<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:13 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gameplay reasons. The two most obvious that come to my mind are what I said and what Pysko just said.
1) Finally, the best thing about NPC builders only? It gives purpose to the game and adds another layer. 2) If you let marines build everything in general, even when it's at a very slow pace, you have to balance the game around it and consider a lot more abusive situations.
Preventing marines from building encourages teamwork is many different ways. It forces a team to show their intentions, which encourages scouting and communication, it provides a clear target for the other team, which encourages hit and defense squads, and it promotes teamwork between the RTS and FPS side.
Allowing marines to build would basically destroy, or severely undermine, most of those points. Another thing I think a lot of people are missing is the fact that controlling builder units really makes someone feel like they're playing an RTS more so than dropping an inactive structure while someone else builds it. Despite many attempts there isn't a RTS/FPS hybrid out there that actually feels like you're playing an RTS. This, among other improvements in NS2, could change all of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This, Im a big fan of rts and fps games and have played both. I didn't particularly enjoy being a comm in NS1 for this very reason.
I want to stress however, that this mechanic has the POTENTIAL to inject much more RTS like strategy, things like counter attack, cutting off supply lines and push pull defending as well as what steve has mentioned about the need for scouting and coordination between attack and defense. For me this would be a very good thing.
Whether it works out like this is yet to be seen and is definitely worth testing, as reverting to marines build as well/only is a (relatively) very simple step.
<!--quoteo(post=1790289:date=Aug 1 2010, 03:30 AM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Aug 1 2010, 03:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is insufficient evidence that the metagame will suffer if marines are allowed to build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Insufficient? There's no evidence as the game isn't out yet...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seemingly redundant units can be used to devastating effect. For example, in Starcraft...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's why your comparison makes no sense; The valkyrie's AI is just as bad as the dragoons, discouraging their use, and they were only occasionally used after muta-stacking (a bug/exploit discovered 6 years after the game's release) became popular. That analogy is not comparable in anyway as we're talking about a basic gameplay feature.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see no reason why MAC-only building would increase the depth of strategy more than allowing both marines and MACs to build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I explained why. Imagine there were only two buildings in an RTS game. One produced all ground units (workers and combat units) and the other produced all air. Scouting would be pointless, right? Knowing they have those buildings doesn't provide you with useful information as you don't know what they intend to do with them. Now let's put that into NS2. Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway, sees a marine, gets killed. In NS1 they would think nothing of it and wait to respawn. In NS2, imagine that same scenario but the marine is with two MACs. You now know they may be expanding (resource or forward base) and you report useful information to your team.
You and your team now have a purpose - go kill the MAC. Or maybe the Terran commander decided use that marine and those MACs as diversions drawing the aliens away from a far away hive as his marines attack it. That's one small example of increased depth of strategy just because MAC's are the only builders. There's plenty more but I hate typing out little scenarios that should be obvious to people who use words like 'metagame' and make obscure starcraft references.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to your second argument, I see no reason why allowing marines to build will slow the pace of the game. It allows and promotes riskier play; I dunno about you but I consider standing around defending MACs as a turtling strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misread Psyko after I quoted him. He said even if you allowed the marines to build at a slower pace than the MAC you must balance around so many different factors. He didn't say it would slow the pace down.
<!--quoteo(post=1790272:date=Aug 1 2010, 04:31 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 04:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The above quote is a baseless assumption that disregards the vast majority of the public's NS1 experience. It does sound really good though.
What is the typical communication you usually saw in pubs between commanders and marines?
"Hey guys, need this node a PSJ built." 2 minutes later: "Still no one at PSJ... someone?" "Commander; I've been waiting in base for 45 seconds where is my god damn HMG!?!" "Guys, someone has to stay behind to build the node - you can't all move forward." and if you're lucky and actually get someone to build it's likely a rambo skulk is going to kill them.
This kind of communication that you seem to value so much isn't some pinnacle of teamplay that we should try to be preserving. By allowing each side to do the most basic and fundamental tasks assigned to their RTS/FPS roles you actually open up communication to allow people to talk about things that matter like general strategy or attack plans and both side can have fun while doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More communication within a team leads to better cohesion and a better chance at victory. No-one would dispute that. It's true that sometimes in pub games in NS1 (and I played since 1.0) communication was lacking. However I must disagree that the typical communcation was none; most of the games I played in that went for more than 3 minutes (due to griefing or some crazy rush) had fair communication. This is of course entirely subjective; my experience obviously differed to yours so this is a baseless point to argue. Yet given that more communication and co-ordination is a good thing, how can we promote it? Certainly NOT by giving the two elements of the team LESS reason to communicate.
People play games to have fun. For the average gamer does any of that sound fun to you? From spending years in pubs across various games I can tell you that teamplay is rare and not to be expected no matter how easy the developer's make it. Requiring a game to force teamplay upon everyone, with the alternative "leading to disaster," is not the way you build a fun game for the public. Teamwork is good but forcing teamwork for the most basic aspects only leads to frustration and each side playing half of their respective genre.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it does sound like a lot of fun, and a quick look at other popular current FPS games would seem to indicate that players in fact quite enjoy games where teamwork is a nessessity. Team Fortress 2 has 9 distinct classes all of which compliment each other in different ways; major pushes require Medics, forward bases and rapid re-enforcements require engineers, Pyros to counter ubers, Demos to break Sentry nests and so on and so on. Bad Company 2 has 4 classes each of which have different roles which require the team to work together. The Left 4 Dead series features two wildly different sides and is even harsher on a lack of teamwork, usually resulting in failure for any team that does not work together. Looking outside the FPS genre, a quick look at World of Warcraft, one of the most popular games of all time, shows players being forced to work as a team to access most of the game's content. They don't seem to have a problem with this.
These games all require a moderate degree of teamwork at the very least, and all are very popular. The average gamer it would seem quite likes the idea of having to work together.
Marines will still need RT's for their personal income. Granted, last we heard res for kills was in NS2 however unless you're a top tier player you're not going to be getting enough kills to sustain the equipment you want. You will need those RTs and you will need to work with your commander. Oh hey look, <i>meaningful</i> teamwork. NS1 required a lot of teamwork but it required it in the wrong places. UWE is doing a great job of restructuring the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if Marines still need RTs for their personal income, what on earth is wrong with them being able to build them?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now you're just making things up and jumping to conclusions. The commander has all the tools at his disposal to win a game? Show me the commander controlled marine. By the way, it <i>is</i> the role of the marines to kill stuff and it <i>is</i> the role of the commander to build stuff. Do you know how I know this? Because the marines are playing a First Person Shooter and not a First Person Builder. Furthermore, there's even more teamplay based features such as the power grid which is going to encourage communication between the genres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Marines (and the Commander) are playing a hybrid FPS-RTS. That's what made NS1 such a unique game and why UWE is able to maintain an active and supportive community 8 years after the original game. The Commander cannot win the game all by himself, and you'll note that I didn't say he could. I said that the two sides now have the tools to play completely independantly, and they do. The Marines can all upgrade themselves without ever once speaking or typing a word to their commander and the commander can build his entire base without ever communicating with his marines. There is less and less need for the two elements to work together which is going to demote communication development, not promote it. You bemoan the lack of communication in NS1, and yet you praise a development in NS2 that will only decrease communication?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, the best thing about NPC builders only? It gives purpose to the game and adds another layer. Suddenly teamwork is about scouting their worker, protecting yours, attacking theirs, setting up defense points. This is teamwork based around combat and strategy rather than holding "E" after asking someone to build something for 15 seconds. When the game gives purpose to certain things, like a room or a unit such as a MAC, it encourages teamplay naturally.
