Armory stock idea
Nex Carnifex
Join Date: 2011-01-06 Member: 76366Members
Join Date: 2011-01-06 Member: 76366Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Commanders must use team resources to stock the armory</div>Since a huge complain right now is that there isn't much teamwork between the commander and the marines because of the disconnected resources, I thought of an idea that would allow Marines to purchase the weapons of their choosing, while the commander still having to play a part in providing the team with guns. Instead of the commander spawning guns everywhere like in NS1, this time, he simply purchases weapons to fill the armory's stock. Marines can only use their resources to buy weapons that the commander has purchased for the stock, this way, we will have marines talking to the commander about what weapons to add to the stock during different situations. The weapons would cost to much for the commander to severely cripple the marines, but it would be enough so the commander couldn't just buy tons of all the weapons at once to last for the rest of the game, you will get times where you only have a limited choice of what to buy, so you may have to request more guns in stock. Sound like a good idea?
Comments
destroying armories would also make marines lose their stock , some last chance effort for aliens
i say +1 to this idea good sir
destroying armories would also make marines lose their stock , some last chance effort for aliens
i say +1 to this idea good sir<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you! This way marines also will be using guns like their assault rifles more in order to preserve the stock, and they will still have to be careful with valuable weapons like the flamethrower. But the freedom of choosing there weapons will still be there, and commanders don't need to worry about which guns to give to who, since they will all be organized in the armory for the marines to choose from.
1. Team resources already limit marines heavily. This would basically be a huge nerf for the marine side.
2. This basically eliminates the need personal resources because the only thing marines use them for is buying weapons.
There are other better ways of encouraging teamwork then trying to turn NS2 into NS1 with better graphics.
1. Team resources already limit marines heavily. This would basically be a huge nerf for the marine side.
2. This basically eliminates the need personal resources because the only thing marines use them for is buying weapons.
There are other better ways of encouraging teamwork then trying to turn NS2 into NS1 with better graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This wouldn't be turning it into NS1 at all. And probably the weapons bought by the marines themselves would drop in price as to balance things out. Seriously, if one thing changes, other things can be tweaked to make that change work. Share some of you're ideas though of how teamwork can be encouraged.
2. Institute a health or armor bleed for players that get too far from friendly units or structures
3. Improve the commander's player orders system (i.e. give the comm options such as linking waypoints, typing orders that appear on the map like the annotate feature)
4. Allow players to heal/repair/give other players health, armor, ammo in the field
5. Designate squad leaders that have some basic comm functions (like giving orders or placing certain buildings such as portable power nodes or armories)
Those are just the ones from the top of my head. I've seen numerous teamwork suggestions made on this forum (though I'd rather not spend the time to find all of them right now). Also, you're suggestion seems less to do with encouraging teamwork than giving the commander more control over player weapon choice. I'd actually support this idea if it didn't cost TRes, but still allowed the commander to cap the number of certain weapons available (for example, when I get fts I'd rather not everyone get one so it would be nice to cap the number at something like 2 fts in operation at a time).
2. Institute a health or armor bleed for players that get too far from friendly units or structures
3. Improve the commander's player orders system (i.e. give the comm options such as linking waypoints, typing orders that appear on the map like the annotate feature)
4. Allow players to heal/repair/give other players health, armor, ammo in the field
5. Designate squad leaders that have some basic comm functions (like giving orders or placing certain buildings such as portable power nodes or armories)
Those are just the ones from the top of my head. I've seen numerous teamwork suggestions made on this forum (though I'd rather not spend the time to find all of them right now). Also, you're suggestion seems less to do with encouraging teamwork than giving the commander more control over player weapon choice. I'd actually support this idea if it didn't cost TRes, but still allowed the commander to cap the number of certain weapons available (for example, when I get fts I'd rather not everyone get one so it would be nice to cap the number at something like 2 fts in operation at a time).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if it didn't cost tr but it worked as a regenerating stock controlled by the commander who decides what weapons are being produced at the time. If there's a ton of infestation needed to be burned the commander can issue the construction of fts but that would cut down on the other weapons regenerating stock.
