<!--quoteo(post=1792194:date=Aug 5 2010, 05:00 PM:name=Recoup)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Recoup @ Aug 5 2010, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792194"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aww, but I spent all NIGHT working on those sacrificial rituals...
All kidding aside, I think what gets most of us in a bunch is that it removes a critical aspect of a system that WORKED in the past - something that was functional and playable and responded well to. Here we have removed a major cog in the marine gameplay element and, of course, fans are going to be adamant about it. We feel a little upset when the devs remove a key aspect in the marine attack and defend strategy.
It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one? Why not implement both and see which works best? Instead we've been given a substitute for the marine builder - an AI bot that both the comm and the marines have to babysit as it scurries to its next object to build something. The IDEA is unlikeable by many, so its not so much a "don't knock it until you try it", but more like we don't have to try it to know we prefer something else that would be more functional and fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The IDEA of playing a melee based class vs. a ranged based class isn't terribly fun. It's in the trying that we find out, "Hey.. this kinda works."
The only thing bugging me about the MACs is having to rely on an AI, especially when it comes to mobility. I'm pretty certain the current pathfinding is far from final, but still, a marine can simply hop over a fence or jump down a catwalk to get from point A to point B, or dodge/run through enemy defenses. On the other hand, the MAC offers more reliability when it comes to building stuff, i.e. it does not turn away because it hears a skulk, leaving a RT 99% complete.
Some fear marine building would slow down the game pace, I think the MACs will do just the same when they get stuck / destroyed and the team has to wait for a new one that'll get taken out on its way. But we'll have to see how it plays out, maybe it wont be as bad as it sounds. Maybe that's where multiple commanders will come in to play.
I just hope I get to do more than just shoot stuff -> die -> respawn as a marine. I've got my fix of that already with all the other FPSes out there.
<!--quoteo(post=1791108:date=Aug 4 2010, 05:39 AM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 4 2010, 05:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791108"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Way to not read. I never said NS1 had slow gameplay. I said forcing Marines to build(when there is a better alternative in NS2 now for the Commander to control building) slows gameplay down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? I must have missed the part of "allowing" marines the ability to build somehow equated to forcing the marines to "build" the commander into not using his "MAC"...
If you don't want to build then don't. If you want to actually improve the overall game or have the experience where you can get to places the MAC's can't or want to be "covert" with placing structures then you should have the ability to build, it was a great and important aspect of the game especially in rushing.
<!--quoteo(post=1791090:date=Aug 4 2010, 04:19 AM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 4 2010, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And like I said, it doesn't make sense in NS1 how Marines could build a structure without a Welder, and we have a replacement for that; the MAC.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually if you read 6 Days in Sanjii, the Marines aren't physically building the structure. The Command Station interfaces with the local nanogrid to get a base up and running, using nanite gel as the raw materials with the omnipresent nanomachines to construct it. The nanomachines however will only build something with the correct authorisation, that means someone at the construction location interfacing with the nanogrid. Given that the story speaks of the marines simply stretching their hands out, at a guess the nanogrid checks the DNA of the person overseeing the construction and checks this against a list of authorised personel. Thanks to the Commander his whole crew are now on the stations' authorized personel list, and are in fact promoted to the highest rank. The nanogrid then undertakes the construction, but only so long as the recognised authority figure remains nearby.
Why do buildings build faster with more Marines "using" them? If the nanogrid detects multiple high rank individuals trying to get a single object constructed, clearly it would be programmed to allocate even more nanomachines to construct it as it is a very high priority.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A signifier came into view -- a loose nano-ghost of a blocky, waist-high machine. "... I need you to pretend to be a maintenance crew and call this up for me."
The three of them stood around it. "Can you be a little more specific, Sir?" Mercy asked.
"I've superceded the Genghis system with our higher grade nano -- but I've still got to play by its rules. Its heirchal resource allocation paradigm attempts to limit building access based on rank of individual and the task at hand. It also decides what tasks require placement oversight. So, just as a maintenance team would have to spot-oversee the creation of a device, I need you to validate my system request."
"Uh ... maybe instead of being more specific, you could just actually tell us what we're supposed to do."
"Just 'use' it, the same way you activate a lift, or access holometric displays."
They stared at it and put their hands out. Sparks began to fly as the internal circuitry created itself out of nano-particles.
"We're getting a work-in-progress display on our HUDs."
"Good, the system's buying it."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With that cleared up, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
<!--quoteo(post=1791091:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:23 PM:name=cmc5788)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cmc5788 @ Aug 3 2010, 01:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the RTS aspect is its own "non-mixed thing," then it's not really an FPS-RTS hybrid. It's more like an RTS where the unit behavior happens to be controlled by others or an FPS where an RTS happens to be kind of vaguely unfolding around you. If that's what you want, feel free to argue for it. However, I think that as long as crossover is handled elegantly, the more the better.
Building structures is the most concrete way to make a marine feel like they're really a part of the RTS model, too, and I like it that way.
