Use of 2nd and 3rd tech point once research is done
Nilar
Join Date: 2010-06-14 Member: 72058Members
Join Date: 2010-06-14 Member: 72058Members
Something that has been bugging me is how the second and third tech point is kind of redundant once you've gotten the needed research out of them. It allows for another commander but honestly the team is usually better off with more feet on the ground rather than 2 or 3 commanders.
It feels a bit too punishing to disable Onos/flamers if you lose your third techpoint however.
How about having additional living hives decrease gestation times quite substantially?
Something similar for marines I guess, but not sure what. Maybe have the armories contain a certain amount of weapons of each type which gets replenished quicker and quicker for each live CC?
Anyone have other ideas?
It feels a bit too punishing to disable Onos/flamers if you lose your third techpoint however.
How about having additional living hives decrease gestation times quite substantially?
Something similar for marines I guess, but not sure what. Maybe have the armories contain a certain amount of weapons of each type which gets replenished quicker and quicker for each live CC?
Anyone have other ideas?
Comments
You need a tech point to make spawn points, I don't see why you'd put all the IPs in one base when you can quite easily develop a second base and double your chances.
I don't think it would. It gives both sides a strong reason to capture and hold multiple tech nodes. Right now turtling in your starting tech node (after getting the second node and upgrades) is a viable strategy to win. That goes against standard RTS gameplay design where teams who hold more expansion points should do better. I think the key is more balance between the sides. Either marines need more early game firepower to push back against DI and forwards hives with crags/whips, or more alien tech needs to be moved to lvl2/3 tiers.
Something similar for marines I guess, but not sure what. Maybe have the armories contain a certain amount of weapons of each type which gets replenished quicker and quicker for each live CC?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the idea of extra Hives providing reduced gestation time for aliens. Aliens are discouraged from dying due to their long gestation times, which is balanced early game. But it becomes a huge disadvantage late game, when Marines can almost instantly rearm, and respawn quicker with multiple Infantry Portals.
Maybe marines would have part of their resource models changed so multiple CCs would provide real advantages. For example, Med packs and Ammo packs would cost CC energy instead of personal res, and one CC would only be able to support one MAC, etc.
Did you saw any others RTS make something like that ? it really dumps down the different strategy you could do by making all the different party look the same, there is no place for different build order and it's a shame. Basicly if you don't get a second CC/Hive you are screwed, i already imagine when the players will get good at the game they will just have to rush to the CC/Hive second location and the most fast of the both team will win somehow.
You guys should take a look at Savage 2, it's very close to NS2 in term of ideas and achieve them way better for what i saw for the moment.
To go back to the subject about the second CC being particularly useless after researchs, maybe they could do a range around them (the whole room for example) where Infantry Portal can only be built, so you need a new one to actually expand your progress in the enemy's field or even making them being a power source for the room as well. I always found that nod were too weak for a so crucial role that can flip the whole game in no time, when i play aliens i just rush them and when we are many, it doesn't last at all and make marines side so powerless literally speaking.
One way might simply be to remove the requirement to upgrade tier (or perhaps simply upgrade tier with node gain automatically*), and tie Tier directly to number of tech nodes kept (and downgrade tier with node loss automatically*). And tiers directly related to upgrades - loss of tier, loss of related upgrade. However, regaining a higher tier will restore the already-researched upgrade, no need to research it twice.
* hive/CC tier becomes more a cosmetic and indicative (of what researches are available/enabled) effect than anything else.
This makes it essential to hold on to tech nodes, which should be the goal.
You should also link tiers (and their upgrades) to concepts.
Tier 1 - Exploration, expansion (pro-expansion tech, facilitate ally establishment; primarily early game)
Tier 2 - Combat effectiveness (anti-personnel tech, defend own establishment, attack enemy establishment; primarily middle game)
Tier 3 - Game ending (anti-base tech, crush enemy establishment; primarily late game)
Losing Tier 3 would just make it that much harder to end the game, losing Tier 2 would make it harder to be effective in combat. Regardless, the game does need the concept of loss.