<!--quoteo(post=1836109:date=Mar 5 2011, 06:52 PM:name=sheena_yanai)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sheena_yanai @ Mar 5 2011, 06:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836109"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh hell yes..commander has to actualy manufacture each gun which takes some time before it gets added to the armories stock. that way guns get more valuable, and more expensive weapons/ longer taking to build ones could get a little bit less common.
destroying armories would also make marines lose their stock , some last chance effort for aliens<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like both of these ideas put together.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->+2<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
There are other better ways of encouraging teamwork then trying to turn NS2 into NS1 with better graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh!? Did you read the post?
<!--quoteo(post=1836164:date=Mar 5 2011, 09:30 PM:name=sheena_yanai)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sheena_yanai @ Mar 5 2011, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836164"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->dont use resources, but research time..or build time<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes! This is key for the original suggestion to work, IMO. This better limits the number of weapons on the field, and keeps the comm in control of the type of units (flamers, shotties, etc) he'll be controlling without adding additional expense.
This could be applied to entire loadouts, where the comm designates how many of which roles he wants filled (example: (1) Exosuit with Flamethrower), the armory builds it, and ground units report to the armory and purchase any of the available loadouts with their personal resources.
Just keep the current system, it works, it's nice, it lets me choose what I want to use, it removes pointless busy work from the commander and makes it less likely for the commander to break the game for the rest of the team.
Just keep the current system, it works, it's nice, it lets me choose what I want to use, it removes pointless busy work from the commander and makes it less likely for the commander to break the game for the rest of the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe if your not the one doing the teamwork, but this would require communicating with the commander, thus requiring teamwork.
Taking advantage of the intelligence of a human teammate in combat to have them act better than an AI can and therefore make the combat more interesting and varied, that's enjoyable teamwork.
Having to ask the commander to perform menial tasks slower than the computer can in order to make basic elements of the game work, that's not enjoyable teamwork, that's something I would rather was simply automated by the game.
It's like making each player controlled by one person controlling movement and one person controlling the gun, it would require a lot of teamwork, but it wouldn't be much fun, because I can do that myself with a better control scheme. Similarly I can choose and collect my own weapons if you give me the option, I don't need the commander to do it for me.
Taking advantage of the intelligence of a human teammate in combat to have them act better than an AI can and therefore make the combat more interesting and varied, that's enjoyable teamwork.
Having to ask the commander to perform menial tasks slower than the computer can in order to make basic elements of the game work, that's not enjoyable teamwork, that's something I would rather was simply automated by the game.
It's like making each player controlled by one person controlling movement and one person controlling the gun, it would require a lot of teamwork, but it wouldn't be much fun, because I can do that myself with a better control scheme. Similarly I can choose and collect my own weapons if you give me the option, I don't need the commander to do it for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point of the suggestion entirely, and that's probably because you're visualizing this in a pub, where players ask the commander to perform menial tasks instead of being commanded by them because you're playing in a solo mindset (not trying to cooperate). If you're playing the game "cooperatively," as designed, the comm is be the brain, and ground units are the muscle (in the grand scheme of the game, you have to be the brain as well in combat, obviously). Commanders can better execute a strategy when they have control over more of the variables. But like I said, it sounds like you're imagining this in some public server when NSDerp1 is playing commander, so yeah that'd probably be pretty frustrating, but the game isn't designed around these scenarios.
+1
Oooo. Nice.
Guiding, not forcing.
I would expand on that idea (possibly needlessly complicating it...), by allowing the commander to decrease the number by right-clicking. What would be the purpose of this? (Other than correcting one's self?) Well, rather than expressing the number of GLs required as a certain number that increments (by the commander's action) or decrements (by a purchase), instead have two numbers:
Current number equipped / Current quota.
So a commander could always be <b>encouraging</b> certain equipment roll-outs, regardless of deaths or purchases.
So for example, you could have seven players:
The commander could request 2 shotguns, 2 rifle+GLs, and 1 flamethrower. He'd make that the quota.
It could be that currently there are 3 shotguns, 2 standard rifles, 1 flamethrower and 1 rifle+GL (<b>equipped</b> not merely purchased).