Also, I don't think building slows down gameplay. In fact, it helps to solidify the aliens' role. If you let marines build, they should win. Aliens need to be constantly ambushing/stalking/harassing marines as they attempt to do so. That's what makes for the game's very intense feel. If you're a marine, you're always venturing out to build, anticipating attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely agree with this. I love the building aspect. I love the marines have to decide who should build and who should cover them while building. It's decision making based scenarios like that which make NS an amazing game.
<!--quoteo(post=1791098:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:31 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this game is basically Starcraft, its just we(the Players) get to control the individual Combat Units directly instead of the Commander moving them around. Thus the FPS aspect.
It is pretty comparable. NS2 is suppose to have a lot more stuff, listen to that recent 80 minute podcast, there are a lot of hints in it related to Commanding and its Gameplay.
It is at the end, like the last 30 minutes. Check NS2 twitter for link.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're putting your own perception of the game into your argument. That does not make for good debate. Argue objectively, "This game is basically starcraft..." is not how a lot of people see it.
This game isn't a Starcraft clone or wannabe, I don't know why when a new game is made everyone has to find a game that it can be directly compared to, as if everyone is somehow afraid of a new game. Why can't NS2 just be NS2? Why does it have to be <i>"basically Starcraft where the players get to control the individual combat units directly instead of the commander moving them around"? </i> That sounds like a different game to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1791102:date=Aug 3 2010, 01:35 PM:name=Jimyd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimyd @ Aug 3 2010, 01:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember, unlike Starcraft, you only have about 12-16 Players to do actual fighting(unlike the 200 Supply limit of Starcraft). So the Commander doesn't really need the fighting units to take themselves out of the game constantly. It is boring for the Players who are building, and it slows gameplay down.
This is why Skulks bite down everything real fast, because it was very boring in NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
100% opinion based. I almost exclusively played Marines in NS1 just because I like the playstyle more, and the building aspect was near perfect. The only change I'd agree on is that there should be a cap on how many marines can speed-up the building process so buildings are not being constructed instantly.
Has anyone thought of any sort of balance with the marines and aliens?
Alien commander was added to balance out against the marine side and allow for a similar (not exact) experience as the marines. Taking away building from Marines while aliens (gorge) can still build structures seems like tipping the scales one way a bit.
Nerf the Marine build a bit, but allow it. And as said before, no one is twisting your arm to build (unless you are at a LAN, then it could be possible :P).
I just see the Comm/Marine coop decreasing with lack of building, and Marines buying their own gear. Comm just gets to play an RTS structure building game with a single type AI and have human people that just go off and do their thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1792237:date=Aug 6 2010, 11:43 AM:name=Turtle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Turtle @ Aug 6 2010, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792237"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Funny story, but still just a rationalization for a gameplay mechanic. ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course! But if the point being argued is that marines being able to build without welders makes "no sense", it's quite relevant.
<!--quoteo(post=1792208:date=Aug 5 2010, 05:43 PM:name=hookuy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hookuy @ Aug 5 2010, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, for those who doesn't want Marines being able to build, and wanna play a separated game from Comm. then they don't know what NS is about.
So you want to grab a weapon and leave base to shoot aliens? Then, NS is not the game for you but Counter Strike or Call of Duty is.
Natural Selection WAS about building and attacking (following Comm' orders), and should this one be as well.
Yes, there are some players who don't follow orders, so what, the most of us did. But because you are too lazy, or you want to play a Counter Strike-like game you want to take the ability to build for the rest of us? I don't think so.
I wanna be able to sneak behind enemy lines and build a PG right under their Hive if possible! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the kind of argument that just polarizes this issue. Which do you think would turn people away from NS more: removing all combat from the game or removing all building hmmmm ?
That's right removing all _combat_ ; and why do you suppose that is ?... yes, people actually enjoy trying to "shoot" things. Not only that but alot of us actually like "tactical" combat where clever tactics are rewarded and there's a constant sort of cat and mouse game going on between the two sides as tech evolves etc etc.
Hint: You can sneak behind enemy lines still and cause problems for them even without being able to build a PG btw
I want my teammates with guns to be helping me shoot things, not ######ing around trying to repair something or build a new thingy. And I don't trust you guys, ESPECIALLY in the face of the current discussion, to helpfully shoot things and not ###### around if given the option. I hope this never happens, honestly, but UWE has a terrible record of caving to squeaky wheels on the forum when they should know better.
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1792267:date=Aug 6 2010, 12:15 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 6 2010, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I want my teammates with guns to be helping me shoot things, not ######ing around trying to repair something or build a new thingy. And I don't trust you guys, ESPECIALLY in the face of the current discussion, to helpfully shoot things and not ###### around if given the option. I hope this never happens, honestly, but UWE has a terrible record of caving to squeaky wheels on the forum when they should know better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about if you just want to shoot things you go play quake.
<!--quoteo(post=1792265:date=Aug 6 2010, 12:39 AM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FilthyLarry @ Aug 6 2010, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats the kind of argument that just polarizes this issue. Which do you think would turn people away from NS more: removing all combat from the game or removing all building hmmmm ?