As it is, NS1/2 naturally already has this idea implemented, but perhaps they could be made more distinct.
One of the more obvious suggestions I can think of in relation to what I've outlined above, is to swap the flamethrower for the shotgun.
The shotgun is very obviously anti-personnel, so it belongs in Tier 2.
And of course, at Tier 1, DI can spread, so marines need a counter: the flamethrower.
However, perhaps make the flamethrower weaker against DI at Tier 1 (with some anti-personnel use), then at Tier 3 there can be a flamethrower anti-DI & anti-structure upgrade.
The personal flamethrower cost will still be rather high, so it will still be rather precious.
Other tech can also take a similar approach; for instance, the GL: either you could move it into Tier 2 or 3 (and maintain its anti-structure purpose), OR give it a high-explosive anti-structure upgrade at Tier 3, but at Tier 1 or 2 make it good enough for area-denial (in contrast to the lerk's spores) with some anti-personnel use.
So far, aliens can be kept pretty much as they are
In summary, something like this:
Tier 1: rifle, damage&armour upgrades, weak flamethrower, scanner sweep, weak grenade launcher(?); skulk, gorge, lerk(?), skulk running leap(?), melee upgrade
Tier 2: shotgun, jetpack(?), exo(?), grenade launcher(?) or weak grenade launcher(?), beacon; lerk(?), fade, lerk piercing, skulk running leap(?)
Tier 3: jetpack(?), exo(?), grenade launcher(?) or grenade launcher upgrade, ARC, flamethrower upgrade; onos
My preference:
Tier 1: rifle, damage&armour upgrades, weak flamethrower, scanner sweep; skulk, gorge, lerk, melee upgrade
Tier 2: shotgun, jetpack, beacon; fade, skulk running leap, lerk piercing
Tier 3: exo, grenade launcher, ARC, flamethrower upgrade; onos
Tier 1: rifle, damage&armour upgrades, weak flamethrower, scanner sweep; skulk, gorge, lerk
Tier 2: shotgun, jetpack, beacon; fade, skulk running leap, lerk piercing
Tier 3: exo, grenade launcher, ARC, flamethrower upgrade; onos<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this. Having a weak flamethrower would be quite useful at the start of the game.
I agree in having the Shotgun as a Tier 2 weapon but it also needs to have a nerf anyway even though it may be a tier 2 weapon (200 max damage is too much an upgrade should give it that much damage. 150 max damage is fine imo)
and then having the flamethrower that we have now as a Tier 3 would be good (Would need tweaking though).
I have always seen the flamethrower as a end-game type of item but the fact that is availible at Tier 2 kind of ruins that idea. Having a weak Flamer at the start and then have the base destroying upgrade last would allow the flamethrower to be more of an end-game type of item.
While I like most of Harimau's ideas (tie progression to Tech Points, less res cost of upgrades), I'm curious about some of the other aspects that aren't implemented yet. For example, how will the other upgrade structures play into the Alien tech tree? In NS1 the chamber build order was a really unique aspect and changed the game dramatically. Hive1 Cloaking for that initial boost? MC for mobility? I don't think NS2 should tie chambers to Hives since that really restricts their tech choices (all pros went MC first), but some kind of limiter so that they have to commit to a system would be nice.
<b>spellman23</b>: Well, one way to limit them so that they commit to a path is to increase the resource cost of the chamber, but this isn't very good for many reasons.
Another way would be to have a true tech path, with many-layered prerequisites; each chamber will represent a certain path, each path will be made up of a number of researches, but <b>for the most part</b> you can't research them all at once, or more relevantly: you can't pick and choose*; for the most part, one research will require an earlier research, and another research will require that research, and so on.
* So what this effectively means is, you're increasing single-chamber commitment to an inter-chamber choice, but decreasing intra-chamber choice.