It's a good thing people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say this gives another layer to the game, but it achieves this at the cost of cutting another layer out. The adrenaline pumping tension as you tried desperately to get that phase gate or turret factory online whilst the clicking skulk sounds closed in is something we've lost, and I think that's a very bad thing. Replacing it with escort missions, which as I've stated, have almost universal hatred amongst gamers, is even worse. How many pushes are going to be stopped thanks to the MAC or Drifter being taken out, forcing the whole squad to trudge back to base to escort yet another defenseless drone back to the front lines? Does that sound like fun to you?
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
edited August 2010
I completely understand your point and where you are coming from. When I first played ns, I loved that mix of building and fighting. Nowadays I don't care for building, unless it's a phasegate and you are right when you describe this tense moment of getting one up as very entertaining.
You are still completely ignoring shad3r's point about escort missions maybe not being necessary though.
Also pushes won't be stopped, because you don't need drifters/macs to attack an enemy location. If escort missions trouble you, you should question the mobile siege concept, not the builder concept.
After you take over a tech point, the commander sends a builder to expand. That's the moment, where a ninja can ambush that builder, but this isn't as easy as it sounds considering the map size and that there aren't vents near marine spawn. The enemy also lost it's nearby spawning point and a lot of players are just respawning farther away after failing to defend the location. If the builder dies, it is more frustrating for the commander, not the marines. If a team pushes an enemy node deep in their territory, it doesn't want to build it, the damage done is already enough.
As I said previously, UWE seems to have no solution to get rid of all the exploits and downsides of the ns1 gameplay, while maintaining all the freedom you had, so they took another approach for the ns2 gameplay and at the moment no one can really tell, how it's going to work out.
I've replied to most points you're trying to make and it's this time in internet arguments where everything becomes circular and and people just restate what they said the last 5 times while ignoring the points of the other person. I'll reply to whatever new topics you've brought up while trying to sneak in as many one liners as possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1790301:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 1 2010, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually it does sound like a lot of fun, and a quick look at other popular current FPS games would seem to indicate that players in fact quite enjoy games where teamwork is a nessessity. Team Fortress 2 ...Bad Company 2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, teamwork is not a necessity in either of these games. It's encouraged but not required. Second, in these two games my team can suck and I will have fun because a player's personal level of enjoyment isn't directly related to how well their pub team works together. Sure, me spamming "need a health pack" on an assault class in BC2 only to have him walk away is annoying but it doesn't compare to not being able to use the gun I want because some other guy doesn't want to drop it for me. I never said "throw teamwork out." I said "remove 'teamwork' for the most basic and fundamental tasks related to each genre." Having someone else determine how you are going to play (a commander choosing weapons for a marine) or feeling completely helpless (begging marines to build RT's) can't be compared to generic teamplay based around classes. Knight & Day; Cruise and Diaz.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many pushes are going to be stopped thanks to the MAC or Drifter being taken out, forcing the whole squad to trudge back to base to escort yet another defenseless drone back to the front lines? Does that sound like fun to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would only be an issue when a team is trying to expand, but aside from that, it sounds like a layer of strategy to me and I find that fun. If the marines are able to take out the drifters in a battle, if the commander was too stupid to hide them, didn't build enough, etc. these should be major factors in the game. If battles amount to something more than "kill that marine" I'd be thrilled. If a team consistently snipped MACs/Drifters they could lose most battles but still win the war. What's that? Strategy in my so called RT<b><u>S</u></b>FPS game? How dare they...
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 10:52 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 10:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, teamwork is not a necessity in either of these games. It's encouraged but not required.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is why marines (on top of MACs) should be able to build. It sets the stage for exactly that.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best thing about NPC builders only? It gives purpose to the game and adds another layer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Purpose to the game? What does that vague point mean? Introducing bots that can build was adding a layer but taking away players ability to build was removing one at the same time.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) If you let marines build everything in general, even when it's at a very slow pace, you have to balance the game around it and consider a lot more abusive situations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everything needs to be balanced and considered. Allowing the marines to build is something extensively playtested in NS1 and wouldn't be difficult to implement to NS2 as it stands.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Preventing marines from building encourages teamwork is many different ways. it promotes teamwork between the RTS and FPS side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not encouraged to work more closely with my commander if all I can do is 'escort' bots and shoot stuff now. Having the ability to build something for the commander myself makes me a far more useful asset to the team and makes me feel more involved personally.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It forces a team to show their intentions, which encourages scouting and communication, it provides a clear target for the other team, which encourages hit and defense squads<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't force a team to show their intentions, you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions. If a player was building somewhere it wouldn't be hard to figure out as there's only certain places bases and RTs can be built.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->controlling builder units really makes someone feel like they're playing an RTS more so than dropping an inactive structure while someone else builds it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could still use bots if you wanted to, or players or both.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've replied to most points you're trying to make and it's this time in internet arguments where everything becomes circular and and people just restate what they said the last 5 times while ignoring the points of the other person. I'll reply to whatever new topics you've brought up while trying to sneak in as many one liners as possible.
First, teamwork is not a necessity in either of these games. It's encouraged but not required.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This really depends on the map.... in team fortress 2 at least you generally need a mixture of teamwork to make any noticable impact otherwise the vast majority of your work will simply be undone by someone backing up the person you are killing. If you have backup yourself then that is when the battles get interesting. <!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second, in these two games my team can suck and I will have fun because a player's personal level of enjoyment isn't directly related to how well their pub team works together. Sure, me spamming "need a health pack" on an assault class in BC2 only to have him walk away is annoying but it doesn't compare to not being able to use the gun I want because some other guy doesn't want to drop it for me. I never said "throw teamwork out." I said "remove 'teamwork' for the most basic and fundamental tasks related to each genre." Having someone else determine how you are going to play (a commander choosing weapons for a marine) or feeling completely helpless (begging marines to build RT's) can't be compared to generic teamplay based around classes. Knight & Day; Cruise and Diaz.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone not dropping a health pack just comes down to player ignorance which can be a combinations of many many factors. Your gameplay does not depend on the other class dropping health packs, sure it helps you, but that is an aspect of teamwork. If you can simply recover health by standing still for a moment, then you will need to die easily otherwise it won't be balanced. In the Alpha i already see that the commander can drop health packs, i assume the welder gun is going to come in and retain an NS1 feature of repairing heavy armor/other things.... If begging someone to drop a weapon for you doesn't appeal to you.... then I guess the whole tech level concept is something you want to do away with too, since the commander still needs to upgrade the tech to enable to weapon..... If a marine can assist a commander in building a building, instead of watching the commander place and send an MCU to make it, then you are encouraging more teamwork instead of the commander being in his own bubble. I am probably not making my point clear so I will try to articulate my thoughts over the next couple of replies a bit better.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This would only be an issue when a team is trying to expand, but aside from that, it sounds like a layer of strategy to me and I find that fun. If the marines are able to take out the drifters in a battle, if the commander was too stupid to hide them, didn't build enough, etc. these should be major factors in the game. If battles amount to something more than "kill that marine" I'd be thrilled. If a team consistently snipped MACs/Drifters they could lose most battles but still win the war. What's that? Strategy in my so called RT<b><u>S</u></b>FPS game? How dare they...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may sound fun.... but are you one the rare minority that enjoy the escort missions? I have quite quite a few games simply because of an escort mission. If the enemy can simply snipe your building unit and halt all progress, this will become a common tactic and if thats the kind of gameplay we're going for here, the always escorting some random unit somewhere and only shooting aliens....?
