<!--quoteo(post=1852676:date=Jun 14 2011, 03:29 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 14 2011, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds good Flayra!
Only thing I don't understand is the ARC cost. Why must it require personal res? Sentry turrets do damage and cost team resources. The ARC is a team-based weapon and I don't see any reason not to make it cost team resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1852674:date=Jun 14 2011, 10:24 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 14 2011, 10:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Shotgun cost reduced from 25 to 15</b> (it was inflated from previous versions and NS1 and should help address the feelings of poverty on the marine side)
<b>Reduced Fade armor from 100 to 50</b> (translates to 20% less total "health" and should compensate for the fact that the Fades are now invulnerable while blinking, which wasn't the case in NS1...but it NS2 was using the health and armor values from NS1.)
<b>Reduced ARC cost from 25 to 20</b> (ARCs seem a bit rare and much of their cost is in the Robotics Factory. Pathing-related deaths are another reason for this change. Also note, all damage-dealing capabilities must cost personal res, not team res.)
<b>Fixed bug where Gorges could help speed building of hives</b> (should prevent Fades from showing up early)
<b>Lowered energy recuperation when on fire from 20% per second to 10% per second</b> (improves its "crippling" effect on Fades and others)
There are other changes too - we added Bile Bomb for Gorge (researchable by the comm and purchasable by Gorges)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome, can't wait for the next patch. It's really gonna give us an insight into what the gold standard will feel like.
What's the point in having 5 (+?) techpoint maps if we're going back to the NS1 "don't let them get the second hive" game, only tougher? I was actually enjoying the territory control game in older builds on Tram, when you needed the expansion for second tier weapons in both sides and would fight to keep the extractors running, not for RFK. Although I love the map, I guess Summit, being that large, doesn't really cater to that type of gameplay anymore and I have mixed feelings about that.
Also on the casual players appeal, with aliens having swarm and frenzy and the marines' upgrades tucked away in the armslab, MACs sharing the precious Pres with unrepairable ARCs+meds and binary fades :P (you either hit them with a shotgun blast when they blink out next to you, or not at all), I'd say NS2 has atm an even steeper skill requirement than NS1 to be able to accomplish anything as a marine.
Though I truly hope the next builds will eventually balance everything while keeping it a bit more easy to get in than NS1, cause it seems no matter what I keep coming back for more :)
<!--quoteo(post=1852676:date=Jun 14 2011, 03:29 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 14 2011, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds good Flayra!
Only thing I don't understand is the ARC cost. Why must it require personal res? Sentry turrets do damage and cost team resources. The ARC is a team-based weapon and I don't see any reason not to make it cost team resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I slightly agree, Charlie did say that its because any DD (Damage Dealing) item, whether weapons or arcs, must cost personal resources.
Not sure why, just paraphrasing what he said last page. I think thats their formula and they wanna stick to it.
On what Charlie said, Hell yeahh! Thanks for listening man! This is whats unique about you guys. Direct communication with the community.
What about the cost of flamethrower and GL (the nerfest weapon of all)? At the very least the GL should come down in price (or be free), and add that thumper-power-node upgrade so we don't need FT to kill DI that's all over marine start.
What about adding a way to pick up dropped weapons from teammates that died.
In the end res-for-kills is the suck. Adds to much stress to finally getting a real weapon, like the idea you're going to lose it 30 seconds from time of purchase, and its going to be another 20 minutes before you can get another.
EDIT: ok i forgot about pustules, but that doesn't change the fact that GL is over priced, or should we use rifles on it and just sit there dumping all our ammo into the floor?
How about making infestation easier to kill, or at least adding a %health to it. At the moment it seems to take forever to destroy one patch of infestation and there's no way of knowing how long is left.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lowered energy recuperation when on fire from 20% per second to 10% per second (improves its "crippling" effect on Fades and others)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I hoped you'd increase it to 50% - 20% was a joke already.... - 1 hit every 15 secs now while on fire? :(
great, so now when i mention the fact that almost EVERYONE will buy a shotgun right off, do i get to have my changes added too? seriously?
more shotguns, and a weaker 2 hive fade? this is the balance implemented? how about actually playing the game longer than 5 minutes before complaining about balance.