A consequence of this is that enemy players will tend to target and destroy a single structure** - in fact this will play out very similar to the tie-researches-to-tier dynamic. So in fact this may be ideal. Besides, chances are aliens are going to have a few unupgraded chambers around (which will not have researches), so they'll simply need to upgrade one (to re-enable the researches).
** To increase or decrease the ease (and frequency) of this, simply decrease or increase the health of upgraded chambers. The same approach can be applied to tech points and the tie-researches-to-tier dynamic.
Another consequence of this is that the tech tree will be kind of three dimensional:
-Inter-chamber choice (choice of path)
-Tier progression (tech level)
-Intra-chamber progression (progression along path)
Any research will have three requirements to be available - it will be associated with a chamber which must exist, and a tech level which must be available, and it must satisfy pre-requisites.
The same can be done for marines and their structures and researches.
My only concern is how class-specific upgrades should be handled, e.g. running leap, piercing spike. For these, I would not have research-prerequisites (not part of a chamber's main tech path), but I would have tier-prerequisites (unlock at certain tiers). Then it's mostly a matter of which structure(s) to place them on.
So, if I'm getting this right, we should have tiers within each chamber's research. So, you could beeline down a specific chamber and its abilities, or broaden out over multiple ones (either within a chamber or between chambers). Also, each path along each chambers' routes would be fairly linear, similar to GalCiv2 tech trees. And since you research on the building, you will need to keep 1 or 2 main ones to use for research purposes and not in-field support.
And somehow we'll also mix in the class-specific upgrades.
Is that an appropriate simplification?
<ul><li> Limit the total number of MACs spawned per Command Station to 1 (maybe 2).</li><li> Remove Energy entirely, replace all Energy costs with Personal Res cost.</li><li> Implement ability cooldowns--for any Ability that uses Personal Res--per Commander, so that each Comm has his own cooldowns for all Assists (Med/Ammo) and any given structure's abilities.</li></ul>
<!--quoteo(post=1837052:date=Mar 14 2011, 12:10 AM:name=HolyTeal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HolyTeal @ Mar 14 2011, 12:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1837052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For me the very beginning of the problem is the need to build a second CC or Hive to be able to upgrade tier and make some researchs in the first place.
Did you saw any others RTS make something like that ? it really dumps down the different strategy you could do by making all the different party look the same, there is no place for different build order and it's a shame.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're ignoring the fact that the resource model is very different. Standard RTSs have (at least) a primary and secondary resource. The primary resource is typically abundantly available at all expansions and is used in all purchases, while the secondary resource may only exist in limited supply at select expansions and are used for more advanced purchases.
NS2s primary resource is Team Res (and functions similarly to a typical primary resource), but does not have a secondary resource that is used similarly (Personal Res does not fit the bill). Instead what we have are territories that when controlled allow you to purchase an upgrade that grants access to more advanced purchases. Permanently. It's like an endless supply of Vespene. Doesn't seem right. At the very least, you should lose access to your Tier upgrades when you lose the Control Points, but personally I think the whole system is still too simple, too limiting, and frankly a little unimaginative. Not sure if much can be done about this without starkly deviating from the devs' vision, however.
I got my inspiration from the (Human) Townhall concept from Warcraft 3 (which was probably inspired by the Town Centre garrison feature in AOE2). In those games, the main base structure gives increased attack and health to workers fighting around the base, but workers are unable to gather resources while in combat.
Perhaps Marines can be encouraged to control tech points in NS2 by making each expansion provide combat bonuses in its vicinity.
Also, I don't think this would help that much, except for defense of the tech point.
So, if I'm getting this right, we should have tiers within each chamber's research. So, you could beeline down a specific chamber and its abilities, or broaden out over multiple ones (<strike>either within a chamber or</strike> between chambers). Also, each path along each chambers' routes would be fairly linear, similar to GalCiv2 tech trees. And since you research on the building, you will need to keep 1 or 2 main ones to use for research purposes and not in-field support.
And somehow we'll also mix in the class-specific upgrades.