That's right removing all _combat_ ; and why do you suppose that is ?... yes, people actually enjoy trying to "shoot" things. Not only that but alot of us actually like "tactical" combat where clever tactics are rewarded and there's a constant sort of cat and mouse game going on between the two sides as tech evolves etc etc.
Hint: You can sneak behind enemy lines still and cause problems for them even without being able to build a PG btw<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about removing combat? (speaking about polarizing).
Everybody knows that people like shooting, that's why games like CS or CoD are so popular, but I'm glad NS is different. So if you just wanna shoot, why don't you play another of the hundreds of FPS around (the kinds you like, shooting with no sense) instead of coming and trying to change one of the unique RTS/FPS game existing these days.
More tactical you say? More than obeying orders from you comm? Trying to move as a team? What you actually do separating comms and rines is lots of rambos, that means, another Counter Strike.
I like the way NS1 is, of course, changes are always welcome, but you guys are asking for a massive change for this one. I just want to be able to build and have more interaction between comms and rines. I do want the MACs to stay, but not to take away one of the most important ability for rines. Because if this game became another standard FPS, then I don't think I would play it anymore.
I thought about it and i think the devs are right that marines should not be building ######... they SHOULD BE shooting ######.
Case and point: Do fades, onoses, lerks etc help build RT's, hives, ocs, dcs, scs, etc etc.
NO because their busy killing marines.
What should marines be busy doing? Sitting in base building protolabs and tfs? Sounds like a good way to give the aliens the fighters-in-play advantage. I mean is a random marine holding a rifle or a welder?
<!--quoteo(post=1792270:date=Aug 5 2010, 11:58 PM:name=hookuy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hookuy @ Aug 5 2010, 11:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792270"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who said anything about removing combat? (speaking about polarizing).
Everybody knows that people like shooting, that's why games like CS or CoD are so popular, but I'm glad NS is different. So if you just wanna shoot, why don't you play another of the hundreds of FPS around (the kinds you like, shooting with no sense) instead of coming and trying to change one of the unique RTS/FPS game existing these days.
More tactical you say? More than obeying orders from you comm? Trying to move as a team? What you actually do separating comms and rines is lots of rambos, that means, another Counter Strike.
I like the way NS1 is, of course, changes are always welcome, but you guys are asking for a massive change for this one. I just want to be able to build and have more interaction between comms and rines. I do want the MACs to stay, but not to take away one of the most important ability for rines. Because if this game became another standard FPS, then I don't think I would play it anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you're understanding my point which is that of the two _combat_ is by far more important than building... you can put fingers in your ears or cover your eyes if you like but thats the _fact_. Marines should be spending most of their time in combat as that is the entire point - to wipe out the other team and their base(s) of operation. The combat therefore is _key_ and should receive the lion's share of Dev attention... why do you think the Devs left out marine building btw and are so shocked to see opinions like yours ?
Now having said that why on earth would I want NS2 to be like CS ? I don't want NS to be like other FPS games either (please don't presume to know what games I play btw... I can't stand CS). NS2 without marine building is nowhere near like CS and you know it - you are completely blowing things out of proportion here and this is why I told you you are polarizing because it forces people to take a stand against such extreme opinions with extreme opinions of their own.
And while we're on the subject... if the combat in NS2 isn't interesting I won't be playing I can tell you that much as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1791091:date=Aug 3 2010, 02:23 PM:name=cmc5788)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cmc5788 @ Aug 3 2010, 02:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the RTS aspect is its own "non-mixed thing," then it's not really an FPS-RTS hybrid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is such a bs argument. Just because marines can't build structures doesn't suddenly turn NS into something other than an RTS/FPS. The general strategy of the team is almost always devised by the team itself rather than just the commander. ("Hey Comm, can we get X?","Hey Comm, let's siege X hive soon") When the marines move out and scout / target drifters they're providing intel and harassing. The commander, in NS1 pubs, rarely was the sole person who made all strategic decisions.
Don't be lame and pretend just because marines can't hold "E" NS2 is going to self destruct.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the RTS side in NS1 was <i>so</i> lacking and MACs/Drifters provide an opportunity to allow the commander to actually show off some RTS skill. Finally planning out an early/mid/late game, micromanagement, and multitasking may mean something more than just dropping buildings, weapons, and medpacks. Allowing FPS players to build trumps the role of MAC/Drifters and makes them redundant. I honestly think there can only be one method - commander building or player building. Any mix of the two and extreme balance and exploit issues ensue.
A lot of the pro-player-building guys keep saying that the act of building created supense and I agree to an extend. But I get the feeling most of you only see it in the context of NS1. Let's take a look at the most "exciting" building-related situations in NS1 and how they relate to NS2. From exciting to boring (in my opinion):
1) Building PGs Setting up a PG for a hive rush was definitly one of the most exciting situations in NS1, as long as the location was in alien territory. However the last official statement regarding PGs was that they don't exist in NS2, so this one is out.
2) Building sieges Fending of aliens while constructing sieges was very common, but in NS2 sieges are commander controlled units. This one's out too.
3) Building RTs You always had to expect incoming aliens which created supense. Also led to a few mini-games with (mostly) skulks, like trying to get them to attack and then strafe-jumping off the RT etc. That's probably the only thing I'll miss.