QuovatisTeam InversionJoin Date: 2010-01-26Member: 70321Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1852724:date=Jun 14 2011, 03:52 PM:name=VeNeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VeNeM @ Jun 14 2011, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852724"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->great, so now when i mention the fact that almost EVERYONE will buy a shotgun right off, do i get to have my changes added too? seriously?
more shotguns, and a weaker 2 hive fade? this is the balance implemented? how about actually playing the game longer than 5 minutes before complaining about balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chill man. It can be changed if it doesn't work out. I think it will be more balanced than it is now, but we'll have to wait and see (and playtest it).
<!--quoteo(post=1852676:date=Jun 14 2011, 05:29 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 14 2011, 05:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only thing I don't understand is the ARC cost. Why must it require personal res? Sentry turrets do damage and cost team resources. The ARC is a team-based weapon and I don't see any reason not to make it cost team resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything is a team-based weapon when you're a Commander.
The Commander relies almost entirely on their teammates, and for the majority of the time spends resources that aren't his, to assist players on his team that aren't him. Ground units can buy weapons with their entitled allowance, and can run off on their own ignoring orders if they choose to. Commanders are stuck in that chair with eyes and ears but no hands of his own on the field.
And while it always feels EPIC to succeed as a team in situations where you would have failed alone, it feels equally terrible if not more when you fail, as the Comm is usually the first one blamed when the Marines lose.
No accomplishment ever felt 100% your own when Commanding in NS1, yet every failure was largely yours. It was a polarizing experience and scared many away from it.
So the Commander was is dire need of some independent methods to achieve his teams goals, and the answer was the MAC and the ARC. Like the Marine's Rifle or Shotgun, the MAC and ARC are direct extensions of the Commander (he is entirely in control of it), and as such the costs to produce them should be his own.
<b><!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->TL;DR: If the ARC (or MAC) were made to cost Team Res, you'd have the team ragging on him about it every time one was purchased and lost. Commanding is hard enough without a team of nagging little boys.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
The MAC is nearly essential to maintain base defenses/power nodes while the team is fighting far off on the map. I don't mind them costing personal res, and the ARC should become much more useful when its upgrades and pathing is sorted out.
QuovatisTeam InversionJoin Date: 2010-01-26Member: 70321Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
IMHO MACs should cost energy (no resources at all, the drifter counterpart) and ARCs cost team res AND energy. The issue is that the comm can rarely afford ARCs right now because he's spending what little personal res he has on medpacks and MACs. And the nagging excuse isn't really valid. You don't have the team nagging on the comm for losing a sentry gun (which does damage and cost team res, BTW), so I don't see the ARC being any different. Plus siege cannons in NS1 was a team resource and worked fine.
Those all sound like excellent changes, perhaps a little conservative but it should definitely help.
If I have one complaint it's that the flamethrower change is going to make it even more sporadic.
Currently a major problem is that the burn time is impossible to predict and can vary between horribly long and laughably short. Combine that with it basically shutting down energy regen entirely, and you have a gun which has a random chance to basically disable anything it hits for half a minute, or might not do anything at all.
I'd prefer it to have a normalised burn time, about ten seconds, that way you can at least reliably disable aliens with it, which is the main issue I have with it at the moment.
Oh also you had better nerf the shotgun against skulks because otherwise they're going to be made obsolete horribly quickly, given how quick and cheap shotguns will be.
<!--quoteo(post=1852750:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:22 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 15 2011, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852750"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->TL;DR: If the ARC (or MAC) were made to cost Team Res, you'd have the team ragging on him about it every time one was purchased and lost. Commanding is hard enough without a team of nagging little boys.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except you don't have anything else to spend the team res on generally.
Personal res is much more scarce than team res a lot of the time, because you spend a lot more of it. Therefore if the commander wastes an ARC at the moment, the team still has to foot the bill for a new one because someone else is going to have to give up their next gun to pay for it.
It'd make a lot more sense to have it cost team res.
<!--quoteo(post=1852689:date=Jun 14 2011, 10:55 PM:name=Wiltdog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wiltdog @ Jun 14 2011, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852689"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While I slightly agree, Charlie did say that its because any DD (Damage Dealing) item, whether weapons or arcs, must cost personal resources.