Is that an appropriate simplification?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just about, yes. :)
You're not wrong, the strike-through is just for emphasis. As you say, my suggestion is that for the most part, tech trees should be perfectly linear. Of course you may want to have SOME variation within a chamber, but not much. I haven't played GalCiv2, so I can't really comment. Honestly it would be a lot easier to explain with a drawing...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/guUEp.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Kinda abstract, but you get the picture.
There was also a bit of a further discussion on the tech tree in general, and how maxhealth can be tweaked to change the gameplay dynamic.
Yeah, I was parsing the other parts, but I wanted to make sure I had solid footing on your core idea. And it would definitely line up Aliens more with how Marines have their upgrade paths. Armor1->Armor2 and so forth, and using tech tiers as "gateways" to better tech for both sides, forcing stronger desirability for the tech points.
Also, look where along the tech tree common strategies in other RTSs take fruition and how the tech tree facilitates them.
Tier 1 - Shotguns make the Zerg Rush strategy a bit overpowered for Marines right now. IPs are a good investment for pumping out marines, while the Shade's ability Phantasm could use Skulk illusions to divert damage during Skulk rushing. Making all weapon and armor upgrades available at Tier 1 would facilitate this. Flamethrower needs to be at T1 to prevent DI spread or we need another way to keep Infestation from permanently blocking off all nodes.
Tier 2 - Towering/Siege Tactics are sort of lackluster in the games current state, but ignoring that, in theory ARCs and Sentry Turrets with Power Packs fill this role for Marines, while Hydras, Whips(?), and Crags(?) fill the role for Aliens. Harassing/Backdooring (micromanaging glass cannons to cripple resource flow) could be better facilitated for Marines by placing the JetPack and Shotgun in Tier 2. Shade's Echo could be used to backdoor alien structures into an enemy base.
Tier 3 - Hard to gauge since nothing for Tier 3 is implemented yet.
Here's my take:
Tier 1: AR, Flamethrower, Upgrades / Skulk, Gorge, Lerk, Shade, Upgrades
Tier 2: Shotgun, GL, Jetpack, ARC / Fade, Running Leap, Lerk Piercing, Shift
Tier 3: Exo, Minigun / Onos
I have a different idea for the Flamethrower:
A bit like the SC2 Void Ray, Flamethrower damage starts off very low but increases exponentially as flames accumulate/build on the target. However, it also eats fuel like a diesel engine, and once you stop to reload the flames die off and damage resets. However, when equipped with an Exosuit weapons use an overheat/cool-down system instead of ammo, so the Flamethrower could potentially take longer to overheat, increasing the potential damage output per "reload".
This would force a redo of the tech tree for Harimau's tech tree. And new things would be added.
For example, along that path could be base upgrades to all lifeform's HP/Armor, similar to the Marine Armor upgrades. Or for the chambers to become more effective, or abilities to become more powerful. So, in Tier1 you can only upgrade Adrenaline to Lv1 or Lv2 and you need Tier2 to get Adrenaline Lv3.
So yes, this would require a redesign of the tech tree as we know it now.
If we merely lock more things to the tech tier, we may still be able to fix some of the current problems. Locking advanced weapons and lifeforms behind tech tiers will help the pacing of the game, and if one side maintains a tech advantage long enough they can summarily trounce the other side.
I personally prefer the more traditional model for the plethora of strategies and options it encourages. It gives much more room for original critical thinking and strategies on the fly.
My idea would be to stay with this model by tying res node collection rate to tech nodes. The reasoning could simply be that the tech points are the main way resource is processed so the more you have the faster you can process and collect res. Each expansion ups the resource collection rate for the team. This would allow teams to either try and drop res capping nodes or save up and drop an expansion or just drop all their res until upgrades to have a early military advantage.
Also I like the idea of capping 1 maybe 2 macs per command station and making all building energy cost personal res instead. There is to much redundant economic mechanics right now.
The problem I had with NS1, as much as I enjoyed it, was how linear the game play became at higher levels. The options were very limited when it came to macro-scale strategy. It became completely about the push to acquire and hold the second hive for both teams. Whoever held it pretty much won.