4) Constructing outposts [TFs, turrets, whatever] Not that exciting once the PG was up and a few marines had phased in. TFs are not part of NS2, turrets were mostly build in areas that were already under marine control.
5) Building the base Not exciting at all.
Looks like the MAC doesn't even affect most of these "sources of excitement" in NS2. Thoughts?
<!--quoteo(post=1792279:date=Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792279"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Allowing FPS players to build trumps the role of MAC/Drifters and makes them redundant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apart from the vast possibilities to balance the two build options, a bot will always follow it's orders to it's death (provided it isn't bugged) giving it a superiority to players and something for commanders to use when players are being uncooperative.
<!--quoteo(post=1792279:date=Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792279"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I honestly think there can only be one method - commander building or player building. Any mix of the two and extreme balance and exploit issues ensue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everything added or changed to a game has balance issues to address, I doubt allowing Marines to build would be a particularly 'extreme' one. No idea what would be exploited, but if exploit issues ensue they can also be addressed.
<!--quoteo(post=1792299:date=Aug 6 2010, 06:56 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Aug 6 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of the pro-player-building guys keep saying that the act of building created supense and I agree to an extend. But I get the feeling most of you only see it in the context of NS1.
Looks like the MAC doesn't even affect most of these "sources of excitement" in NS2. Thoughts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that the 'ninja PG and seige' thing is out of NS2's context, whether you miss it from NS1 or not it's kind of a separate matter from being able to build as a player in general.
What's boring and what's exciting to players is all very subjective though.
<!--quoteo(post=1792275:date=Aug 5 2010, 11:28 PM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Aug 5 2010, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792275"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Case and point: Do fades, onoses, lerks etc help build RT's, hives, ocs, dcs, scs, etc etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> On a smart team, with a good comm, you'd usually have the shotguns and HMGs guarding the LMGs while they built.
<!--quoteo(post=1792278:date=Aug 5 2010, 11:56 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FilthyLarry @ Aug 5 2010, 11:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think you're understanding my point which is that of the two _combat_ is by far more important than building... you can put fingers in your ears or cover your eyes if you like but thats the _fact_. Marines should be spending most of their time in combat as that is the entire point - to wipe out the other team and their base(s) of operation. The combat therefore is _key_ and should receive the lion's share of Dev attention... why do you think the Devs left out marine building btw and are so shocked to see opinions like yours ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason <i>I</i> liked the building aspect was the added depth it brought with it. You'd start the game with little more than a weapon, a comm chair, and a few res, and it was up to you and your team to sculpt out a base. By spending time building up our defenses, I'd gain a sort of connection with my base, my team, and the match in general. It was this effort that made it feel great when marine start withstood a wave of aliens, or sting hard when our forward base was demolished due to a bad placement of the factory. I realize that net everyone liked constructing the base, and I know there <i>were</i> times when the building became tedious. But without that link to the team, the comm, and the base, I worry that the game will feel like a smaller version of Battlefield 2, with a bunch of players battling in the middle of the map and the commanders off in their own little world.
I personally think marines being able to build was a great feature in NS, I loved being able to sneak past aliens and setup a pg or base near a hive. The MACs just seem way too limiting on gameplay.. There are so many locations a MAC might not be able to get to, and they cant exactly sneak past some aliens the way a marine could. Then there was the tension of trying to get a phase or turret factory up while being harrassed by a few aliens, or finding yourself somehow unexpectedly getting past most of the aliens and arriving near their hive in perfect spot for an attack.
I think a good alternative would be to have MACs required at the start to build, but commander can research welders to enable marines to build.
"I loved NS1, but Im worried that the further seperation of Commander and Marines is turning the game in to Counter Strike with 1 player doing his own RTS. Can we make sure that doesnt happen?"
touche my ass, Delphic schooled y'all. that is EXACTLY what's going on. And it's very, very, very sad.
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.
Sorry mate but it needed doing. For me the arguement isnt about trying to make NS2 like NS1. Its about trying to make sure that NS2 doesnt lose the unique feel of NS games.
Right now, Marines appear to be encouraged to just go off and shoot stuff with little regard to strategy or teamwork. Sure they might stick together a bit, but only for protection, not for any higher tactical reason. They buy their own guns, they dont help build structures (unless they choose to protect the MAC, but how many FPS players will feel that guard duty is boring?), they're there to shoot stuff, end of.
All the tactical and strategic decisions, building, welding doors, research, its all given to the Commander. But how much patience will the FPS guys have waiting for new tech? How much rage is there going to be if the Commander welds a door shut that a couple of players think he shouldnt have?
In NS1, there was a mutual reliance between marines and their Commander. They had to support him just as much as he had to support them - they were his builders, he was their ability to secure areas and move on, with bigger and better tech.
Until NS2 goes beta NONE of us are going to know for sure how the dynamic is going to work, but based on what we know now, even bearing in mind its only in alpha, a lot of people are worried that this mutual reliance style relationship has been diluted a bit too much.
<!--quoteo(post=1792325:date=Aug 6 2010, 10:29 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 6 2010, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->touche my ass, Delphic schooled y'all. that is EXACTLY what's going on. And it's very, very, very sad.
