate offense and pop back to base to start up research. A good commander was never bored and played a very active role.
In NS2, on top of all of that (none of it's been removed as far as I can tell) the commander is now also responsible for babysitting MACs. If he isn't actively watching over them, then the MAC is a dumb AI unit and nothing else, and it's an escort mission. I like the idea of the MAC. I don't like the fact that it's a mandatory additional layer of complexity for the commander and nothing more.
If you could help the bot build faster, meta game would evolve to that being the standard, if im chilling next to a bot thats building something the com would yell at me to help it. So theres no way to please both crowds.
I will cry if they take out the builders.
i for one like the direction UWE is taking ns2 in with the drifters/macs. it promotes team work all around and forces the commanders to work with their foot units.
In NS2, on top of all of that (none of it's been removed as far as I can tell) the commander is now also responsible for babysitting MACs. If he isn't actively watching over them, then the MAC is a dumb AI unit and nothing else, and it's an escort mission. I like the idea of the MAC. I don't like the fact that it's a mandatory additional layer of complexity for the commander and nothing more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm.. sounds like a good reason for a marine team to consider having a second commander, hm?
Not true at all. The gorge used to be the alien builder unit while on the other hand every marine acted as a builder too. By swapping the building role of the gorge to the alien comm/drifter it frees up the gorge to build attack structures and actively be on the field defending. This is actually not so bad since the aliens where never builders to begin with and when an alien wanted to build they still had to change to the builder class.
For the marines, taking away a basic fundamental functionality from the primary unit is making marine gamepley feel dramatically different and extremely tedious. Before groups of marines could go places and build when the commander dropped them stuff. Now the marines have to clear a path for a unit to come in and do all the work for them while they sit around saying "damn I wish I could just build these structures myself". Commander/Marine interaction has been weekend because instead of directly helping the comm, they are helping the buildbots which are the comm's real helpers now.
Again, it is very frustrating having to follow an AI to accomplish ANY expansion. At least the gorge can still lame up a room etc. (which on another note is causing lag btw)
Perhaps having it work as a commander controlled builder that also acts as a toolchest for marines to link up torches or welders to? Allowing the marines the ability to grab a proximity linked(to the buildbot) blowtorch and choose to assist in the building or just defend the buildbot?
This could add a wealth of strategy to various situations and still allows the commander the ability to build by himself(though at a slower rate)
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
Give it a chance, NS2 isn't going to be NS1.
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
Give it a chance, NS2 isn't going to be NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you think would be more intense, being the guy who is trying to disarm a bomb, or someone standing back, watching and doing nothing?
I have had MANY intense moments trying to put up a TF or sieges hoping the aliens didn't notice, and what made it intense was actually DOING it, not sitting around waiting for some AI to do it for me. I also liked when you got attacked while building, you HAD to win that fight so you could continue to build it and basically that one fight could have determined the game, it adds a lot of self achievement and a sense of victory, more so then, well I held of the skulk long enough for this robot to do all the work for me. I don't know I guess I get more sense of accomplishment by doing something then watching others do it.
Or instead of adding yet another layer of complexity, we could just allow marines to build and make MACs an optional way for the commander to interact with the battlefield, if his attention isn't needed elsewhere. It keeps the increased skill ceiling for commanders and makes marines feel less like a unit in someone else's RTS.
The reason for this change is to give the commander more control of the battle, and therefore have more fun. For a lot of players, NS1s commander was just not fun.
Give it a chance, NS2 isn't going to be NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 Commanding was awesome in the beginning. Then people started becoming back-seat commanders, and it just got frustrating being mic spammed non stop for every selfish player. I think the UWE team is on the right road as far as breaking out some com decisions and adding to his ability to be self sufficient, but there should be a healthy balance of "do it yourself" and "do it for the team". Having a builder bot when nobody is willing to work together is awesome. However, I don't think it should be one or the other. It can be both.
One of the best things about NS1 was that you did not have to be an FPS god to have an awesome game. You could take a laid back support roll for your team, or be aggressive and destroy the enemy. There was something for everyone, and it allowed for a steeper learning curve without running off new players.
Exactly. If the marines aren't listening at least MACs can be sent out. If they are then allow MACs to tend to base and tag along with the squads as support and an optional builder for times when marines building isn't practical (aliens nearby etc). It isn't like MACs wouldn't be used, they just won't be what the entire marine game relies on now. They will still be a useful tool for commanders but won't cut out half of what made being a marine such a hands on experience.
Not even just that, if you really think about it, so many strategies open up if you have both MAC's and Marines building for example at the start of the game, you could either send out the marines and have MAC's build base, or power build base first with marines, saving res and getting an upgrade sooner. Or you could branch out to control the map, send a squad of marines to one RT and a MAC/marine to another rt, and which ever one survives is where you will build an rt and etc. etc. etc..