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Curious; people here are complaining about escort missions for MACs. How come people didn't say this when siege tanks became mobile?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe because they aren't implemented into alpha yet, this no building this is something that would be easy to include in alpha if they wanted it as a game feature, the lack of it suggests.... we need discussions around it atleast.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you haven't played team fortress 2... to upgrade your building as an engineer you have to actually go out and seek ammo and such for it. It adds a nice layer to the game... I don't know about you but after having to "escort" an MCU to a remote point and have it suicide-killed and having to do it all again... will be tedious after 2-3 times and isn't a good game mechanic.
If there was a way for the marines to build without completely undermining all of the positives of the MAC/Drifter I would be all for it but I don't think there is, much like how I don't think it's possible to have two commanders both being productive. I actually just thought of this but if allowing marines to construct was a researchable ability somewhat far down a tech tree that might work out. That's really the only possible working alternative I can think of as MACs/Drifters in the early (and even mid) game are too great a concept to toss away because Marines are too lazy to guard them even on smaller more streamlined maps. I mean honestly, what else are you people going to be doing?
@Snazz
Adding "purpose" to the game is vague so I'll clear that up. What sets Classic aside from Combat? In Classic there are things to do other than kill the enemy. Adding commander builders and only letting them build adds another thing to do other than just kill that marine in some hallway. It allows for more strategy, which you point out in the following quote "you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions."
It's funny how people are so unwilling to consider change and how nostalgia affects what you remember. I would have never guessed there was a secret society of people who love to sit around and build things to feel like they're part of a team. Where were you in NS1's prime? I could have had you go hold down your "E" key at so many different places.
I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.
@ ptfff
It's cool man, other people have made those points and I've made my rebuttals to them. Not much more to say about this as everything is starting to go in circles. We'll see what UWE decides to do.
Curious; people here are complaining about escort missions for MACs. How come people didn't say this when siege tanks became mobile?
Do some off the NS1 player still remember the maps (siege maps) where the door between aliens and marines was locked for 5 minutes. I guess we can forget about those once, or are we going to wait 5 minutes while doing nothing.
Two commanders would be a no-no. One commander is saving resources to do an upgrade while the other one uses it on something.
If there was a way for the marines to build without completely undermining all of the positives of the MAC/Drifter I would be all for it but I don't think there is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then we are at an impasse. I hate the idea of having to escort the AI units, you love it?
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
Did you hate the idea to escort the gorge in 1.04 ? Or protect gorges in general? You probably don't always have to escort builders and since its controlled by the commander there you have your interaction between commander and marines since you basicly cover the commander building stuff. You are still contributing to creating building, you just don't hold a button.
<!--quoteo(post=1789527:date=Jul 31 2010, 01:10 AM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 31 2010, 01:10 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Err. In this case, you can. The crowd you can't please is the one that doesn't want MACs in at all. And that's not the crowd he's a part of.
I've read through this topic and it also dishearten's me to see marine buildings going. Perhaps if the welder allowed marines to build then anyone who wished to build would be able to spend his personal res and do so?
Adding "purpose" to the game is vague so I'll clear that up. What sets Classic aside from Combat? In Classic there are things to do other than kill the enemy. Adding commander builders and only letting them build adds another thing to do other than just kill that marine in some hallway. It allows for more strategy, which you point out in the following quote "you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that bots add a new element to the game, but I disagree that the element of player's building should of been removed. I don't believe it is necessary to sacrifice one for the other. That strategy of diversion can be maintained with both build options.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's funny how people are so unwilling to consider change<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not unwilling to consider change. I've considered this change and I don't like it, I also disagree with the arguments supporting it. It's like cutting someones right arm off then telling them they should use their left arm instead, then saying they just don't like change if they complain about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and how nostalgia affects what you remember.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? Are you implying our memory of NS1 is impaired? The mod is still around and I've played it recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would have never guessed there was a secret society of people who love to sit around and build things to feel like they're part of a team. Where were you in NS1's prime? I could have had you go hold down your "E" key at so many different places. I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No we're not a 'secret society' we're just other gamers who appreciate different things to you. Perhaps if you had more respect for people with different preferences you might understand why we believe having an option is best for 'both crowds.'
<!--quoteo(post=1789527:date=Jul 30 2010, 01:10 PM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 30 2010, 01:10 PM) <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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, they can both be pleased.
Implement an option where you can play maps in NS1 style.
<!--quoteo(post=1790329:date=Aug 1 2010, 01:30 PM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pSyk0mAn @ Aug 1 2010, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did you hate the idea to escort the gorge in 1.04 ? Or protect gorges in general?
You probably don't always have to escort builders and since its controlled by the commander there you have your interaction between commander and marines since you basically cover the commander building stuff. You are still contributing to creating building, you just don't hold a button.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gorges were players, so they didn't need much escorting (what with being smart enough to run away/call for help if they heard marines). Builders may not be in need of protecting ALL the time, but that's how it was in NS1 too. Don't really think it affects the discussion at hand.
Protecting the bot while it builds is nowhere near as exciting as protecting a fellow player, partly because it's a human being, partly because he has firepower you really want to keep around, what with 2 marines being better at staying alive than 1. Firepower that is temporarily disabled while he builds, making the feeling all the more urgent as he basically puts his life in your hands. A bot dying is nowhere near as dramatic as a player dying.
(Plus if the bot had been a player he might not have died, since he could have noticed the approaching click-click-click and quit building, or been sufficiently skilled to jump away from the attacker.)
And of course, if you're going at it alone, all the more exciting when you are completely defenceless for a few seconds...
As for contributing... that's not really the point. I'm helping the team either way, yeah, but it's the more immediate surroundings sort of teamwork that I want. Not sure how to phrase it.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1790340:date=Aug 1 2010, 03:39 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Aug 1 2010, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gorges were players, so they didn't need much escorting (what with being smart enough to run away/call for help if they heard marines).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what people don't seem to realize in this thread. While the builder unit has AI-pathfinding, the commander still controls it. The commander has to be smart and present, retreating when necessary and communicating for support on the field. So the builder IS a human player, just not using the keyboard but point&click to move. That's also the point people made about feeling more like an RTS to the commander (crazy micromanagement of units).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for contributing... that's not really the point. I'm helping the team either way, yeah, but it's the more immediate surroundings sort of teamwork that I want. Not sure how to phrase it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I get what you mean and that's the only point I understand and really have no counter-argument for except "ns2 gameplay is different than ns1 gameplay" (which is silly at this point). The lack of phasegates, siege-tfs and that tension you feel when building something (alone) with potential enemies around will barely be present in ns2, but it still can be replaced by something else creating a similar mood, we won't know much about until you can really feel the game later on in the alpha/beta stage. But with the lack of phasegates and stationary sieges and less res nodes I'm not sure, if you could recreate that feeling even with marines being able to build.