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming that Delphic understands what touche means in the context he used it, he certainly didnt school us all.
The inability of marines to build structures isnt going to suddenly and arbitrarily destroy the ability to work togetehr as a team, directed by the Commander. What you have to wonder is will the inability to build, combined with the ability to buy your own guns and armor, remove the incentive marines have to follow orders? After all, since there's is the dedicated FPS element and they get that regardless, why should they listen to some guy asking them to defend a MAC? They can buy their guns and get their kicks anyway.
All true tbh, but I'm not sure that forcing team work on the marine team is going to make the game successful.
Reducing the reliance both ways between Comm and Marines, will mean public play is more separated, but I would argue this might be for the good, a big reason NS1 wasn't bigger was that commanding was too important and communication failed. Now I understand the argument that perhaps this is what made the community that did take it up quite the favour it was / is, and I'm sure we all enjoyed it. However UWE is trying to reach a bigger audience and it has to be fun for all playing.
<b>However</b>, not enforcing co-operation doesn't mean that good players and comms won't co-operate and communicate, it will still be to their advantage to do so, and with the new commander abilities it might be that communication required is still high without the need to change the building mechanic.
I think we pretty much agree that all this speculation has little worth, essentially we need to playtest the mechanics and move from there. I think the best way to stick with the way it was originally designed and then if when we're getting closer to beta we think we are lacking something that could be helped by changing (back closer to, or further from NS1) the building mechanic <i>then</i> it should be altered.
"What you have to wonder is will the inability to build, combined with the ability to buy your own guns and armor, remove the incentive marines have to follow orders?"
Actually, you don't "have to wonder" that at all, if you have a modicum of faith in UWE's vision and aren't a concern troll who acts like UWE is a bunch of bumbling hacks that just stumbled on the perfect game design in NS1 and will ruin it if they change anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1792325:date=Aug 6 2010, 06:29 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 6 2010, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->touche my ass, Delphic schooled y'all. that is EXACTLY what's going on. And it's very, very, very sad.
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whats sad is that you seem to be unable to see things from anyones point of view but your own.
Noones saying it will 'eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander', people are saying that it removes some aspect of gameplay that they liked from NS. We are allowed to voice our opinions on aspects of NS2 we we like or dont like, things that we think made think should be in/out of the game.
The fact that you cant see some limitations caused by it maybe indicates you are perhaps a little closeminded.
Comments
All kidding aside, I think what gets most of us in a bunch is that it removes a critical aspect of a system that WORKED in the past - something that was functional and playable and responded well to. Here we have removed a major cog in the marine gameplay element and, of course, fans are going to be adamant about it. We feel a little upset when the devs remove a key aspect in the marine attack and defend strategy.
It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one? Why not implement both and see which works best? Instead we've been given a substitute for the marine builder - an AI bot that both the comm and the marines have to babysit as it scurries to its next object to build something. The IDEA is unlikeable by many, so its not so much a "don't knock it until you try it", but more like we don't have to try it to know we prefer something else that would be more functional and fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The IDEA of playing a melee based class vs. a ranged based class isn't terribly fun.
It's in the trying that we find out, "Hey.. this kinda works."
Some fear marine building would slow down the game pace, I think the MACs will do just the same when they get stuck / destroyed and the team has to wait for a new one that'll get taken out on its way. But we'll have to see how it plays out, maybe it wont be as bad as it sounds. Maybe that's where multiple commanders will come in to play.
I just hope I get to do more than just shoot stuff -> die -> respawn as a marine. I've got my fix of that already with all the other FPSes out there.
What? I must have missed the part of "allowing" marines the ability to build somehow equated to forcing the marines to "build" the commander into not using his "MAC"...
If you don't want to build then don't. If you want to actually improve the overall game or have the experience where you can get to places the MAC's can't or want to be "covert" with placing structures then you should have the ability to build, it was a great and important aspect of the game especially in rushing.
Actually if you read 6 Days in Sanjii, the Marines aren't physically building the structure. The Command Station interfaces with the local nanogrid to get a base up and running, using nanite gel as the raw materials with the omnipresent nanomachines to construct it. The nanomachines however will only build something with the correct authorisation, that means someone at the construction location interfacing with the nanogrid. Given that the story speaks of the marines simply stretching their hands out, at a guess the nanogrid checks the DNA of the person overseeing the construction and checks this against a list of authorised personel. Thanks to the Commander his whole crew are now on the stations' authorized personel list, and are in fact promoted to the highest rank. The nanogrid then undertakes the construction, but only so long as the recognised authority figure remains nearby.
Why do buildings build faster with more Marines "using" them? If the nanogrid detects multiple high rank individuals trying to get a single object constructed, clearly it would be programmed to allocate even more nanomachines to construct it as it is a very high priority.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A signifier came into view -- a loose nano-ghost of a blocky, waist-high machine. "... I need you to pretend to be a maintenance crew and call this up for me."
The three of them stood around it. "Can you be a little more specific, Sir?" Mercy asked.
