Tier upgrading with a single comm station
bigpoppa
Join Date: 2011-03-27 Member: 89038Members
Join Date: 2011-03-27 Member: 89038Members
How does everyone feel about this? It is the first update i've seen that i'm opposed to. I'm fearful that it is a step in the direction away from the sort of play that NS2 seeks to inspire.
It seems like the uniqueness and importance of the tier 2 and tier 3 abilities are being sacrificed because there is no "goal" that needs to be achieved for them to be unlocked. In multiple games I recall having 40 resources while feeding ammunition/health to marines on a big battle at a hive. I tell them i'm going to be building another command station to upgrade to tier 3 with knowledge that the marines may not even be able to hold the comm station much longer than it takes to build it. An anecdote is never enough to warrant a defense of a change but I believe within the anecdote there is an idea that UWE loves and doesn't want to extinguish.
This sort of attack or strategy seems to offer a lot of spontaneity to a battle. Commanders are conscious that though they must be conservative enough to not over-extend themselves and be susceptible to a quick and deadly alien strike, they must also expand in order to have map control and to improve their infantry's armor and weaponry. This particular change may not be at the center of UWE's focus being that the game has so much to implement; but why take away a fun and spontaneous element of the game? It gives more intrinsic value to the tier 2 and tier 3 upgrades through the fact that they must be worked for (in a good game it can be considerably difficult to attain t3).
I don't see why a marine team held to marine start deserves armor 3 and flamethrowers in the same way a coordinated and communicative marine team does. Maybe this is implemented as a balancing issue (alien's have a distinct advantage on rockdown atm) but I disagree with the consensus that balance at this stage is as important as keeping the philosophy of the game consistent.
This post is easily perceived as an overreaction to a fairly simple and arguably minor change in-game--I post it merely to raise heads to keep watch for what a change like this might mean for the future. It will only make other changes in this philosophical direction easier to make: both for the developers, who seek above all progress in their vision; and for the players, who's vision of what the game needs can often be distracted by the need for the game to be balanced and fair. These paid-closed-betas are an extremely new concept, and it is important that us playtesters do not forget that balance does not always come first--the preservation of the ideas that inspired this revolutionary game are what come first.
We have signed up to assist UWE in the advancement of a game that we hope will one day be great--and we must endure frustration at times in lost battles or easily won battles for the sake of ensuring that the game that is released to the public is the manifestation of all the ideas that inspired its creation--not the ideas that inspired its balance.
-Sam
It seems like the uniqueness and importance of the tier 2 and tier 3 abilities are being sacrificed because there is no "goal" that needs to be achieved for them to be unlocked. In multiple games I recall having 40 resources while feeding ammunition/health to marines on a big battle at a hive. I tell them i'm going to be building another command station to upgrade to tier 3 with knowledge that the marines may not even be able to hold the comm station much longer than it takes to build it. An anecdote is never enough to warrant a defense of a change but I believe within the anecdote there is an idea that UWE loves and doesn't want to extinguish.
This sort of attack or strategy seems to offer a lot of spontaneity to a battle. Commanders are conscious that though they must be conservative enough to not over-extend themselves and be susceptible to a quick and deadly alien strike, they must also expand in order to have map control and to improve their infantry's armor and weaponry. This particular change may not be at the center of UWE's focus being that the game has so much to implement; but why take away a fun and spontaneous element of the game? It gives more intrinsic value to the tier 2 and tier 3 upgrades through the fact that they must be worked for (in a good game it can be considerably difficult to attain t3).
I don't see why a marine team held to marine start deserves armor 3 and flamethrowers in the same way a coordinated and communicative marine team does. Maybe this is implemented as a balancing issue (alien's have a distinct advantage on rockdown atm) but I disagree with the consensus that balance at this stage is as important as keeping the philosophy of the game consistent.
This post is easily perceived as an overreaction to a fairly simple and arguably minor change in-game--I post it merely to raise heads to keep watch for what a change like this might mean for the future. It will only make other changes in this philosophical direction easier to make: both for the developers, who seek above all progress in their vision; and for the players, who's vision of what the game needs can often be distracted by the need for the game to be balanced and fair. These paid-closed-betas are an extremely new concept, and it is important that us playtesters do not forget that balance does not always come first--the preservation of the ideas that inspired this revolutionary game are what come first.
We have signed up to assist UWE in the advancement of a game that we hope will one day be great--and we must endure frustration at times in lost battles or easily won battles for the sake of ensuring that the game that is released to the public is the manifestation of all the ideas that inspired its creation--not the ideas that inspired its balance.