Not sure why, just paraphrasing what he said last page. I think thats their formula and they wanna stick to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1852772:date=Jun 14 2011, 07:49 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 14 2011, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMHO MACs should cost energy (no resources at all, the drifter counterpart) and ARCs cost team res AND energy. The issue is that the comm can rarely afford ARCs right now because he's spending what little personal res he has on medpacks and MACs. And the nagging excuse isn't really valid. You don't have the team nagging on the comm for losing a sentry gun (which does damage and cost team res, BTW), so I don't see the ARC being any different. Plus siege cannons in NS1 was a team resource and worked fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Drifters are not entirely the same, because they sacrifice themselves in order to become Structures. Meaning you'd have to spend P.Res every time you wanted to construct a Tech Structure , which is what T.Res is for if I'm not mistaken.
If the problem is Med/Ammo spam, then find a way to limit Med/Ammo spam. Consider giving Medpacks a larger activation radius so Commanders aren't frantically trying dropping 7 while trying to get a fleeing Marine to step on it.
Also, you don't see the nagging anymore because T.Res aren't so limited, but back when they were I used to hear griefers all the time, nagging about Comms building too many turrets.
<!--quoteo(post=1852798:date=Jun 14 2011, 08:30 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 14 2011, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except you don't have anything else to spend the team res on generally.
Personal res is much more scarce than team res a lot of the time, because you spend a lot more of it. Therefore if the commander wastes an ARC at the moment, the team still has to foot the bill for a new one because someone else is going to have to give up their next gun to pay for it.
It'd make a lot more sense to have it cost team res.
Except turrets, apparently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there is a point where you no longer need T.Res. That's definitely a problem, IMO. If we're going to stick with the 2 Res model, T.Res needs some staying power or there needs to be a late-game method of converting T.Res to P.Res. The P.Res issue may be alleviated by tweaking the costs of the Commander's P.Res items. The ARC cost is getting dropped.
Perhaps the ARC and MAC Upgrades should be individual P.Res Upgrades that you purchase for each ARC or MAC. Allowing varying levels of investment would make the purchases feel less steep.
Sounds like good changes. I think the point of the flamethrower change is that when you are on fire, you don't stay to fight for long, you back away to heal and regenerate your energy. Hopefully the shotgun change won't make marines try to rambo again, and will get the Kharaa back to more ambushes rather then headfirst assults. Can't wait to try it out!
<!--quoteo(post=1852665:date=Jun 15 2011, 06:50 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 15 2011, 06:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fades shouldn't be showing up any earlier with RFK as they still depend on 2 hives - that should be the real bottleneck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I stand corrected sir.
With regards to the changes, they look sweet. Interested to see how Fades will be.
<!--quoteo(post=1852674:date=Jun 14 2011, 05:24 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 14 2011, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course it IS early but that doesn't mean we should helplessly suffer balance problems until we have more game features in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
implying that these soon-to-be changes are only temporary until the marines get their full loadout? i feel that you're overly ambitious with all the buffs.
<!--quoteo(post=1852674:date=Jun 14 2011, 02:24 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 14 2011, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also note, all damage-dealing capabilities must cost personal res, not team res.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
If the comm chair makes it, it should cost TRes. I don't care if it kills aliens, gathers resources, or licks the splattered Khraa off the marines' armor -if the commander makes it via the comm chair then it should cost team resources.
I'm not sure why you just have your heart set on making things 10x more complicated than it needs to be. Keep it simple.
<!--quoteo(post=1852674:date=Jun 15 2011, 07:24 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 15 2011, 07:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Reduced ARC cost from 25 to 20</b> (ARCs seem a bit rare and much of their cost is in the Robotics Factory. Pathing-related deaths are another reason for this change. Also note, all damage-dealing capabilities must cost personal res, not team res.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just curious here Flayra, with regards to the comment on damage-dealing costing personal res, is the intention for commanding to be something a single player doesn't do for the whole game? Are we playing the game correctly? Because Coms burn through PR fast. Is your intention that one guy gets in the chair, does stuff for 5 minutes or so, then cycles out with someone else?
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.
50% res goes to structures & tech (team resources) 50% res goes to weapons & support (personal resources) ------
You cannot have dynamic gameplay if the resource distribution is predetermined. There is no perfect ratio because the demands for each resource are constantly changing throughout the game.