For example DI-tunnels and the squad spawning system might be handled similar to building a phasegate in enemy territory. The squadleader has to use something or is not able to shoot/move while phasing in former marines of his squad that died. Sounds quite similar to the mood in ns1 you described.
I would really rather the marines did not have the option of building things themselves, as a marine I have no desire to have to sit there and build something because the commander doesn't want to send a robot to do it for me. Building things is not fun, so don't make it a possibility that players will be expected to build things.
<!--quoteo(post=1790349:date=Aug 1 2010, 10:27 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 1 2010, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790349"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would really rather the marines did not have the option of building things themselves, as a marine I have no desire to have to sit there and build something because the commander doesn't want to send a robot to do it for me. Building things is not fun, so don't make it a possibility that players will be expected to build things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1790349:date=Aug 2 2010, 12:27 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 2 2010, 12:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790349"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would really rather the marines did not have the option of building things themselves, as a marine I have no desire to have to sit there and build something because the commander doesn't want to send a robot to do it for me. Building things is not fun, so don't make it a possibility that players will be expected to build things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't have to build if you don't want to (that's what 'option' means), nor are you dictated by other people's expectations.
'Fun' is completely subjective, obviously we found building fun or else we wouldn't be discussing this.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
The problem is, if you have the option to build, the game will be balanced around it and thus it might be the commander's strategy to have the whole team build the expansion cc to get it up a lot faster. When marines build a lot slower, it's boring, when they build slightly slower, they can power up buildings in no time causing imbalance. This also scales with amount of players which causes further problems with balanced build times.
<!--quoteo(post=1790354:date=Aug 1 2010, 03:44 PM:name=Snazz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Snazz @ Aug 1 2010, 03:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790354"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't have to build if you don't want to (that's what 'option' means), nor are you dictated by other people's expectations.
'Fun' is completely subjective, obviously we found building fun or else we wouldn't be discussing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but if the comm tells me to do something I am not a very good marine if I say 'no I don't want to go away and leave me alone'. If the commander has sent me there to build something and I then say 'I don't feel like it' he is likely to be very annoyed and quite possibly the entire game could collapse because of it. So I really don't have the option, do I?
Far better to change the game so the situation never comes up.
Also I find it extremely hard to imagine that you enjoyed staring at a building holding the E button. I don't find it hard to imagine however that you enjoyed having to stay at a vulnerable area that the aliens are likely to check out while doing something which alerts nearby aliens to your presence, essentially putting pressure and probability of an encounter on you.
The latter does not require the former, you can have the 'I must protect this dangerous location' mechanic without the e building mechanic, in fact you can have it a lot better because you get to focus on protecting the place rather than holding E and staring at a blurry resource tower, and the aliens can recieve empowerments to help them combat your more alert state, making it in general, more fun for both sides.
The e building is a poor mechanic, what it achieves can be achieved better in other ways, with fewer/no ill effects, therefore it should be changed.
The disunity some people have been talking about will be most prevalent when both marines and MACs can build.
In the NS1 system the commander needs the marines to build his stuff. He is depending entirely on them. Forcing him to adapt to what his team is doing.
In the NS2 system the commander needs the marines to scout secure routes or escort the MACs so he can build. Just sending them out to random RT locations will usually result in them being destroyed.
In a hybrid system the commander can choose whichever is more convenient at any given moment. That requires less communication and teamwork. Contrary to popular belief making things easier or more convenient will not necessarily result in a better game. Having more options can lead to worse results. This is counter-intuitive, I know, but that's what game theory has shown to be correct.
<!--quoteo(post=1790272:date=Aug 1 2010, 01:31 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 01:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is true, which is why the RTS aspect in NS1 was <i>horrible.</i> I could go into why <b>but to an actual RTS player</b> NS1's RTS shortcomings should be blatant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Arrogant much? I've played RTS's from Dune to tiny indie games like Knights of Honor, not just average popular games like SC/DoW. Am I an actual RTS player?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The above quote is a baseless assumption that disregards <b>the vast majority of the public's NS1 experience</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please, inform us more of what the vast majority think. It's clear you've interviewed each one individually and hold all the answers, oh godly one.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1...Marines needed the commander to drop them...pretty much everything. The commander...needed Marines to build his structures and carry out his strategy. In effect, the system forced the Marine team to co-ordinate at every level, creating a synergy that if broken usually lead to disaster. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People play games to have fun. For the average gamer does any of that sound fun to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unknown Worlds would not exist is the average game didn't find NS1 fun. It's why they all preordered.
When they took all that stuff out (Combat mode) the player base began to drop. Only some of it was natural because of the mod's age.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway, sees a marine, gets killed. In NS1 they would think nothing of it and wait to respawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't think of one time where this would ever happen. If that hallway was near a hive you'd inform the team "inc X hive". And I only play on pub servers.
Communication in general did diminish a fair amount after 1.04, mostly because the pace of the game increased which was proven to be a bad choice. Organised raids on double res nodes stopped because of the new res system, etc.
Anyway, the best thing about NS2 will be LUA. The community will create the game they want. We'll have to wait and see what that is, but I'm betting it'll be closer to 1.04.
Having only the build bot beeing able to weld doors/build stuff takes more away from the game than it adds...
Let's face it: It may be as simple as an task as "just pressing E" it added way more than just that. It's giving the players options, if you sucked at shooting stuff in NS1 you would allways have the option to be the builder guy or welder support, this option is now gone with the MAC taking those roles.
This basicly removes more player interaction in the game than it adds and tbh that's seldom a good thing in an FPS game...
It also had an impact on pacing of the game, players are set in different situations if they either build in base, weld something to open an alternate route or build something outside of marine controlled territory on their own. All these things not only added a different pacing to the game depending on what you are doing they also gave you the impression of doing different things than just shooting at stuff.
If i want to play a game where i'm only shooting at stuff i could play any deathmatch game, that's the big deal here. Taking away options from players dumbs down the overall experience. If you just want to shoot stuff that's fine, you can allready do that in NS1 and leave the building/welding to other players. But forcing everybody in the role of "just shooting" just kills gameplay diversity, it turns the game into big deathmatch where you don't take any active role in the RTS mechanics, you are just a spectator for the RTS mechanics without even getting the feeling of taking part in them.
To give an better example: Imagine they would remove bombs/hostages from counter strike.. it's a task where people just press "e" yet it adds way more to the game than just that. Or to give an even better example: It's combat mode... yes that's what it is... you buy your weapons yourself, you don't build anything , you run around and shoot at stuff. NS2 is more NS1 co_ than it is ns_....
I would ###### LOVE to weld doors shut myself with aliens behind it while a teammate covers me, it puts you in a vulnerable situation where you have to depend on your teammates. Stuff like this builds tension...
So what can be done to give the MAC an purpose without removing these options for players? Make the MAC only function in rooms that are connected to the power grid network of the marines (once that feature is implemented of course). That way the MAC can function as base maintanence and still build base structures when nobody else is around (like the infamous arms lab/obs that's sitting unbuild in the base while everybody is away or just ignores it to use an NS1 example).
But for expanding marine territory, marines would still be required as the MAC just wouldn't work outside of marine controlled territory. Maybe make it so that structures build by marines are a tad unfinished, they would basicly work but have fewer HP and would require a MAC to finish it boosting the buildings HP so the commander still has micro to do with each building.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To give an better example: Imagine they would remove bombs/hostages from counter strike.. it's a task where people just press "e" yet it adds way more to the game than just that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coincidentally this is exactly what you propose. Remove the hostages and replace them with players.