-Sam
Comments
In NS1 the aliens had tech and economy tied to map control. It was kind of balanced because hive2 was such a large tech increment above hive1 and you needed minimal resources to make efficient because of how awesome skulk leap was and how cheap chambers were. The downside was aliens were overpowered as hell when they did hold the map. It probably only worked because of the very unique timing windows created by marine tech. It's a convoluted system for sure which seems difficult as hell to deductively design. As all NS1 players can surely attest, when it's going well it's some of the most fun you can have strategically, but the downside is the number of slippery slope situations the alien team would get into just because they couldn't tech up. I suspect having such a positive does not offset the negative in terms of game design - perceived fairness is also an important factor.
It seems NS2 is following most standard RTS games: map control brings economy, tech is independent and due to timings involved, it will allow a short burst of superior aggressive tactics in which you can remove the enemy's map control, giving you a chance to catch up economically. This is only balanced through increased costliness of tech weaponry otherwise you do get silly turtling situations, but as long as a team has the ability to get the golden combo of economy + tech you're in good stead. The upside of this is "easy" balance by changing parameters of in-game capital.
Whether this design philosophy actually creates a fun game in FPS/RTS mode is another matter, one in which only time will tell I suppose. It definitely loses some of the flavour of NS1, though.
One thing I am worried about is the marine ability to teleport to their squad via Inf Portal. Like you say, there should be punishment for overextending your forces and when there are a fixed amount of units on the battlefield being able to put them basically where you want seems like a terrible idea in terms of back-and-forth battles. If it were merely an FPS game it wouldn't be a problem but every second the opponent keeps you pinned into your own base they grow exponentially stronger by expanding across the map for economy. If anything that ability should be seen as a complete game ender, it's essentially the same as a zerg 300 food push in SC2 because you can just keep going with shotgun/GL/flamethrowers until you're out of res.
tl;dr: map control being tied to too many variables makes nightmare to balance and make seem fair. Un-coupled tech from map control allows a secondary route to get around slippery slope, hopeless, situations (and people get to play with fun abilities more often.) Followed by continued ramble about something you didn't really talk about.
Basically I don't think tech upgrades from 1 base is a terrible idea. With good number balancing and a functional res depletion ability from the aliens (spore), it worked for marines in NS1. A lot of the time you didn't have enough res to get high tier upgrades when you need 2 or 3 shotgun/welders right there and then or you lose a position out on the map. I think after a certain point it definitely becomes a numbers game as to whether it works or not.
Edit: Some suitable replacement properties for tech points in my opinion would be: respawn rate, transportation links (do hives still let you teleport between them?), drifter/MAC spawns, extra strength res towers that only provide team res. Pick and choose between the sides to keep things asymmetrical.
This worries me as well.
I see too many current games where the losing side turtles...and is able to hang on for way too long.
They should either make the comeback or die trying.
Instead of forcing people to expand or die it seems we are saying meh expand or not...you'll get your toys.
I have to say that since hearing it I have cooled off a little and am open to try it.
Who knows maybe they have run some simulations and have seen things I do not see.
But as a programmer I think ...snapshot the code before that change.
When you compare a team which is expanding exponentially due to resource income with a team penned in and restricted to one or two nodes, it's fairly obvious who is more likely to win, the expanding team will be able to get stuff faster, have more fallbacks, better mobility, and will find it very easy to stop the other team making a push out because they have bases everywhere.
When the enemy has T3 stuff and you're still stuck on T2 because you can't afford the research I think you're going to lose.
Imagine.. your team just took over the last checkpointand building a CC or hive. Suddently the com jells that the CC/Hive on the other side of the map is destroyed.. and so on.
In my opinion Tier upgrading with a single comm station is not good. Tt would be better if the marines have to keep the 2nd commstation in order to keep the Tier2 Technology.
That would stop the long and borring besiegement of the marine base where marines have all Weapons and upgrades and turtle just up.
No amount of sentry spam is going to defend against onoses who can turn bulletproof, or prolonged use of whatever the whip's bombard ability is supposed to be, or all of the other anti-structure abiliites aliens are doubtless going to get. For the marine side it should be obvious why aliens can't turtle in one base.
Imagine.. your team just took over the last checkpointand building a CC or hive. Suddently the com jells that the CC/Hive on the other side of the map is destroyed.. and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds awesome to me. Equally matched fights are always the most fun.
Adds an additional commander
More eggs or the option to build IP's in another room
More energy to build macs/drifters
More energy to deploy DI
Redundancy
Denial
I have yet to see a single game where multiple commanders were beneficial outside of quickly building an armory or ip after another was destroyed.
Well, that may or may not be the case right now, but the game-rules are very fluid. Think back to 2 months ago, 1st March and think how much has changed in the game and now imagine how much will change by the end of the year. Multiple commanders are here to stay and will be implemented so they work well. I'm guessing your negative and disapproving tone is because the idea of single CS/Hive upgrades doesn't feel right to you?