<b>Consider this:</b>
If Aliens and Marines progress at the same levels of offence and defence, and all players are (mathematically speaking) exactly the same in skill and knowledge, what you find yourself having are long games caused by stalemates.
You see these broken on public servers by either players leaving, or getting bored and not putting the effort in.
<b>Ideally:</b>
You want a game that enables times of excitement (potential game ending situations) combined with the possibility of longer games.
<b>How:</b>
The way ideally you do this (I think) is to have weapon specific game play. Weapons that have huge advantages, but also huge disadvantages in relation to the opposition. Sort of X is better than Y but usless against Z or a combination of A+B.
<b>For instance:</b>
# The Shotgun could be a support weapon that is effective against lifeforms - but not structures, and fills a short range roll.
# The Flamethrower could be made much more powerful, but in turn very expensive, self hurts and a slow aim whilst firing, etc.
<b>Why:</b>
This sort of thinking would enable moments of specific tactical plays. Players would have to save up a lot more to gain access to possible game enders. The advantage for the Flame Thrower (in this sort of thinking) would be that it would be useless against life forms, but very effective against structures.
So very early on one player could save for it, access it, and possibly decide the game based upon a 'combined effort' using weapons that fit their 'specific roles'.
<b>Problems with other methods:</b>
Further up this thread, it was mentioned that Tier 3 should be a game ender.
The BIG problem with this, is that it is totally dependent on whether one side makes it to Tier 3 or not. This is based upon the time taken (without opposition) to gain Res Nodes, the time taken to research to Tier 3, and the time taken to research all necessary structures AS WELL as depending on the push and pull of the game.
I would say in the average game it takes maybe 25 minutes before you even get to Tier 3. This essentially means putting up with Stalemates until you get to this Tier. Even then, equal sides could end up fighting in games lasting an hour.
Realistically no one wants to play that long, especially the casual gamer. Even professional tournaments (based on my experience of CS) have games in total lasting around 45 minutes.
<b>Where do we see current methods working in other games?</b>
CS worked on a level whereby a round lasting 3 minutes, would immediately give one team a monetary advantage. So the advantage could easily flow from one side to another.
This is impossible in NS2, because of the style of game play.
<b>What is being introduced? </b>
The ARC, Bombard, and specifically DI and Power Node gameplay being implemented, all seem to be combating this. However, the current game play does not seem to be as effective as it perhaps should be. Destroyed power nodes can be repaired in seconds, and don't change the battlefield quickly enough. They are also either very well defended or can be repaired quickly.
The DI is also very similar.
<b>But:</b>
It will be interesting to see how everything plays out once everything is introduced. However, unless you can end a game early on most games will end up lasting 40+ minutes (one way remember) which is a very long time - especially without the excitement of sudden changes in the game.
Also... I said that tier 3 should be a game ender, yes; the idea however is that people are given the tools to crush bases - they become more powerful on a strategical rather than tactical level. The idea is also that people are encouraged to take and hold tech nodes - I believe that's the entire point of this thread: make tech nodes more valuable. I also, however, said to remove the tier research times (and by extension, cost) entirely; so you've misinterpreted this. Tiers would upgrade and downgrade directly based on how many tech nodes you possess. They would be a cosmetic thing more than anything, really.
Graphically, I might express tier "ability" like this...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/b5vXo.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The ARC is already going to be one of these.
I think the Flamer should be too, but an earlier tier.
The pistol is fine, LMG, Axe all fine. Just the GL and Flamer don't really seem to do much.
<!--quoteo(post=1838048:date=Mar 20 2011, 03:29 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Mar 20 2011, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838048"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think everything should be like I suggested, just weapons that are required to play a more fundamental role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without counters, the game will be in a perpetual stalemate, but with hard counters player skill becomes marginalized. There needs to be a balance between the two, which is what I think both of you are trying to get at from different perspectives. Weapons should have asymmetry to offer advantages and disadvantages to be mastered by the player and his opponent, but while higher-tiered weapons should necessarily prove more useful later on in the overarching scheme of the game, they should not render lower-tier weapons useless.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Weapons only make up half of a Marine's repertoire. Consider how each of these weapons may increase or decrease in utility and effectiveness when paired with a JetPack or Exosuit.