"I've superceded the Genghis system with our higher grade nano -- but I've still got to play by its rules. Its heirchal resource allocation paradigm attempts to limit building access based on rank of individual and the task at hand. It also decides what tasks require placement oversight. So, just as a maintenance team would have to spot-oversee the creation of a device, I need you to validate my system request."
"Uh ... maybe instead of being more specific, you could just actually tell us what we're supposed to do."
"Just 'use' it, the same way you activate a lift, or access holometric displays."
They stared at it and put their hands out. Sparks began to fly as the internal circuitry created itself out of nano-particles.
"We're getting a work-in-progress display on our HUDs."
"Good, the system's buying it."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With that cleared up, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
Building structures is the most concrete way to make a marine feel like they're really a part of the RTS model, too, and I like it that way.
Also, I don't think building slows down gameplay. In fact, it helps to solidify the aliens' role. If you let marines build, they should win. Aliens need to be constantly ambushing/stalking/harassing marines as they attempt to do so. That's what makes for the game's very intense feel. If you're a marine, you're always venturing out to build, anticipating attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely agree with this. I love the building aspect. I love the marines have to decide who should build and who should cover them while building. It's decision making based scenarios like that which make NS an amazing game.
It is pretty comparable. NS2 is suppose to have a lot more stuff, listen to that recent 80 minute podcast, there are a lot of hints in it related to Commanding and its Gameplay.
It is at the end, like the last 30 minutes. Check NS2 twitter for link.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're putting your own perception of the game into your argument. That does not make for good debate. Argue objectively, "This game is basically starcraft..." is not how a lot of people see it.
This game isn't a Starcraft clone or wannabe, I don't know why when a new game is made everyone has to find a game that it can be directly compared to, as if everyone is somehow afraid of a new game. Why can't NS2 just be NS2? Why does it have to be <i>"basically Starcraft where the players get to control the individual combat units directly instead of the commander moving them around"? </i> That sounds like a different game to me.
This is why Skulks bite down everything real fast, because it was very boring in NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
100% opinion based. I almost exclusively played Marines in NS1 just because I like the playstyle more, and the building aspect was near perfect. The only change I'd agree on is that there should be a cap on how many marines can speed-up the building process so buildings are not being constructed instantly.
Alien commander was added to balance out against the marine side and allow for a similar (not exact) experience as the marines. Taking away building from Marines while aliens (gorge) can still build structures seems like tipping the scales one way a bit.
Nerf the Marine build a bit, but allow it. And as said before, no one is twisting your arm to build (unless you are at a LAN, then it could be possible :P).
I just see the Comm/Marine coop decreasing with lack of building, and Marines buying their own gear. Comm just gets to play an RTS structure building game with a single type AI and have human people that just go off and do their thing.
Of course! But if the point being argued is that marines being able to build without welders makes "no sense", it's quite relevant.
So you want to grab a weapon and leave base to shoot aliens? Then, NS is not the game for you but Counter Strike or Call of Duty is.
Natural Selection WAS about building and attacking (following Comm' orders), and should this one be as well.
Yes, there are some players who don't follow orders, so what, the most of us did. But because you are too lazy, or you want to play a Counter Strike-like game you want to take the ability to build for the rest of us? I don't think so.
I wanna be able to sneak behind enemy lines and build a PG right under their Hive if possible! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the kind of argument that just polarizes this issue. Which do you think would turn people away from NS more: removing all combat from the game or removing all building hmmmm ?
That's right removing all _combat_ ; and why do you suppose that is ?... yes, people actually enjoy trying to "shoot" things. Not only that but alot of us actually like "tactical" combat where clever tactics are rewarded and there's a constant sort of cat and mouse game going on between the two sides as tech evolves etc etc.
Hint: You can sneak behind enemy lines still and cause problems for them even without being able to build a PG btw
How about if you just want to shoot things you go play quake.
That's right removing all _combat_ ; and why do you suppose that is ?... yes, people actually enjoy trying to "shoot" things. Not only that but alot of us actually like "tactical" combat where clever tactics are rewarded and there's a constant sort of cat and mouse game going on between the two sides as tech evolves etc etc.
Hint: You can sneak behind enemy lines still and cause problems for them even without being able to build a PG btw<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about removing combat? (speaking about polarizing).
Everybody knows that people like shooting, that's why games like CS or CoD are so popular, but I'm glad NS is different. So if you just wanna shoot, why don't you play another of the hundreds of FPS around (the kinds you like, shooting with no sense) instead of coming and trying to change one of the unique RTS/FPS game existing these days.
More tactical you say? More than obeying orders from you comm? Trying to move as a team? What you actually do separating comms and rines is lots of rambos, that means, another Counter Strike.
I like the way NS1 is, of course, changes are always welcome, but you guys are asking for a massive change for this one. I just want to be able to build and have more interaction between comms and rines. I do want the MACs to stay, but not to take away one of the most important ability for rines. Because if this game became another standard FPS, then I don't think I would play it anymore.
Case and point: Do fades, onoses, lerks etc help build RT's, hives, ocs, dcs, scs, etc etc.
NO because their busy killing marines.