If the point of having personal resources is only to give more control to individual players on the field, then there should be no need to distinguish the differences between personal res and team res. You can't just classify an action/expenditure as personal or team-based. After all, goods purchased using personal resources are not for the sole benefit of the individual. You hurt the team if you use your own resources in a way that isn't helpful. If a commander loses an ARC, or a player loses a shotgun, the team suffers regardless of what type of resources were used. <b>Personal resources are really just team assets in the hands of players.</b>
All the resources goes to the team resource pool and the commander then sets a resource redistribution rate which gives back players personal res at a rate the commander dictates.
That would add a real layer of strategy to resource management.
<!--quoteo(post=1852879:date=Jun 15 2011, 11:56 AM:name=Jaweese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jaweese @ Jun 15 2011, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please let go of the mantra that:
50% res goes to structures & tech (team resources) 50% res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not accurate.
100% team res goes to structures & tech (team resources) An indeterminate amount of personal res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)
I say indeterminate because it is dependent purely on how many players are on the team. Every player receives the same amount of personal resources from a certain res tower at a certain level at any point in any game, regardless of the number of players on the team. Essentially, personal res scales 1:1 with how many players are on the team.
Team res on the other hand, does not scale, but this is acceptable in most cases due to it only being required for structures and tech.
And this is without bringing RFK into the equation.
Since RFK is applied to personal resources, there may be a fair balance of losing as many resources from upgrading and death as there is from gaining res from kills, but there may not - so it won't scale 1:1 anymore, it just depends on player performance.
Personally, I think RFK should be applied to team resources instead (since then it does scale with the number of players on teams - more players, more kills, more res (RFK)), and having team resources becoming more important. It would also encourage players to work together to cap those towers rather than rambo to get quick fades and shotties, since the towers are their only source of personal resources.
I also think that "personal" resources should only affect things "personally". The ARC is not personal at all: it is a team (vs team) asset, so it should cost team resources. (Although it deals damage, it does not deal damage <b>to players</b>, it only deals damage <b>to structures</b>.) The same can be said of the MAC. However, ammunition, commander-purchased weapons and medpacks affect on-the-ground players directly, so it is reasonable that these cost personal resources.
The basic theory is sound: team resources for the team, personal resources for players*; it manages the player number scaling issue from NS1 well, but it's suffering from a bit of misdirection.
*As Jaweese states, yes, this is really just team assets in the hands of players. However, I don't consider this a problem - it just affects the degree of abundance. Due to the greater degree of abundance, it pushes (or should) the balance focus more towards a player-vs-player basis than a team-vs-team basis - which is, imo, perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged. Gone should be the days of high-cost super-units. Sure, it does take much of the focus away from the economy game, but that was an inevitable side-effect (fortunate or unfortunate depends on your opinion) of this team/personal resource model and as long as we have this, it will always be an issue.
tl;dr: 1a) Team res does not scale, but largely unnecessary. 1b) Personal res scales perfectly. 2a) Personal res should not have RFK since it messes up the scaling. 2b) Team res should have RFK since it helps scaling. Team res should be more important. 3a) Change mantra to: Personal resources for personal things (ammo, medpack, weapons); team resources for team things (ARC, MAC, structures, tech). 3b) Basic theory of independent personal and team resources is sound, but needs tweaking (see above). 4a) Increased abundance of better units should be managed through unit-vs-unit balance, rather than team-vs-team balance. (No more high-cost super-units.) 4b) Focus on economy game is reduced, but inevitable (and imo acceptable).
<!--quoteo(post=1852888:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:18 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 15 2011, 12:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not accurate.
100% team res goes to structures & tech (team resources) An indeterminate amount of personal res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know that, but you're missing my point. The game was designed based on this idea. The allocation of resources is predetermined and it eliminates strategic choice.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also think that "personal" resources should only affect things "personally". The ARC is not personal at all: it is a team (vs team) asset, so it should cost team resources. (Although it deals damage, it does not deal damage <b>to players</b>, it only deals damage <b>to structures</b>.) The same can be said of the MAC. However, ammunition, commander-purchased weapons and medpacks affect on-the-ground players directly, so it is reasonable that these cost personal resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said, everything is ultimately team-based. There is nothing personal about weapons or medpacks because helping an individual means helping the team. Also, team upgrades and structures help an individual just as directly as a shotgun.