<!--quoteo(post=1790365:date=Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Coincidentally this is exactly what you propose. Remove the hostages and replace them with players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it's not exactly what i propose, maybe read my complete post? They are changing a existing game mechanic that worked well with something that removes player interaction..
<!--quoteo(post=1790366:date=Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Er, I think marines still get welders, welding is a largely combat mechanic where the marine's agility would make it desirable.
Also with the option to buy your own shotguns and flamethrowers, people who can't shoot straight will have alternatives in combat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because somebody has now a shotgun doesn't mean he will now automaticly kill stuff, still requires aiming. And yes give the guy who has a hard time aiming an AoE ranged weapon in a game where friendly fire is enabled by default, that sure sounds like fun :D
And those are not alternatives, they are also just "combat" that's like saying "you don't like just beeing able to shoot stuff? You want to do more? Pull out your knife and stab them!".
It's kinda funny how some people here make "marines beeing able to build" something so drastic new that it could never work when actually it worked for NS1 and had been one of the things that made the game work. We are not discussing adding laser dolphins here, we are discussing adding a mechanic that has allready worked for years in NS1 here.
while I also miss marine building; I do believe that it will be implemented in future releases, maybe with some sort of restrictions, but I bet it will be there.
We have to be open to change! This is NS<b>2</b> and not just a graphics update for NS1. Although I also miss bunny hopping, and wish gorges still had the ability to build res towers and such, I have accepted these changes.
UWE have stated that the core gameplay will be there.; which to me is marines vs aliens, one team overwhelmes the other and you win.
I'd say it too early to make any assumptions at all, but having a healthy discussion is always good :D UWE will listen to our suggestions ;)
Comments
1) Finally, the best thing about NPC builders only? It gives purpose to the game and adds another layer.
2) If you let marines build everything in general, even when it's at a very slow pace, you have to balance the game around it and consider a lot more abusive situations.
Preventing marines from building encourages teamwork is many different ways. It forces a team to show their intentions, which encourages scouting and communication, it provides a clear target for the other team, which encourages hit and defense squads, and it promotes teamwork between the RTS and FPS side.
Allowing marines to build would basically destroy, or severely undermine, most of those points. Another thing I think a lot of people are missing is the fact that controlling builder units really makes someone feel like they're playing an RTS more so than dropping an inactive structure while someone else builds it. Despite many attempts there isn't a RTS/FPS hybrid out there that actually feels like you're playing an RTS. This, among other improvements in NS2, could change all of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This, Im a big fan of rts and fps games and have played both. I didn't particularly enjoy being a comm in NS1 for this very reason.
I want to stress however, that this mechanic has the POTENTIAL to inject much more RTS like strategy, things like counter attack, cutting off supply lines and push pull defending as well as what steve has mentioned about the need for scouting and coordination between attack and defense. For me this would be a very good thing.
Whether it works out like this is yet to be seen and is definitely worth testing, as reverting to marines build as well/only is a (relatively) very simple step.
Insufficient? There's no evidence as the game isn't out yet...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seemingly redundant units can be used to devastating effect. For example, in Starcraft...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's why your comparison makes no sense; The valkyrie's AI is just as bad as the dragoons, discouraging their use, and they were only occasionally used after muta-stacking (a bug/exploit discovered 6 years after the game's release) became popular. That analogy is not comparable in anyway as we're talking about a basic gameplay feature.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see no reason why MAC-only building would increase the depth of strategy more than allowing both marines and MACs to build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I explained why. Imagine there were only two buildings in an RTS game. One produced all ground units (workers and combat units) and the other produced all air. Scouting would be pointless, right? Knowing they have those buildings doesn't provide you with useful information as you don't know what they intend to do with them. Now let's put that into NS2. Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway, sees a marine, gets killed. In NS1 they would think nothing of it and wait to respawn. In NS2, imagine that same scenario but the marine is with two MACs. You now know they may be expanding (resource or forward base) and you report useful information to your team.
You and your team now have a purpose - go kill the MAC. Or maybe the Terran commander decided use that marine and those MACs as diversions drawing the aliens away from a far away hive as his marines attack it. That's one small example of increased depth of strategy just because MAC's are the only builders. There's plenty more but I hate typing out little scenarios that should be obvious to people who use words like 'metagame' and make obscure starcraft references.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to your second argument, I see no reason why allowing marines to build will slow the pace of the game. It allows and promotes riskier play; I dunno about you but I consider standing around defending MACs as a turtling strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misread Psyko after I quoted him. He said even if you allowed the marines to build at a slower pace than the MAC you must balance around so many different factors. He didn't say it would slow the pace down.
What is the typical communication you usually saw in pubs between commanders and marines?
"Hey guys, need this node a PSJ built." 2 minutes later: "Still no one at PSJ... someone?"
"Commander; I've been waiting in base for 45 seconds where is my god damn HMG!?!"
"Guys, someone has to stay behind to build the node - you can't all move forward." and if you're lucky and actually get someone to build it's likely a rambo skulk is going to kill them.
This kind of communication that you seem to value so much isn't some pinnacle of teamplay that we should try to be preserving. By allowing each side to do the most basic and fundamental tasks assigned to their RTS/FPS roles you actually open up communication to allow people to talk about things that matter like general strategy or attack plans and both side can have fun while doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More communication within a team leads to better cohesion and a better chance at victory. No-one would dispute that. It's true that sometimes in pub games in NS1 (and I played since 1.0) communication was lacking. However I must disagree that the typical communcation was none; most of the games I played in that went for more than 3 minutes (due to griefing or some crazy rush) had fair communication. This is of course entirely subjective; my experience obviously differed to yours so this is a baseless point to argue. Yet given that more communication and co-ordination is a good thing, how can we promote it? Certainly NOT by giving the two elements of the team LESS reason to communicate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1)
People play games to have fun. For the average gamer does any of that sound fun to you? From spending years in pubs across various games I can tell you that teamplay is rare and not to be expected no matter how easy the developer's make it. Requiring a game to force teamplay upon everyone, with the alternative "leading to disaster," is not the way you build a fun game for the public. Teamwork is good but forcing teamwork for the most basic aspects only leads to frustration and each side playing half of their respective genre.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it does sound like a lot of fun, and a quick look at other popular current FPS games would seem to indicate that players in fact quite enjoy games where teamwork is a nessessity. Team Fortress 2 has 9 distinct classes all of which compliment each other in different ways; major pushes require Medics, forward bases and rapid re-enforcements require engineers, Pyros to counter ubers, Demos to break Sentry nests and so on and so on. Bad Company 2 has 4 classes each of which have different roles which require the team to work together. The Left 4 Dead series features two wildly different sides and is even harsher on a lack of teamwork, usually resulting in failure for any team that does not work together. Looking outside the FPS genre, a quick look at World of Warcraft, one of the most popular games of all time, shows players being forced to work as a team to access most of the game's content. They don't seem to have a problem with this.