What should marines be busy doing? Sitting in base building protolabs and tfs? Sounds like a good way to give the aliens the fighters-in-play advantage. I mean is a random marine holding a rifle or a welder?
Everybody knows that people like shooting, that's why games like CS or CoD are so popular, but I'm glad NS is different. So if you just wanna shoot, why don't you play another of the hundreds of FPS around (the kinds you like, shooting with no sense) instead of coming and trying to change one of the unique RTS/FPS game existing these days.
More tactical you say? More than obeying orders from you comm? Trying to move as a team? What you actually do separating comms and rines is lots of rambos, that means, another Counter Strike.
I like the way NS1 is, of course, changes are always welcome, but you guys are asking for a massive change for this one. I just want to be able to build and have more interaction between comms and rines. I do want the MACs to stay, but not to take away one of the most important ability for rines. Because if this game became another standard FPS, then I don't think I would play it anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you're understanding my point which is that of the two _combat_ is by far more important than building... you can put fingers in your ears or cover your eyes if you like but thats the _fact_. Marines should be spending most of their time in combat as that is the entire point - to wipe out the other team and their base(s) of operation. The combat therefore is _key_ and should receive the lion's share of Dev attention... why do you think the Devs left out marine building btw and are so shocked to see opinions like yours ?
Now having said that why on earth would I want NS2 to be like CS ? I don't want NS to be like other FPS games either (please don't presume to know what games I play btw... I can't stand CS). NS2 without marine building is nowhere near like CS and you know it - you are completely blowing things out of proportion here and this is why I told you you are polarizing because it forces people to take a stand against such extreme opinions with extreme opinions of their own.
And while we're on the subject... if the combat in NS2 isn't interesting I won't be playing I can tell you that much as well.
This is such a bs argument. Just because marines can't build structures doesn't suddenly turn NS into something other than an RTS/FPS. The general strategy of the team is almost always devised by the team itself rather than just the commander. ("Hey Comm, can we get X?","Hey Comm, let's siege X hive soon") When the marines move out and scout / target drifters they're providing intel and harassing. The commander, in NS1 pubs, rarely was the sole person who made all strategic decisions.
Don't be lame and pretend just because marines can't hold "E" NS2 is going to self destruct.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It may be a new idea, but why completely remove the old one?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the RTS side in NS1 was <i>so</i> lacking and MACs/Drifters provide an opportunity to allow the commander to actually show off some RTS skill. Finally planning out an early/mid/late game, micromanagement, and multitasking may mean something more than just dropping buildings, weapons, and medpacks. Allowing FPS players to build trumps the role of MAC/Drifters and makes them redundant. I honestly think there can only be one method - commander building or player building. Any mix of the two and extreme balance and exploit issues ensue.
But I get the feeling most of you only see it in the context of NS1.
Let's take a look at the most "exciting" building-related situations in NS1 and how they relate to NS2.
From exciting to boring (in my opinion):
1) Building PGs
Setting up a PG for a hive rush was definitly one of the most exciting situations in NS1, as long as the location was in alien territory.
However the last official statement regarding PGs was that they don't exist in NS2, so this one is out.
2) Building sieges
Fending of aliens while constructing sieges was very common, but in NS2 sieges are commander controlled units.
This one's out too.
3) Building RTs
You always had to expect incoming aliens which created supense.
Also led to a few mini-games with (mostly) skulks, like trying to get them to attack and then strafe-jumping off the RT etc.
That's probably the only thing I'll miss.
4) Constructing outposts [TFs, turrets, whatever]
Not that exciting once the PG was up and a few marines had phased in.
TFs are not part of NS2, turrets were mostly build in areas that were already under marine control.
5) Building the base
Not exciting at all.
Looks like the MAC doesn't even affect most of these "sources of excitement" in NS2.
Thoughts?
Apart from the vast possibilities to balance the two build options, a bot will always follow it's orders to it's death (provided it isn't bugged) giving it a superiority to players and something for commanders to use when players are being uncooperative.
<!--quoteo(post=1792279:date=Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 6 2010, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792279"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I honestly think there can only be one method - commander building or player building. Any mix of the two and extreme balance and exploit issues ensue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything added or changed to a game has balance issues to address, I doubt allowing Marines to build would be a particularly 'extreme' one. No idea what would be exploited, but if exploit issues ensue they can also be addressed.
<!--quoteo(post=1792299:date=Aug 6 2010, 06:56 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Aug 6 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of the pro-player-building guys keep saying that the act of building created supense and I agree to an extend.
But I get the feeling most of you only see it in the context of NS1.
Looks like the MAC doesn't even affect most of these "sources of excitement" in NS2.
Thoughts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that the 'ninja PG and seige' thing is out of NS2's context, whether you miss it from NS1 or not it's kind of a separate matter from being able to build as a player in general.
What's boring and what's exciting to players is all very subjective though.
On a smart team, with a good comm, you'd usually have the shotguns and HMGs guarding the LMGs while they built.