If personal resources only affected things "personally", then gorges would be unable to build hydras. If all damage-dealing structures cost personal res as Flayra said, then whips and sentries (and probably, crags and armories since they are the reverse of damage) would have to cost personal res as well. Somewhere the roles get blurred. And even if the role of personal res could be clarified, it would still be bad design.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
good posts made here, about p.res / t.res
I still stick to my opinion, that p.res should not be touched by a commander at all and disable income during commanding.
the reason for this is simple: commanders have to cycle to be effective. one goes in, burns out his p.res with med packs, ammo, macs, arcs, then the next comm jumps in does the same.
the current system could lead in the end to a situation where people start shouting "get out of chair, you have 0 p.res, or we ban you from server! "
<!--quoteo(post=1852873:date=Jun 15 2011, 04:41 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Jun 15 2011, 04:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just curious here Flayra, with regards to the comment on damage-dealing costing personal res, is the intention for commanding to be something a single player doesn't do for the whole game? Are we playing the game correctly? Because Coms burn through PR fast. Is your intention that one guy gets in the chair, does stuff for 5 minutes or so, then cycles out with someone else?
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you there. That is what it seems to be.
<!--quoteo(post=1852882:date=Jun 15 2011, 06:03 AM:name=kabab)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kabab @ Jun 15 2011, 06:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flayra can we try something like this..
All the resources goes to the team resource pool and the commander then sets a resource redistribution rate which gives back players personal res at a rate the commander dictates.
That would add a real layer of strategy to resource management.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this idea very much. As it stands ns2 seems to become an fps too fast while teamplay elements get cut out of concerns that the team nags the commander too much. But maybe i'm still too much in ns1 mode (id still ike to see the welder back in and the commander issuing weapons).
A changing commander every 10 minutes is a horrible idea imho.
Just...keep the tight team aspect going as strong as you can, it's what makes this game so unique and immersive!
I think that if ARCs are going to cost PRes then any player with sufficent res should be able to walk up the the robotics factory and spend their res on one. The arc that comes out will still be commander controlled, but this would mean that players don't have to swap commander roles because the comm is low on PRes due to medpak spam etc.
Likewise, maybe players could purchase medpaks and carry them around? (Haven't really thought about this bit).
Hey I got an idea. Lets just make a short, fat little marine named George. Whenever the team needs something, you just yell for George and he'll come over and buy the building for you out of his own personal resource pool. Then we don't even need a commander or team res!
<!--quoteo(post=1852838:date=Jun 15 2011, 02:45 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 15 2011, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, there is a point where you no longer need T.Res. That's definitely a problem, IMO. If we're going to stick with the 2 Res model, T.Res needs some staying power or there needs to be a late-game method of converting T.Res to P.Res. The P.Res issue may be alleviated by tweaking the costs of the Commander's P.Res items. The ARC cost is getting dropped.
Perhaps the ARC and MAC Upgrades should be individual P.Res Upgrades that you purchase for each ARC or MAC. Allowing varying levels of investment would make the purchases feel less steep.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that most of the P res is always going to be in the hands of other players. So it's always going to be preferable at some point to get someone else to hop in the comm and pay for something.
Comments
Only thing I don't understand is the ARC cost. Why must it require personal res? Sentry turrets do damage and cost team resources. The ARC is a team-based weapon and I don't see any reason not to make it cost team resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^Agreed
<b>Reduced Fade armor from 100 to 50</b> (translates to 20% less total "health" and should compensate for the fact that the Fades are now invulnerable while blinking, which wasn't the case in NS1...but it NS2 was using the health and armor values from NS1.)
<b>Reduced ARC cost from 25 to 20</b> (ARCs seem a bit rare and much of their cost is in the Robotics Factory. Pathing-related deaths are another reason for this change. Also note, all damage-dealing capabilities must cost personal res, not team res.)
<b>Fixed bug where Gorges could help speed building of hives</b> (should prevent Fades from showing up early)
<b>Lowered energy recuperation when on fire from 20% per second to 10% per second</b> (improves its "crippling" effect on Fades and others)
There are other changes too - we added Bile Bomb for Gorge (researchable by the comm and purchasable by Gorges)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome, can't wait for the next patch.
It's really gonna give us an insight into what the gold standard will feel like.
Also on the casual players appeal, with aliens having swarm and frenzy and the marines' upgrades tucked away in the armslab, MACs sharing the precious Pres with unrepairable ARCs+meds and binary fades :P (you either hit them with a shotgun blast when they blink out next to you, or not at all), I'd say NS2 has atm an even steeper skill requirement than NS1 to be able to accomplish anything as a marine.