This would be a small structure that's kinda like the portable power node but can only be dropped on a tech point, obviously. But it builds quicker than a CC would. It can also be destroyed fairly quickly.
So it's the same concept as capping tech nodes with CCs. Each tech point capped gives access to next tier <i>research</i> (not the tech itself), and if the commander has researched "next tier tech", that research is locked into the "main CC" even after any "portable terminals" are destroyed.
This wouldn't exclude the possiblity to build other CCs on tech points, though. That possibility should remain in case of relocation, but further CCs shouldn't give access to next tier tech. Only these "portable terminals" would.
For aliens, hives for tier upgrades is ok, I think.
What about <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113371&view=findpost&p=1844554" target="_blank">this</a>?
What I propose with that "portable tech-point terminal whatevermathing" I propose mostly because of the simplicity of implementation. It's just a minor variation on what's already been worked on, balance-wise, for so long. Your idea seems more to the extreme of "scrap everything boys... let's start afresh".
That's the point. Your opponents should be rewarded for strategic thinking, such as targeting a valuable structure, and you should be discouraged from building everything in a corner and sitting in it until you have enough resources to afford everything.
<!--quoteo(post=1844879:date=May 8 2011, 03:47 PM:name=CaCa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaCa @ May 8 2011, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I propose with that "portable tech-point terminal whatevermathing" I propose mostly because of the simplicity of implementation. It's just a minor variation on what's already been worked on, balance-wise, for so long. Your idea seems more to the extreme of "scrap everything boys... let's start afresh".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a matter of fact, what I'm suggesting would actually require less work, as the assets have already been made, and all that would be required is the code that requires the said structures to be placed on a Tech Point.
What you are suggesting requires a new model, animation, texture, etc. and for just that amount of work that would need to be put in, it isn't much different than a CC. I don't see how having something almost identical to a CommChair (but only slightly not) would be of any benefit to gameplay. You're essentially suggesting they revert to a mechanic they've just abandoned, with slightly different parameters.
I sympathize with the whole push towards a more "dynamic" marine game, but really, in my experiences playing the game I never actually felt the system was broken. I don't think marines "turtling" is an that much of an issue. Actually, most of the time it ends up gettin' ugly for<i> themselves</i> more than anything.
Again, your idea is a really interesting concept, and gives a nice, meaningful use of tech points. Only problem I see is that it's an almost completely different gameplay system which would require who knows how much more testing to tweak balance n' all that jazz. Almost a "scrap everything, do over". Maybe not that extreme, but close enough, I think.
And in the end, if my playing experiences have been any indication, marines having to defend scattered tech points sounds good in theory, but in practice I think that just ends up in an eternal push/pull of marines losing a structure on a tech point, and in trying to reclaim it they'd leave another unguarded being munched on accross the map, and so on and so forth... With aliens this isn't that big an issue thanks to vents and the help of hivesight, not to mention future "hive to hive teleportation" or whatever. Also, they'd only have to defend 3 tech points instead 4 or 5 (or however many marine structures are gonna end up in final version).
Not saying it ain't doable, but that seems to me like much more long-winded work than merely creating a minor model to replace the functionality of CCs capping tech points, which would only need to be guarded for as long as next tier upgrades take to be researched. It just never made sense to me to see empty, abandoned CCs lying around. So instead of CCs, this. Yeah, it's the same as the CCs on tech points, only it's a small square thing that is <b>meant</b> to be temporary.
It's incomplete, so whether it was broken or not is irrelevant because it is going to change. Gameplay has already changed quite a bit in the past months, so relying primarily on what you see now without looking at the whole picture is not a good idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1844890:date=May 8 2011, 05:05 PM:name=CaCa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaCa @ May 8 2011, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, your idea is a really interesting concept, and gives a nice, meaningful use of tech points. Only problem I see is that it's an almost completely different gameplay system which would require who knows how much more testing to tweak balance n' all that jazz. Almost a "scrap everything, do over". Maybe not that extreme, but close enough, I think.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't anywhere near an "entirely different gameplay system," they are just different building restrictions. Instead of all Available Researches being tied to an arbitrary "Tier Level" Research, tethered by the number of CommChairs, they're tied to their appropriate structures (which also provide said upgrades), which are built in place of the more arbitrary second and third CommChair. Instead of building and upgrading a CC and then building/upgrading-to the structure with the upgrades you want, you simply build the structure that has the upgrades you want, on a Tech Point. Cutting out the unnecessary middle man and staying true to it's name (Tech Point).