<!--quoteo(post=1837973:date=Mar 19 2011, 08:42 PM:name=l3lessed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (l3lessed @ Mar 19 2011, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1837973"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I personally prefer the more traditional model for the plethora of strategies and options it encourages. It gives much more room for original critical thinking and strategies on the fly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think both models, if executed correctly, will provide the same number of strategies and options, but with different focuses. Where the economy-centric model of traditional RTSs provides for variation in army composition (what specific units you build), the territory-centric model that NS2 has adopted will provide for variation in courses of action (how you decide to command the specific units). Since NS2 is not just about what the commander does, but also about what the player does, this model seems more fitting and balanced for both roles. Also, another advantage the current design has over the traditional model is that each map will encourage (hopefully without strictly favoring) different strategies, according to the quantity of and routes to each Tech Point and Res Point.
If you recall, the Marines have 2 alien-killing weapons, Shotguns and HMGs. Our commander kept spamming solely HMGs. However, due to how Redeption mechanics work, this meant the opposing Onos had decent chances of escaping alive after doing some damage, healing, and returning to crush our skulls in.
However, note that Shotguns help counter this by doing huge amounts of burst damage (assuming they are fully loaded). Plus, we kept running into Alien buildings, and HMGs deal 1/2 damage to buildings, so Shotguns would have helped there too.
However, Carapace Onos, Fades, and sometimes Skulks make mincemeat of Shotguns. You don't have enough sustained damage to take a Carapace Onos, and smart Fades and Skulks can maneuver in and out and avoid the shotguns. However, steady tight streams of bullets from HMGs fix that problem.
This is a prime example of how weapons in a "lower" tier are not useless/obsolete by the "higher" tier weapons, but we also don't have perfect hard counters either.
Sorry, that was a tad off-topic....
<b>On topic</b>
I think one of the goals is that every weapon and piece of equipment have a good role they fit, even if it's the compromise. For example, the Shotgun being only a melee dashing can't hurt building weapon is too niched for me. One of the few niched weapons might be the flamethrower because it's focused on a single feature, DI. However, no one wants to run around with a niched weapon that can't do anything against anyone else. Even the Grenade Launcher in NS1 could totally own lifeforms, especially since it bypassed Umbra.
So, higher tech, while it should deviate in its goals from lower tech, shouldn't be too focused. I don't think we have this problem with what we've seen yet in NS2, and I doubt we will at this rate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, no one wants to run around with a niched weapon that can't do anything against anyone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is, I feel, a big part of the problem with the flamethrower.
This has been an excellent discussion. Even though we've pretty well deviated from the OP, the core idea remains: <b>make tech points valuable</b>, and by extension, balance different technologies considering all aspects.
To summarise the... approach that I think NS2 should follow:
-Tier tied directly to tech nodes held, esp. remove upgrade requirement (thus, automatic).
-Different tiers' technologies' added-benefit is related to their 'goal' or emphasis: expansion, player-vs-player combat, game-ending respectively.
-Linear upgrade paths along a structure (with some necessary branching), esp. for aliens.
-Upgrades requiring requisites to remain activated (tier, structure) - loss of requisite leads to loss of researched upgrade and will require reclaiming the requisite (but ofc. no need to re-research).
-Somewhat specialised roles with different equipment, unique mechanics for increased variation and replayability (with different technical skill required - and technical skill SHOULD be required - for each equipment), but no hard counters (or very few), and nothing obsolete under any circumstance.
One thing to consider regarding hard counters in NS is, for example: a jetpack marine flying around an onos. Now, although the onos can do nothing against the flying jetpack marine, it could be said that the onos has enough survivability that the jetpack is not too hard a counter.