The armoury buy menu would display the following information:
Rifle: 2/0
Rifle+GL: 1/2
Shotgun: 3/2
Flamethrower: 1/1
I don't like this idea that much. It means that the Marines still get to choose which weapon they have.
Personally, I don't care if they can't get to choose which weapon they get as the marine side should have a Dedicated commander that uses them. The Marines are basically the RTS side and the Aliens are the FPS side (Even though they can have a commander it is only used for upgrading and placing DI)
The Marine commander should have a FULL choice over which marine gets what weapon. Even if the marine dissagrees. it was like this in NS1 and no one moaned about it there as the commander was often a very good one and nearly all of the commanders had mics. Noobs were too scared to enter the command chair. It should still be like this in NS2.
Pros - go in command chair
Noobs - too scared to go in command chair.
NS2 is a baby friendly version of NS1!
Then the game is badly designed, because if it is to be successful public games with little coordination WILL be the normal situation.
I don't have the ability to turn off my brain and let the commander do the thinking, and if I did so then it would entirely degrade the point of having player controlled teammates, like I said the point of them is that they are smart, which means they can choose their own guns, and make tactical decisions themselves, they are not RTS units.
Saying you should ignore the brains of everyone on the team except the commander is incredibly wasteful, you have a team full of perfectly intelligent humans, give them something to be intelligent about, and suddenly the whole game becomes a lot smarter than if you have to share the brainpower of the commander throughout the entire team.
<!--quoteo(post=1836303:date=Mar 7 2011, 11:17 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 7 2011, 11:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oooo. Nice.
Guiding, not forcing.
I would expand on that idea (possibly needlessly complicating it...), by allowing the commander to decrease the number by right-clicking. What would be the purpose of this? (Other than correcting one's self?) Well, rather than expressing the number of GLs required as a certain number that increments (by the commander's action) or decrements (by a purchase), instead have two numbers:
Current number equipped / Current quota.
So a commander could always be <b>encouraging</b> certain equipment roll-outs, regardless of deaths or purchases.
So for example, you could have seven players:
The commander could request 2 shotguns, 2 rifle+GLs, and 1 flamethrower. He'd make that the quota.
It could be that currently there are 3 shotguns, 2 standard rifles, 1 flamethrower and 1 rifle+GL (<b>equipped</b> not merely purchased).
The armoury buy menu would display the following information:
Rifle: 2/0
Rifle+GL: 1/2
Shotgun: 3/2
Flamethrower: 1/1<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be quite happy with that, actually I'd like that information anyway, lets me choose a weapon to compliment the rest of the team. I could do with knowing what everyone else is using, especially when picking my gun.
Noobs - too scared to go in command chair.
NS2 is a baby friendly version of NS1!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'd be surprised how many noobs jump in the cc. I'd rather that not cause my team to automatically lose.
[...]
Saying you should ignore the brains of everyone on the team except the commander is incredibly wasteful, you have a team full of perfectly intelligent humans, give them something to be intelligent about, and suddenly the whole game becomes a lot smarter than if you have to share the brainpower of the commander throughout the entire team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is taking what I said to an extreme. No one said turn off your brain. Implementing this idea does not inhibit you from sharing your ideas (brainpower) all day. If the comm decides to upgrade to Flamethrowers, shouldn't that indicate that he wants units to use flamethrowers? And shouldn't he have some degree of control over that? I guess what it boils down to is how the commander/soldier relationship is intended to work in this game? Is it supposed to be a chain of command, where the comm gives the orders and you follow them explicitly, or more like a contract, where the command provides the overall objective and a toolbox and leave the implementation to the marines?
Still, you have a point. This suggestion in it's original form gives him too much control such that it debilitates the team if there is no strong cooperation, which is bound to occur in public games. Perhaps this is too restrictive. Svenpa's suggestion seems like a happy middle.
I <i>approve</i> Harimaus extension, it allows preferable permanent setups while still keeping the possibility to change before an assault or other shortterm decisions.
Edit: Note to self, don't use words you don't know what it means, EXACTLY.