Though I truly hope the next builds will eventually balance everything while keeping it a bit more easy to get in than NS1, cause it seems no matter what I keep coming back for more :)
Only thing I don't understand is the ARC cost. Why must it require personal res? Sentry turrets do damage and cost team resources. The ARC is a team-based weapon and I don't see any reason not to make it cost team resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I slightly agree, Charlie did say that its because any DD (Damage Dealing) item, whether weapons or arcs, must cost personal resources.
Not sure why, just paraphrasing what he said last page. I think thats their formula and they wanna stick to it.
On what Charlie said, Hell yeahh! Thanks for listening man! This is whats unique about you guys. Direct communication with the community.
Cheers
What about adding a way to pick up dropped weapons from teammates that died.
In the end res-for-kills is the suck. Adds to much stress to finally getting a real weapon, like the idea you're going to lose it 30 seconds from time of purchase, and its going to be another 20 minutes before you can get another.
EDIT: ok i forgot about pustules, but that doesn't change the fact that GL is over priced, or should we use rifles on it and just sit there dumping all our ammo into the floor?
Really? I hoped you'd increase it to 50% - 20% was a joke already.... - 1 hit every 15 secs now while on fire? :(
seriously?
more shotguns, and a weaker 2 hive fade? this is the balance implemented? how about actually playing the game longer than 5 minutes before complaining about balance.
seriously?
more shotguns, and a weaker 2 hive fade? this is the balance implemented? how about actually playing the game longer than 5 minutes before complaining about balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chill man. It can be changed if it doesn't work out. I think it will be more balanced than it is now, but we'll have to wait and see (and playtest it).
Everything is a team-based weapon when you're a Commander.
The Commander relies almost entirely on their teammates, and for the majority of the time spends resources that aren't his, to assist players on his team that aren't him. Ground units can buy weapons with their entitled allowance, and can run off on their own ignoring orders if they choose to. Commanders are stuck in that chair with eyes and ears but no hands of his own on the field.
And while it always feels EPIC to succeed as a team in situations where you would have failed alone, it feels equally terrible if not more when you fail, as the Comm is usually the first one blamed when the Marines lose.
No accomplishment ever felt 100% your own when Commanding in NS1, yet every failure was largely yours. It was a polarizing experience and scared many away from it.
So the Commander was is dire need of some independent methods to achieve his teams goals, and the answer was the MAC and the ARC. Like the Marine's Rifle or Shotgun, the MAC and ARC are direct extensions of the Commander (he is entirely in control of it), and as such the costs to produce them should be his own.
<b><!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->TL;DR: If the ARC (or MAC) were made to cost Team Res, you'd have the team ragging on him about it every time one was purchased and lost. Commanding is hard enough without a team of nagging little boys.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
If I have one complaint it's that the flamethrower change is going to make it even more sporadic.
Currently a major problem is that the burn time is impossible to predict and can vary between horribly long and laughably short. Combine that with it basically shutting down energy regen entirely, and you have a gun which has a random chance to basically disable anything it hits for half a minute, or might not do anything at all.
I'd prefer it to have a normalised burn time, about ten seconds, that way you can at least reliably disable aliens with it, which is the main issue I have with it at the moment.
Oh also you had better nerf the shotgun against skulks because otherwise they're going to be made obsolete horribly quickly, given how quick and cheap shotguns will be.
<!--quoteo(post=1852750:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:22 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 15 2011, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852750"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->TL;DR: If the ARC (or MAC) were made to cost Team Res, you'd have the team ragging on him about it every time one was purchased and lost. Commanding is hard enough without a team of nagging little boys.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except you don't have anything else to spend the team res on generally.
Personal res is much more scarce than team res a lot of the time, because you spend a lot more of it. Therefore if the commander wastes an ARC at the moment, the team still has to foot the bill for a new one because someone else is going to have to give up their next gun to pay for it.
It'd make a lot more sense to have it cost team res.
<!--quoteo(post=1852689:date=Jun 14 2011, 10:55 PM:name=Wiltdog)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wiltdog @ Jun 14 2011, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852689"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While I slightly agree, Charlie did say that its because any DD (Damage Dealing) item, whether weapons or arcs, must cost personal resources.