<!--quoteo(post=1844890:date=May 8 2011, 05:05 PM:name=CaCa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaCa @ May 8 2011, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And in the end, if my playing experiences have been any indication, marines having to defend scattered tech points sounds good in theory, but in practice I think that just ends up in an eternal push/pull of marines losing a structure on a tech point, and in trying to reclaim it they'd leave another unguarded being munched on accross the map, and so on and so forth... With aliens this isn't that big an issue thanks to vents and the help of hivesight, not to mention future "hive to hive teleportation" or whatever. Also, they'd only have to defend 3 tech points instead 4 or 5 (or however many marine structures are gonna end up in final version).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, the game is incomplete, so your experience are only a partial indication. Most of the issues you bring up will cease to exist once JetPacks, Transponders and Phase Gate Tech are implemented. Also, both teams would be defending the same amount of Tech Points that they do now, I'm not sure why you've come to this conclusion.
There are 4 tech chambers (whip, crag, shift, shade) and a hive, and 4 tech structures (robotics, prototype, observatory, armory) and a CC. 5 Tech Point maps (Tram) would require a team to control all Tech Points to access all Tech, which is an impossibility (game would be over), so Tech Points will be a finite and very desirable resource (as they were intended). A teams build choices will have a large effect on their success, which makes the Commander's role a strategic one again (instead of the current cacophony).
<!--quoteo(post=1844890:date=May 8 2011, 05:05 PM:name=CaCa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaCa @ May 8 2011, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not saying it ain't doable, but that seems to me like much more long-winded work than merely creating a minor model to replace the functionality of CCs capping tech points, which would only need to be guarded for as long as next tier upgrades take to be researched. It just never made sense to me to see empty, abandoned CCs lying around. So instead of CCs, this. Yeah, it's the same as the CCs on tech points, only it's a small square thing that is meant to be temporary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tech Points were not <b>meant</b> to be temporary, held on to long enough to get Tier Research. They were designed to be another aspect of territorial control. The fact of their fate was likely a consequence of bad design or implementation, but it's clear see the intention of the entire Nano-Grid was "the more rooms you control, the stronger you are".
Not sure if we should move this to the other thread or not... :/
<!--quoteo(post=1844892:date=May 8 2011, 07:19 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ May 8 2011, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, the game is incomplete, so your experience are only a partial indication. Most of the issues you bring up will cease to exist once JetPacks, Transponders and Phase Gate Tech are implemented. Also, both teams would be defending the same amount of Tech Points that they do now, I'm not sure why you've come to this conclusion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, yeah, I know it's incomplete... That's just the thing: The same could be said for your idea.
Also, I didn't notice you meant for it to be symmetrical, as in the aliens would also cap tech-points by building their research structures on 'em. But then with the aliens I actually like them capping tech-points with hives. "Feels" right, as that's how it was in NS1. And they have a pretty good "risk/reward" system with that already by default.
<!--quoteo(post=1844892:date=May 8 2011, 07:19 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ May 8 2011, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It isn't anywhere near an "entirely different gameplay system," they are just different building restrictions. Instead of all Available Researches being tied to an arbitrary "Tier Level" Research, tethered by the number of CommChairs, they're tied to their appropriate structures (which also provide said upgrades), which are built in place of the more arbitrary second and third CommChair. Instead of building and upgrading a CC and then building/upgrading-to the structure with the upgrades you want, you simply build the structure that has the upgrades you want, on a Tech Point. Cutting out the unnecessary middle man and staying true to it's name (Tech Point).
Tech Points were not <b>meant</b> to be temporary, held on to long enough to get Tier Research. They were designed to be another aspect of territorial control. The fact of their fate was likely a consequence of bad design or implementation, but it's clear see the intention of the entire Nano-Grid was "the more rooms you control, the stronger you are".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I like the idea of actually "using" the whole map, specifically it's tech-points, in a meaningful way like this. But I insist that having the upgrade structures so "out in the open" would just be too much of a loss when one is destroyed. I mean, I think I'd prefer where it was headed originally in that you lose an upgrade tier by losing a tech point so that when you re-cap a tech-point and go back up a tier everything that was upgraded from the respective structures comes back online, just as when a power node is repaired all structures related to it come back online. I actually prefer this than losing a structure and it's respective upgrades and so then having to rebuild that specific structure and re-research it's respective upgrades...
Now, all that said, it wasn't ever <i>really</i> 100% clear to me if the dev's idea was so that if you lose a tech-point you lose that tier and everything upgraded is lost until re-researched or if it all came back when re-capping a tech-point. I always assumed this was how it was supposed to end up being... So if the dev's actual idea was to make you lose <i>everything</i> and having to re-research everything that was lost, then that changes everything...
<b>EEEVVERRRYYYTTTTHHHIIINNGGG!</b>
- Gary Oldman
<!--quoteo(post=1844892:date=May 8 2011, 07:19 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ May 8 2011, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1844892"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not sure if we should move this to the other thread or not... :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably...
- Gary Oldman<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
snicker
I love that line...i love most of Luc Besson work.