These games all require a moderate degree of teamwork at the very least, and all are very popular. The average gamer it would seem quite likes the idea of having to work together.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2)
Marines will still need RT's for their personal income. Granted, last we heard res for kills was in NS2 however unless you're a top tier player you're not going to be getting enough kills to sustain the equipment you want. You will need those RTs and you will need to work with your commander. Oh hey look, <i>meaningful</i> teamwork. NS1 required a lot of teamwork but it required it in the wrong places. UWE is doing a great job of restructuring the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if Marines still need RTs for their personal income, what on earth is wrong with them being able to build them?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now you're just making things up and jumping to conclusions. The commander has all the tools at his disposal to win a game? Show me the commander controlled marine. By the way, it <i>is</i> the role of the marines to kill stuff and it <i>is</i> the role of the commander to build stuff. Do you know how I know this? Because the marines are playing a First Person Shooter and not a First Person Builder. Furthermore, there's even more teamplay based features such as the power grid which is going to encourage communication between the genres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Marines (and the Commander) are playing a hybrid FPS-RTS. That's what made NS1 such a unique game and why UWE is able to maintain an active and supportive community 8 years after the original game. The Commander cannot win the game all by himself, and you'll note that I didn't say he could. I said that the two sides now have the tools to play completely independantly, and they do. The Marines can all upgrade themselves without ever once speaking or typing a word to their commander and the commander can build his entire base without ever communicating with his marines. There is less and less need for the two elements to work together which is going to demote communication development, not promote it. You bemoan the lack of communication in NS1, and yet you praise a development in NS2 that will only decrease communication?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, the best thing about NPC builders only? It gives purpose to the game and adds another layer. Suddenly teamwork is about scouting their worker, protecting yours, attacking theirs, setting up defense points. This is teamwork based around combat and strategy rather than holding "E" after asking someone to build something for 15 seconds. When the game gives purpose to certain things, like a room or a unit such as a MAC, it encourages teamplay naturally.
It's a good thing people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say this gives another layer to the game, but it achieves this at the cost of cutting another layer out. The adrenaline pumping tension as you tried desperately to get that phase gate or turret factory online whilst the clicking skulk sounds closed in is something we've lost, and I think that's a very bad thing. Replacing it with escort missions, which as I've stated, have almost universal hatred amongst gamers, is even worse. How many pushes are going to be stopped thanks to the MAC or Drifter being taken out, forcing the whole squad to trudge back to base to escort yet another defenseless drone back to the front lines? Does that sound like fun to you?
You are still completely ignoring shad3r's point about escort missions maybe not being necessary though.
Also pushes won't be stopped, because you don't need drifters/macs to attack an enemy location.
If escort missions trouble you, you should question the mobile siege concept, not the builder concept.
After you take over a tech point, the commander sends a builder to expand. That's the moment, where a ninja can ambush that builder, but this isn't as easy as it sounds considering the map size and that there aren't vents near marine spawn. The enemy also lost it's nearby spawning point and a lot of players are just respawning farther away after failing to defend the location.
If the builder dies, it is more frustrating for the commander, not the marines.
If a team pushes an enemy node deep in their territory, it doesn't want to build it, the damage done is already enough.
As I said previously, UWE seems to have no solution to get rid of all the exploits and downsides of the ns1 gameplay, while maintaining all the freedom you had, so they took another approach for the ns2 gameplay and at the moment no one can really tell, how it's going to work out.
<!--quoteo(post=1790301:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 1 2010, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually it does sound like a lot of fun, and a quick look at other popular current FPS games would seem to indicate that players in fact quite enjoy games where teamwork is a nessessity. Team Fortress 2 ...Bad Company 2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, teamwork is not a necessity in either of these games. It's encouraged but not required. Second, in these two games my team can suck and I will have fun because a player's personal level of enjoyment isn't directly related to how well their pub team works together. Sure, me spamming "need a health pack" on an assault class in BC2 only to have him walk away is annoying but it doesn't compare to not being able to use the gun I want because some other guy doesn't want to drop it for me. I never said "throw teamwork out." I said "remove 'teamwork' for the most basic and fundamental tasks related to each genre." Having someone else determine how you are going to play (a commander choosing weapons for a marine) or feeling completely helpless (begging marines to build RT's) can't be compared to generic teamplay based around classes. Knight & Day; Cruise and Diaz.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many pushes are going to be stopped thanks to the MAC or Drifter being taken out, forcing the whole squad to trudge back to base to escort yet another defenseless drone back to the front lines? Does that sound like fun to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would only be an issue when a team is trying to expand, but aside from that, it sounds like a layer of strategy to me and I find that fun. If the marines are able to take out the drifters in a battle, if the commander was too stupid to hide them, didn't build enough, etc. these should be major factors in the game. If battles amount to something more than "kill that marine" I'd be thrilled. If a team consistently snipped MACs/Drifters they could lose most battles but still win the war. What's that? Strategy in my so called RT<b><u>S</u></b>FPS game? How dare they...
Which is why marines (on top of MACs) should be able to build. It sets the stage for exactly that.
Purpose to the game? What does that vague point mean? Introducing bots that can build was adding a layer but taking away players ability to build was removing one at the same time.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) If you let marines build everything in general, even when it's at a very slow pace, you have to balance the game around it and consider a lot more abusive situations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything needs to be balanced and considered. Allowing the marines to build is something extensively playtested in NS1 and wouldn't be difficult to implement to NS2 as it stands.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Preventing marines from building encourages teamwork is many different ways. it promotes teamwork between the RTS and FPS side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not encouraged to work more closely with my commander if all I can do is 'escort' bots and shoot stuff now. Having the ability to build something for the commander myself makes me a far more useful asset to the team and makes me feel more involved personally.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It forces a team to show their intentions, which encourages scouting and communication, it provides a clear target for the other team, which encourages hit and defense squads<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't force a team to show their intentions, you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions. If a player was building somewhere it wouldn't be hard to figure out as there's only certain places bases and RTs can be built.
<!--quoteo(post=1790283:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->controlling builder units really makes someone feel like they're playing an RTS more so than dropping an inactive structure while someone else builds it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could still use bots if you wanted to, or players or both.
First, teamwork is not a necessity in either of these games. It's encouraged but not required.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This really depends on the map.... in team fortress 2 at least you generally need a mixture of teamwork to make any noticable impact otherwise the vast majority of your work will simply be undone by someone backing up the person you are killing. If you have backup yourself then that is when the battles get interesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second, in these two games my team can suck and I will have fun because a player's personal level of enjoyment isn't directly related to how well their pub team works together. Sure, me spamming "need a health pack" on an assault class in BC2 only to have him walk away is annoying but it doesn't compare to not being able to use the gun I want because some other guy doesn't want to drop it for me. I never said "throw teamwork out." I said "remove 'teamwork' for the most basic and fundamental tasks related to each genre." Having someone else determine how you are going to play (a commander choosing weapons for a marine) or feeling completely helpless (begging marines to build RT's) can't be compared to generic teamplay based around classes. Knight & Day; Cruise and Diaz.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone not dropping a health pack just comes down to player ignorance which can be a combinations of many many factors. Your gameplay does not depend on the other class dropping health packs, sure it helps you, but that is an aspect of teamwork. If you can simply recover health by standing still for a moment, then you will need to die easily otherwise it won't be balanced.
In the Alpha i already see that the commander can drop health packs, i assume the welder gun is going to come in and retain an NS1 feature of repairing heavy armor/other things....