I condone Harimaus extension, it allows preferable permanent setups while still keeping the possibility to change before an assault or other shortterm decisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really being a weapon dump spammer was one of the most annoying parts of NS1 comming. Oh crap, I forgot to spam my keyboard and mouse 5 times to give everyone welders. How silly of me. And NS1's difficulty comm curve created a huge problem at our LAN parties since only a few would ever learn how to comm since we should leave it for the "pros". =[
I actually really like Harimau's suggestion/extension. It lets people know how many are in the field at the menu, and what the Comm thinks should be an overall "ideal" distribution, but it again is only a suggestion. A way for the comm to communicate without resorting to typing in the chat. And you can easily change things in prep for a major SG rush or something, and as you lose weapons you don't have to return to the armory to "restock" your quota since your preferences remain.
med-packs 'revive' armor.
That's ludicrous. This games strength is it's <i>realism</i>.
Instead, why not enable MAC to 'join squad'. When the squad does not have a destination/are at objective, MAC autoomatically welds soldier armor (if required).
I actually really like Harimau's suggestion/extension. It lets people know how many are in the field at the menu, and what the Comm thinks should be an overall "ideal" distribution, but it again is only a suggestion. A way for the comm to communicate without resorting to typing in the chat. And you can easily change things in prep for a major SG rush or something, and as you lose weapons you don't have to return to the armory to "restock" your quota since your preferences remain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 things. your click spam is still in the game, its just medpacks and ammo now. and second, you can tell who has what weapon by checking the scoreboard.
med-packs 'revive' armor.
That's ludicrous. This games strength is it's <i>realism</i>.
Instead, why not enable MAC to 'join squad'. When the squad does not have a destination/are at objective, MAC autoomatically welds soldier armor (if required).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The place to put your quarrel with med-packs is a new thread.
the commander and marines right now feel too much apart from each other. Both playing two different games, without heavily relying on each other.
1. Macs, the commander seem to depend more on these little bots, and the more bots he has the less he depends on his marines
2. marines do not depend on the commander for weapons, they can buy their own weapons since they have their own personal resources
the idea in this thread can put fourth a more serious approach to commanding, since right now commanding is far too easy with macs. (once you have certain amount of them you instant build or repair) since they do more than marines. People who like them usually enjoy doing less work, or commanders enjoying not depending on marines, not good at all. If marines start depending on the commander to supply them weapons the game will actually change the gameplay, and the game might become more challenging.
the commander and marines right now feel too much apart from each other. Both playing two different games, without heavily relying on each other.
1. Macs, the commander seem to depend more on these little bots, and the more bots he has the less he depends on his marines
2. marines do not depend on the commander for weapons, they can buy their own weapons since they have their own personal resources
the idea in this thread can put fourth a more serious approach to commanding, since right now commanding is far too easy with macs. (once you have certain amount of them you instant build or repair) since they do more than marines. People who like them usually enjoy doing less work, or commanders enjoying not depending on marines, not good at all. If marines start depending on the commander to supply them weapons the game will actually change the gameplay, and the game might become more challenging.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and also it would make the Marines feel a bit more like your units instead of just people running around killing aliens. The basis of the game is an FPS RTS, and it's much less of an RTS when you have no control whatsoever to what your marines are using to fight with. They should have a choice for what they prefer to play with, but the game isn't like Call of Duty with 100s of weapons and combinations to choose from that are all pretty much equal, there is only a few weapons and each is for a different task. The comm should be directing his soldiers based on "strategy", as he plays the real time strategy role, and that's what commanders do. This, modified by all the great ideas people had, would allow him to direct them in the way he could in NS1, but better and more organized.
Some people are saying there scared that what if a noob jumps in and messes it up. Well, the comm is half of NS2, marines should not be able to win without him or else that defeats the whole idea behind the game. Right now the commander and the marines have little connection when it comes to strategy, and this would not force, but greatly encourage this huge aspect of the game. And it should be one of the easiest things for a noob to figure out anyway.
Well yes, but med and ammo click spam is infinitely more rewarding than the remedial weapon spam.
Also, yes, this is redundant info, but it's all nicely packaged for you (I don't want to count up the number of weapons on the scoreboard, I have more important things to spend my 2 seconds on) and it's right where you need it, meaning you don't have to bring up the scoreboard. Huzzah for click economy, perhaps the most ignored part of good UI design.