However, this is actually that situation that I proposed to Runteh: In this case, the Onos would have no options but to run, so it is in fact a hard counter (on a 1v1 basis).
Under further consideration though, the onos <b>is</b> <u>tier 3</u>, specialised for base destruction, so perhaps these semi-hard counters are acceptable <b>against high tier technologies only</b>.
If we could avoid this situation entirely, it would be better, but flying always trumps ground...
It's your free weapon, so I say it doesn't count in the scheme of balance as much and it is perfectly fine to make it redundant with a range of options that cover all situations, and better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but flying always trumps ground...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we make them squishier!
Under further consideration though, the onos <b>is</b> <u>tier 3</u>, specialised for base destruction, so perhaps these semi-hard counters are acceptable <b>against high tier technologies only</b>.
If we could avoid this situation entirely, it would be better, but flying always trumps ground...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't necessarily call this a hard counter, since running away does not harm the Jetpacker. While it may provide the Onos a means to get the Jetpacker on more equal grounds, it requires the Jetpackers compliance and does not strictly give the Onos advantage without this, so I think this is acceptable.
<!--quoteo(post=1838545:date=Mar 23 2011, 06:18 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 23 2011, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's your free weapon, so I say it doesn't count in the scheme of balance as much and it is perfectly fine to make it redundant with a range of options that cover all situations, and better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, primarily because UWE has very limited resources and should make the most of every asset they have. Also, by this logic, Skulks should become redundant as they are the free role, which makes any researches unique to the Skulk less valuable as well (Running Leap, Feed, Carapace, and Bloodthirst)
i agree but its not about nerfing alien players. they don't deserve it. 2 things:
1. turret forward defense isn't viable, 20 carbon hurts. Make it 30 commander plasma (choose medpack spamming or turret defense). Give us our turrets back (also fix hydra lag so hydra defense isn't frowned upon due to lag)
2. increase infestation cost so those clever alien comms can't beeline thru vents using the vertical technicality (placing overlapping infestation patches that are separated by the full height of the walls (not sure if this is intended)) and essentially cut off the marine commanders closest resource nodes in 2 minutes based solely on hive energy.
Well, if Skulks are fighting LMG Marines, they should be effective at any tech. Marines have better tech, Aliens get better tech. It can even out.
If Skulks are fighting jetpackers, life gets harder.
Heavies? Bugger.
Similarly LMG Marines versus a Fade could win, but you either need lots of Marines, a really bad Fade, or some serious skills.
Part of NS1 balance was Xenocide for Skulks which let them at least injure the heavier units, but that was partly because the Marines could save and slowly build up a Heavy/JP army1 player at a time whereas if an Alien didn't get a kill it never got out of Skulking due to individual res. Now that equipment and lifeforms are both individual res, It's questionable whether something like Xenocide which keeps the Skulk viable against late-game tech (albeit in sacrificial hoards) is necessary.
LMGs will stay at least partially useful late game due to the attachments, similar to how Skulks can buy upgrades. However, I'm OK with them being outclassed by a set of heavier, more specific weaponry late-game.
Attrition works against Kharaa; as long as they are prevented the third hive, they cant' fully tech. Heck, even with all three chambers, it's still reasonably possible without 3rd hive abilities to lose.
Marines do not share this in NS1. Given time, they can tech to ANY path. Choose JP instead of HA? Well, just stall out long enough to research it.
I don't think the importance of additional tech points should be tied to the tech researched.
I noticed you can upgrade the CC. The CC you researched from now has that tech tied to it ONLY, and if lost, you lose that upgrade, much like the AA in NS1? This may very well be how it is, I'm not able to really get my mind around how it is now.
If tying tech/abilities directly to a tech point, or amount of active points is difficult to balance for, how about an opposite approach. All tech is available to upgrade, even higher lifeforms, but 1 tech point/hive has a 200% cost for advanced research, plus factor in personal res costs and time to reseach, 150% cost at 2 CC/hive, and optimal cost at 3+. 4 tech points means endgame, lower research and personal resource costs to 75%. Personal res and research time could also be factored. The more tech points you have captured, the more active resources you have to put into research, and the more cost effective and time effective it becomes.