If begging someone to drop a weapon for you doesn't appeal to you.... then I guess the whole tech level concept is something you want to do away with too, since the commander still needs to upgrade the tech to enable to weapon.....
If a marine can assist a commander in building a building, instead of watching the commander place and send an MCU to make it, then you are encouraging more teamwork instead of the commander being in his own bubble.
I am probably not making my point clear so I will try to articulate my thoughts over the next couple of replies a bit better.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This would only be an issue when a team is trying to expand, but aside from that, it sounds like a layer of strategy to me and I find that fun. If the marines are able to take out the drifters in a battle, if the commander was too stupid to hide them, didn't build enough, etc. these should be major factors in the game. If battles amount to something more than "kill that marine" I'd be thrilled. If a team consistently snipped MACs/Drifters they could lose most battles but still win the war. What's that? Strategy in my so called RT<b><u>S</u></b>FPS game? How dare they...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may sound fun.... but are you one the rare minority that enjoy the escort missions?
I have quite quite a few games simply because of an escort mission.
If the enemy can simply snipe your building unit and halt all progress, this will become a common tactic and if thats the kind of gameplay we're going for here, the always escorting some random unit somewhere and only shooting aliens....?
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Curious; people here are complaining about escort missions for MACs. How come people didn't say this when siege tanks became mobile?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because they aren't implemented into alpha yet, this no building this is something that would be easy to include in alpha if they wanted it as a game feature, the lack of it suggests.... we need discussions around it atleast.
<!--quoteo(post=1790309:date=Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 07:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you haven't played team fortress 2... to upgrade your building as an engineer you have to actually go out and seek ammo and such for it. It adds a nice layer to the game... I don't know about you but after having to "escort" an MCU to a remote point and have it suicide-killed and having to do it all again... will be tedious after 2-3 times and isn't a good game mechanic.
If there was a way for the marines to build without completely undermining all of the positives of the MAC/Drifter I would be all for it but I don't think there is, much like how I don't think it's possible to have two commanders both being productive. I actually just thought of this but if allowing marines to construct was a researchable ability somewhat far down a tech tree that might work out. That's really the only possible working alternative I can think of as MACs/Drifters in the early (and even mid) game are too great a concept to toss away because Marines are too lazy to guard them even on smaller more streamlined maps. I mean honestly, what else are you people going to be doing?
@Snazz
Adding "purpose" to the game is vague so I'll clear that up. What sets Classic aside from Combat? In Classic there are things to do other than kill the enemy. Adding commander builders and only letting them build adds another thing to do other than just kill that marine in some hallway. It allows for more strategy, which you point out in the following quote "you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions."
It's funny how people are so unwilling to consider change and how nostalgia affects what you remember. I would have never guessed there was a secret society of people who love to sit around and build things to feel like they're part of a team. Where were you in NS1's prime? I could have had you go hold down your "E" key at so many different places.
I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.
@ ptfff
It's cool man, other people have made those points and I've made my rebuttals to them. Not much more to say about this as everything is starting to go in circles. We'll see what UWE decides to do.
Curious; people here are complaining about escort missions for MACs. How come people didn't say this when siege tanks became mobile?
Two commanders would be a no-no. One commander is saving resources to do an upgrade while the other one uses it on something.
If there was a way for the marines to build without completely undermining all of the positives of the MAC/Drifter I would be all for it but I don't think there is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then we are at an impasse. I hate the idea of having to escort the AI units, you love it?
You probably don't always have to escort builders and since its controlled by the commander there you have your interaction between commander and marines since you basicly cover the commander building stuff.
You are still contributing to creating building, you just don't hold a button.
Err. In this case, you can. The crowd you can't please is the one that doesn't want MACs in at all. And that's not the crowd he's a part of.
Edit: wow. hot topic.
Adding "purpose" to the game is vague so I'll clear that up. What sets Classic aside from Combat? In Classic there are things to do other than kill the enemy. Adding commander builders and only letting them build adds another thing to do other than just kill that marine in some hallway. It allows for more strategy, which you point out in the following quote "you could easily send bots out to random places just as decoys and diversions."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that bots add a new element to the game, but I disagree that the element of player's building should of been removed. I don't believe it is necessary to sacrifice one for the other. That strategy of diversion can be maintained with both build options.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's funny how people are so unwilling to consider change<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not unwilling to consider change. I've considered this change and I don't like it, I also disagree with the arguments supporting it. It's like cutting someones right arm off then telling them they should use their left arm instead, then saying they just don't like change if they complain about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and how nostalgia affects what you remember.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Are you implying our memory of NS1 is impaired? The mod is still around and I've played it recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1790318:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would have never guessed there was a secret society of people who love to sit around and build things to feel like they're part of a team. Where were you in NS1's prime? I could have had you go hold down your "E" key at so many different places. I don't know about anyone else but if my options for building things were "Press down use key, wait, hope you don't die or beg a teammate to come with you" or "protect a NPC while it builds" I'm going to take the second one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No we're not a 'secret society' we're just other gamers who appreciate different things to you. Perhaps if you had more respect for people with different preferences you might understand why we believe having an option is best for 'both crowds.'
Yes, they can both be pleased.
Implement an option where you can play maps in NS1 style.
You probably don't always have to escort builders and since its controlled by the commander there you have your interaction between commander and marines since you basically cover the commander building stuff.
You are still contributing to creating building, you just don't hold a button.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gorges were players, so they didn't need much escorting (what with being smart enough to run away/call for help if they heard marines).
Builders may not be in need of protecting ALL the time, but that's how it was in NS1 too. Don't really think it affects the discussion at hand.
Protecting the bot while it builds is nowhere near as exciting as protecting a fellow player, partly because it's a human being, partly because he has firepower you really want to keep around, what with 2 marines being better at staying alive than 1. Firepower that is temporarily disabled while he builds, making the feeling all the more urgent as he basically puts his life in your hands.
A bot dying is nowhere near as dramatic as a player dying.
(Plus if the bot had been a player he might not have died, since he could have noticed the approaching click-click-click and quit building, or been sufficiently skilled to jump away from the attacker.)
And of course, if you're going at it alone, all the more exciting when you are completely defenceless for a few seconds...
As for contributing... that's not really the point. I'm helping the team either way, yeah, but it's the more immediate surroundings sort of teamwork that I want. Not sure how to phrase it.
That's what people don't seem to realize in this thread. While the builder unit has AI-pathfinding, the commander still controls it. The commander has to be smart and present, retreating when necessary and communicating for support on the field. So the builder IS a human player, just not using the keyboard but point&click to move.
That's also the point people made about feeling more like an RTS to the commander (crazy micromanagement of units).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for contributing... that's not really the point. I'm helping the team either way, yeah, but it's the more immediate surroundings sort of teamwork that I want. Not sure how to phrase it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I get what you mean and that's the only point I understand and really have no counter-argument for except "ns2 gameplay is different than ns1 gameplay" (which is silly at this point).
The lack of phasegates, siege-tfs and that tension you feel when building something (alone) with potential enemies around will barely be present in ns2, but it still can be replaced by something else creating a similar mood, we won't know much about until you can really feel the game later on in the alpha/beta stage.
But with the lack of phasegates and stationary sieges and less res nodes I'm not sure, if you could recreate that feeling even with marines being able to build.