Not sure why, just paraphrasing what he said last page. I think thats their formula and they wanna stick to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except turrets, apparently.
Drifters are not entirely the same, because they sacrifice themselves in order to become Structures. Meaning you'd have to spend P.Res every time you wanted to construct a Tech Structure , which is what T.Res is for if I'm not mistaken.
If the problem is Med/Ammo spam, then find a way to limit Med/Ammo spam. Consider giving Medpacks a larger activation radius so Commanders aren't frantically trying dropping 7 while trying to get a fleeing Marine to step on it.
Also, you don't see the nagging anymore because T.Res aren't so limited, but back when they were I used to hear griefers all the time, nagging about Comms building too many turrets.
<!--quoteo(post=1852798:date=Jun 14 2011, 08:30 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 14 2011, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except you don't have anything else to spend the team res on generally.
Personal res is much more scarce than team res a lot of the time, because you spend a lot more of it. Therefore if the commander wastes an ARC at the moment, the team still has to foot the bill for a new one because someone else is going to have to give up their next gun to pay for it.
It'd make a lot more sense to have it cost team res.
Except turrets, apparently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there is a point where you no longer need T.Res. That's definitely a problem, IMO. If we're going to stick with the 2 Res model, T.Res needs some staying power or there needs to be a late-game method of converting T.Res to P.Res.
The P.Res issue may be alleviated by tweaking the costs of the Commander's P.Res items. The ARC cost is getting dropped.
Perhaps the ARC and MAC Upgrades should be individual P.Res Upgrades that you purchase for each ARC or MAC. Allowing varying levels of investment would make the purchases feel less steep.
I stand corrected sir.
With regards to the changes, they look sweet. Interested to see how Fades will be.
implying that these soon-to-be changes are only temporary until the marines get their full loadout? i feel that you're overly ambitious with all the buffs.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
If the comm chair makes it, it should cost TRes. I don't care if it kills aliens, gathers resources, or licks the splattered Khraa off the marines' armor -if the commander makes it via the comm chair then it should cost team resources.
I'm not sure why you just have your heart set on making things 10x more complicated than it needs to be. Keep it simple.
Just curious here Flayra, with regards to the comment on damage-dealing costing personal res, is the intention for commanding to be something a single player doesn't do for the whole game? Are we playing the game correctly? Because Coms burn through PR fast. Is your intention that one guy gets in the chair, does stuff for 5 minutes or so, then cycles out with someone else?
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.
50% res goes to structures & tech (team resources)
50% res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)
------
You cannot have dynamic gameplay if the resource distribution is predetermined. There is no perfect ratio because the demands for each resource are constantly changing throughout the game.
If the point of having personal resources is only to give more control to individual players on the field, then there should be no need to distinguish the differences between personal res and team res. You can't just classify an action/expenditure as personal or team-based. After all, goods purchased using personal resources are not for the sole benefit of the individual. You hurt the team if you use your own resources in a way that isn't helpful. If a commander loses an ARC, or a player loses a shotgun, the team suffers regardless of what type of resources were used. <b>Personal resources are really just team assets in the hands of players.</b>
All the resources goes to the team resource pool and the commander then sets a resource redistribution rate which gives back players personal res at a rate the commander dictates.
That would add a real layer of strategy to resource management.
50% res goes to structures & tech (team resources)
50% res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not accurate.
100% team res goes to structures & tech (team resources)
An indeterminate amount of personal res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)
I say indeterminate because it is dependent purely on how many players are on the team. Every player receives the same amount of personal resources from a certain res tower at a certain level at any point in any game, regardless of the number of players on the team. Essentially, personal res scales 1:1 with how many players are on the team.
Team res on the other hand, does not scale, but this is acceptable in most cases due to it only being required for structures and tech.
And this is without bringing RFK into the equation.
Since RFK is applied to personal resources, there may be a fair balance of losing as many resources from upgrading and death as there is from gaining res from kills, but there may not - so it won't scale 1:1 anymore, it just depends on player performance.
Personally, I think RFK should be applied to team resources instead (since then it does scale with the number of players on teams - more players, more kills, more res (RFK)), and having team resources becoming more important. It would also encourage players to work together to cap those towers rather than rambo to get quick fades and shotties, since the towers are their only source of personal resources.