Heck, one type of implementation is that 2 CC's automatically opens Teir2 to research, otherwise you have to research it on your starting CC at a cost. A dumbed down example would be 2 CCs == instant Advanced armory (in NS1 speak). 3 CCs == 3rd tier, OR if you upgrade starting CC, you have to go to LVL2, then upgrade to LVL3, costing resources and time. Make it a trade off. Alien hives could do the same. You can research advanced lifeforms/unlock multiple chambers/structures, but multiple hives automatically unlock them at no additional cost.
This allows teams the chance to tech even when limited, and have a chance to come back. It places high importance on additional tech points, but not full on dependency.
You could have structural dependencies, such as X numbers of chambers researched/built before unlocking research ability for Y lifeform, or X building must be researched/built in order to pursue Y tech path.
Stupid idea? Possibly brilliant? I dunno. But the concept would be easy for people new to RTS style play and veterans alike. You can technically upgrade anything/everything with only one tech point, but the restrictions make it MUCH more beneficial to secure tech points as quickly as possible. But nothing it SPECIFICALLY tied to X locations, so you can still fight for it!
1. marine ips and cc's will be invulnerable (now marine loss will be determined by a ticket-based spawn system + time-limit [both can be tweaked via server options which allows for servers with no time limits and/or a custom number of tickets]). IP-rushing will no longer be possible for an easy win, but base rushes to kill marines and armories will still occur.
2. aliens on the defensive <u>always</u> where they start the game with all hives up (which i think fits with the game more... i mean it's no longer first-contact NS1). The aliens still have to research other lifeforms, which will need to be balanced so fades aren't available at the start of the game.
3. aliens can never reclaim a hive once it's gone.
4. aliens can never kill a new CC when it's built.
5. marine-tickets increase [to maximum?] upon destroying a hive.
This should make it impossible for a stalemate to occur. Marines can loose, by running out of tickets, at <u>any</u> point in game regardless of what unlocked-weapons or how many ccs + ips + armories + rts they have. Aliens will fight hard to control res and protect each hive with the ultimate goal of draining marine tickets [EVERY hive is important because a lost hive = lost territory and increased marine-tickets, see #5].
This would be 100% asymmetric + promoting action. A marine team low on tickets will see hope in taking out a hive in order to prevent running out of tickets. Aliens will no longer rage quit en masse due to marines getting flamethrowers, because they know that it's no longer necessary to steamroll marines off of every tech-point [which can be impossible with the right marine commander].
Additionally/optionally we can have it roles-reversed every round (like bad company 2), i.e. marines on the defensive trying to defend CC locations while draining the aliens of tickets. It would add some variation to the game... different commander+player tactics based on the mode and the race.
Also, the rifle is one of the very small assortment of weapons in the game, what else do you have? Flamethrower (useless) and shotgun. In fact, because it is so abundant, it should be possibly considered even more in the overall scheme of balancing.
Taking traditional RTS approaches like greater cost, or higher technolgy means better killing ability; or rock-paper scissors mechanics, doesn't work well (read: isn't fun) for the players on the field. However, that's not to say remove them entirely; having those RTS-style mechanics apply only to the RTS aspect of the game (structures, AI units, expansion, harassment, conquest) can work.
<!--QuoteBegin-KuBaN+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldn't necessarily call this a hard counter, since running away does not harm the Jetpacker. While it may provide the Onos a means to get the Jetpacker on more equal grounds, it requires the Jetpackers compliance and does not strictly give the Onos advantage without this, so I think this is acceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't really understand this. I was saying that Jetpacks are a counter to Onos, and could be considered a hard counter because the Onos doesn't have any options against the jetpacker but to take damage or flee. And because I was advocating no-hard-counters, I was considering whether or not this was a problem.