For example DI-tunnels and the squad spawning system might be handled similar to building a phasegate in enemy territory. The squadleader has to use something or is not able to shoot/move while phasing in former marines of his squad that died.
Sounds quite similar to the mood in ns1 you described.
then call for a MAC, see how that works?
You don't have to build if you don't want to (that's what 'option' means), nor are you dictated by other people's expectations.
'Fun' is completely subjective, obviously we found building fun or else we wouldn't be discussing this.
When marines build a lot slower, it's boring, when they build slightly slower, they can power up buildings in no time causing imbalance.
This also scales with amount of players which causes further problems with balanced build times.
'Fun' is completely subjective, obviously we found building fun or else we wouldn't be discussing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes but if the comm tells me to do something I am not a very good marine if I say 'no I don't want to go away and leave me alone'. If the commander has sent me there to build something and I then say 'I don't feel like it' he is likely to be very annoyed and quite possibly the entire game could collapse because of it. So I really don't have the option, do I?
Far better to change the game so the situation never comes up.
Also I find it extremely hard to imagine that you enjoyed staring at a building holding the E button. I don't find it hard to imagine however that you enjoyed having to stay at a vulnerable area that the aliens are likely to check out while doing something which alerts nearby aliens to your presence, essentially putting pressure and probability of an encounter on you.
The latter does not require the former, you can have the 'I must protect this dangerous location' mechanic without the e building mechanic, in fact you can have it a lot better because you get to focus on protecting the place rather than holding E and staring at a blurry resource tower, and the aliens can recieve empowerments to help them combat your more alert state, making it in general, more fun for both sides.
The e building is a poor mechanic, what it achieves can be achieved better in other ways, with fewer/no ill effects, therefore it should be changed.
In the NS1 system the commander needs the marines to build his stuff. He is depending entirely on them. Forcing him to adapt to what his team is doing.
In the NS2 system the commander needs the marines to scout secure routes or escort the MACs so he can build. Just sending them out to random RT locations will usually result in them being destroyed.
In a hybrid system the commander can choose whichever is more convenient at any given moment. That requires less communication and teamwork. Contrary to popular belief making things easier or more convenient will not necessarily result in a better game. Having more options can lead to worse results. This is counter-intuitive, I know, but that's what game theory has shown to be correct.
Arrogant much? I've played RTS's from Dune to tiny indie games like Knights of Honor, not just average popular games like SC/DoW. Am I an actual RTS player?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The above quote is a baseless assumption that disregards <b>the vast majority of the public's NS1 experience</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, inform us more of what the vast majority think. It's clear you've interviewed each one individually and hold all the answers, oh godly one.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1...Marines needed the commander to drop them...pretty much everything. The commander...needed Marines to build his structures and carry out his strategy. In effect, the system forced the Marine team to co-ordinate at every level, creating a synergy that if broken usually lead to disaster.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People play games to have fun. For the average gamer does any of that sound fun to you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unknown Worlds would not exist is the average game didn't find NS1 fun. It's why they all preordered.
When they took all that stuff out (Combat mode) the player base began to drop. Only some of it was natural because of the mod's age.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine a skulk runs off into a hallway, sees a marine, gets killed. In NS1 they would think nothing of it and wait to respawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't think of one time where this would ever happen. If that hallway was near a hive you'd inform the team "inc X hive". And I only play on pub servers.
Communication in general did diminish a fair amount after 1.04, mostly because the pace of the game increased which was proven to be a bad choice. Organised raids on double res nodes stopped because of the new res system, etc.
Anyway, the best thing about NS2 will be LUA. The community will create the game they want. We'll have to wait and see what that is, but I'm betting it'll be closer to 1.04.
Let's face it: It may be as simple as an task as "just pressing E" it added way more than just that.
It's giving the players options, if you sucked at shooting stuff in NS1 you would allways have the option to be the builder guy or welder support, this option is now gone with the MAC taking those roles.
This basicly removes more player interaction in the game than it adds and tbh that's seldom a good thing in an FPS game...
It also had an impact on pacing of the game, players are set in different situations if they either build in base, weld something to open an alternate route or build something outside of marine controlled territory on their own. All these things not only added a different pacing to the game depending on what you are doing they also gave you the impression of doing different things than just shooting at stuff.
If i want to play a game where i'm only shooting at stuff i could play any deathmatch game, that's the big deal here. Taking away options from players dumbs down the overall experience. If you just want to shoot stuff that's fine, you can allready do that in NS1 and leave the building/welding to other players. But forcing everybody in the role of "just shooting" just kills gameplay diversity, it turns the game into big deathmatch where you don't take any active role in the RTS mechanics, you are just a spectator for the RTS mechanics without even getting the feeling of taking part in them.
To give an better example: Imagine they would remove bombs/hostages from counter strike.. it's a task where people just press "e" yet it adds way more to the game than just that.
Or to give an even better example: It's combat mode... yes that's what it is... you buy your weapons yourself, you don't build anything , you run around and shoot at stuff. NS2 is more NS1 co_ than it is ns_....
I would ###### LOVE to weld doors shut myself with aliens behind it while a teammate covers me, it puts you in a vulnerable situation where you have to depend on your teammates. Stuff like this builds tension...
So what can be done to give the MAC an purpose without removing these options for players?
Make the MAC only function in rooms that are connected to the power grid network of the marines (once that feature is implemented of course). That way the MAC can function as base maintanence and still build base structures when nobody else is around (like the infamous arms lab/obs that's sitting unbuild in the base while everybody is away or just ignores it to use an NS1 example).
But for expanding marine territory, marines would still be required as the MAC just wouldn't work outside of marine controlled territory.
Maybe make it so that structures build by marines are a tad unfinished, they would basicly work but have fewer HP and would require a MAC to finish it boosting the buildings HP so the commander still has micro to do with each building.
Coincidentally this is exactly what you propose. Remove the hostages and replace them with players.
Also with the option to buy your own shotguns and flamethrowers, people who can't shoot straight will have alternatives in combat.
No it's not exactly what i propose, maybe read my complete post?
They are changing a existing game mechanic that worked well with something that removes player interaction..
<!--quoteo(post=1790366:date=Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 1 2010, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Er, I think marines still get welders, welding is a largely combat mechanic where the marine's agility would make it desirable.
Also with the option to buy your own shotguns and flamethrowers, people who can't shoot straight will have alternatives in combat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because somebody has now a shotgun doesn't mean he will now automaticly kill stuff, still requires aiming. And yes give the guy who has a hard time aiming an AoE ranged weapon in a game where friendly fire is enabled by default, that sure sounds like fun :D
And those are not alternatives, they are also just "combat" that's like saying "you don't like just beeing able to shoot stuff? You want to do more? Pull out your knife and stab them!".
It's kinda funny how some people here make "marines beeing able to build" something so drastic new that it could never work when actually it worked for NS1 and had been one of the things that made the game work. We are not discussing adding laser dolphins here, we are discussing adding a mechanic that has allready worked for years in NS1 here.
We have to be open to change! This is NS<b>2</b> and not just a graphics update for NS1. Although I also miss bunny hopping, and wish gorges still had the ability to build res towers and such, I have accepted these changes.
UWE have stated that the core gameplay will be there.; which to me is marines vs aliens, one team overwhelmes the other and you win.
I'd say it too early to make any assumptions at all, but having a healthy discussion is always good :D UWE will listen to our suggestions ;)