<!--quoteo(post=1792278:date=Aug 5 2010, 11:56 PM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FilthyLarry @ Aug 5 2010, 11:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think you're understanding my point which is that of the two _combat_ is by far more important than building... you can put fingers in your ears or cover your eyes if you like but thats the _fact_. Marines should be spending most of their time in combat as that is the entire point - to wipe out the other team and their base(s) of operation. The combat therefore is _key_ and should receive the lion's share of Dev attention... why do you think the Devs left out marine building btw and are so shocked to see opinions like yours ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason <i>I</i> liked the building aspect was the added depth it brought with it. You'd start the game with little more than a weapon, a comm chair, and a few res, and it was up to you and your team to sculpt out a base. By spending time building up our defenses, I'd gain a sort of connection with my base, my team, and the match in general. It was this effort that made it feel great when marine start withstood a wave of aliens, or sting hard when our forward base was demolished due to a bad placement of the factory. I realize that net everyone liked constructing the base, and I know there <i>were</i> times when the building became tedious. But without that link to the team, the comm, and the base, I worry that the game will feel like a smaller version of Battlefield 2, with a bunch of players battling in the middle of the map and the commanders off in their own little world.
Then there was the tension of trying to get a phase or turret factory up while being harrassed by a few aliens, or finding yourself somehow unexpectedly getting past most of the aliens and arriving near their hive in perfect spot for an attack.
I think a good alternative would be to have MACs required at the start to build, but commander can research welders to enable marines to build.
"I loved NS1, this isn't in from NS1, can we put it in!?"
*sigh*
"I loved NS1, but Im worried that the further seperation of Commander and Marines is turning the game in to Counter Strike with 1 player doing his own RTS. Can we make sure that doesnt happen?"
*sigh*
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.
Sorry mate but it needed doing. For me the arguement isnt about trying to make NS2 like NS1. Its about trying to make sure that NS2 doesnt lose the unique feel of NS games.
Right now, Marines appear to be encouraged to just go off and shoot stuff with little regard to strategy or teamwork. Sure they might stick together a bit, but only for protection, not for any higher tactical reason. They buy their own guns, they dont help build structures (unless they choose to protect the MAC, but how many FPS players will feel that guard duty is boring?), they're there to shoot stuff, end of.
All the tactical and strategic decisions, building, welding doors, research, its all given to the Commander. But how much patience will the FPS guys have waiting for new tech? How much rage is there going to be if the Commander welds a door shut that a couple of players think he shouldnt have?
In NS1, there was a mutual reliance between marines and their Commander. They had to support him just as much as he had to support them - they were his builders, he was their ability to secure areas and move on, with bigger and better tech.
Until NS2 goes beta NONE of us are going to know for sure how the dynamic is going to work, but based on what we know now, even bearing in mind its only in alpha, a lot of people are worried that this mutual reliance style relationship has been diluted a bit too much.
<!--quoteo(post=1792325:date=Aug 6 2010, 10:29 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 6 2010, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->touche my ass, Delphic schooled y'all. that is EXACTLY what's going on. And it's very, very, very sad.
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming that Delphic understands what touche means in the context he used it, he certainly didnt school us all.
The inability of marines to build structures isnt going to suddenly and arbitrarily destroy the ability to work togetehr as a team, directed by the Commander. What you have to wonder is will the inability to build, combined with the ability to buy your own guns and armor, remove the incentive marines have to follow orders? After all, since there's is the dedicated FPS element and they get that regardless, why should they listen to some guy asking them to defend a MAC? They can buy their guns and get their kicks anyway.
EDIT - reply to zex
Reducing the reliance both ways between Comm and Marines, will mean public play is more separated, but I would argue this might be for the good, a big reason NS1 wasn't bigger was that commanding was too important and communication failed. Now I understand the argument that perhaps this is what made the community that did take it up quite the favour it was / is, and I'm sure we all enjoyed it. However UWE is trying to reach a bigger audience and it has to be fun for all playing.
<b>However</b>, not enforcing co-operation doesn't mean that good players and comms won't co-operate and communicate, it will still be to their advantage to do so, and with the new commander abilities it might be that communication required is still high without the need to change the building mechanic.
I think we pretty much agree that all this speculation has little worth, essentially we need to playtest the mechanics and move from there. I think the best way to stick with the way it was originally designed and then if when we're getting closer to beta we think we are lacking something that could be helped by changing (back closer to, or further from NS1) the building mechanic <i>then</i> it should be altered.
(Quick Edit: I know what I think it means, =] )
Actually, you don't "have to wonder" that at all, if you have a modicum of faith in UWE's vision and aren't a concern troll who acts like UWE is a bunch of bumbling hacks that just stumbled on the perfect game design in NS1 and will ruin it if they change anything.
seriously, concern-trolling that infantry not being able to make random buildings will somehow eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander? that doesn't even make any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whats sad is that you seem to be unable to see things from anyones point of view but your own.
Noones saying it will 'eliminate the ability of a team to work together as directed by a strategic commander', people are saying that it removes some aspect of gameplay that they liked from NS. We are allowed to voice our opinions on aspects of NS2 we we like or dont like, things that we think made think should be in/out of the game.
The fact that you cant see some limitations caused by it maybe indicates you are perhaps a little closeminded.