I also think that "personal" resources should only affect things "personally". The ARC is not personal at all: it is a team (vs team) asset, so it should cost team resources. (Although it deals damage, it does not deal damage <b>to players</b>, it only deals damage <b>to structures</b>.) The same can be said of the MAC. However, ammunition, commander-purchased weapons and medpacks affect on-the-ground players directly, so it is reasonable that these cost personal resources.
The basic theory is sound: team resources for the team, personal resources for players*; it manages the player number scaling issue from NS1 well, but it's suffering from a bit of misdirection.
*As Jaweese states, yes, this is really just team assets in the hands of players. However, I don't consider this a problem - it just affects the degree of abundance. Due to the greater degree of abundance, it pushes (or should) the balance focus more towards a player-vs-player basis than a team-vs-team basis - which is, imo, perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged. Gone should be the days of high-cost super-units. Sure, it does take much of the focus away from the economy game, but that was an inevitable side-effect (fortunate or unfortunate depends on your opinion) of this team/personal resource model and as long as we have this, it will always be an issue.
tl;dr:
1a) Team res does not scale, but largely unnecessary.
1b) Personal res scales perfectly.
2a) Personal res should not have RFK since it messes up the scaling.
2b) Team res should have RFK since it helps scaling. Team res should be more important.
3a) Change mantra to: Personal resources for personal things (ammo, medpack, weapons); team resources for team things (ARC, MAC, structures, tech).
3b) Basic theory of independent personal and team resources is sound, but needs tweaking (see above).
4a) Increased abundance of better units should be managed through unit-vs-unit balance, rather than team-vs-team balance. (No more high-cost super-units.)
4b) Focus on economy game is reduced, but inevitable (and imo acceptable).
100% team res goes to structures & tech (team resources)
An indeterminate amount of personal res goes to weapons & support (personal resources)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that, but you're missing my point. The game was designed based on this idea. The allocation of resources is predetermined and it eliminates strategic choice.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also think that "personal" resources should only affect things "personally". The ARC is not personal at all: it is a team (vs team) asset, so it should cost team resources. (Although it deals damage, it does not deal damage <b>to players</b>, it only deals damage <b>to structures</b>.) The same can be said of the MAC. However, ammunition, commander-purchased weapons and medpacks affect on-the-ground players directly, so it is reasonable that these cost personal resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, everything is ultimately team-based. There is nothing personal about weapons or medpacks because helping an individual means helping the team. Also, team upgrades and structures help an individual just as directly as a shotgun.
If personal resources only affected things "personally", then gorges would be unable to build hydras. If all damage-dealing structures cost personal res as Flayra said, then whips and sentries (and probably, crags and armories since they are the reverse of damage) would have to cost personal res as well. Somewhere the roles get blurred. And even if the role of personal res could be clarified, it would still be bad design.
I still stick to my opinion, that p.res should not be touched by a commander at all and disable income during
commanding.
the reason for this is simple: commanders have to cycle to be effective. one goes in, burns out his
p.res with med packs, ammo, macs, arcs, then the next comm jumps in does the same.
the current system could lead in the end to a situation where people start shouting
"get out of chair, you have 0 p.res, or we ban you from server! "
are you sure you want this gameplay?
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you there. That is what it seems to be.
Commanders should get res faster.
All the resources goes to the team resource pool and the commander then sets a resource redistribution rate which gives back players personal res at a rate the commander dictates.
That would add a real layer of strategy to resource management.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this idea very much. As it stands ns2 seems to become an fps too fast while teamplay elements get cut out of concerns that the team nags the commander too much. But maybe i'm still too much in ns1 mode (id still ike to see the welder back in and the commander issuing weapons).
A changing commander every 10 minutes is a horrible idea imho.
Just...keep the tight team aspect going as strong as you can, it's what makes this game so unique and immersive!
Likewise, maybe players could purchase medpaks and carry them around? (Haven't really thought about this bit).
The P.Res issue may be alleviated by tweaking the costs of the Commander's P.Res items. The ARC cost is getting dropped.
Perhaps the ARC and MAC Upgrades should be individual P.Res Upgrades that you purchase for each ARC or MAC. Allowing varying levels of investment would make the purchases feel less steep.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that most of the P res is always going to be in the hands of other players. So it's always going to be preferable at some point to get someone else to hop in the comm and pay for something.