It is still a restriction with a "because of reasons" logic. The misconception I think you guys are making is that turtling is a bad thing and that is the reason the sentries were changed. But that wasn't it, it was because the only use people really saw of sentries was to turtle, in which they did in almost every game. A limit by capping sentries does effectively ruin turtling, but it also kills the strategy. We shouldn't be preventing turtling by adding little "just because" rules, we should be preventing turtling by making it a strategy that people would rather prefer different strategies over.
By limiting sentries based off of reasons of turtling, by extension, we affect the Marine's ability to defend. What we should be doing is making new ideas that affect affect turtling by extension instead.
Financial limitation does seem to be the tried and true method, but Ammo reserves is also possibly another alternative. "An Army runs on their stomachs" as it were.
If any of you guys have played Wargame European Escalation, you will know that in order to keep your front strong, you need trucks or helicopters to bring supply to the soldiers. You could have a super strong M1A1 Abrams tank or a T-80, but without any shells to shoot, they are just cannon fodder.
Having a lot of sentries should be a viable strategy. It should just have the drawbacks that make you think twice about doing so.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited September 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1980952:date=Sep 20 2012, 12:47 PM:name=Blasphemy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blasphemy @ Sep 20 2012, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1980952"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is true, but that value is applied to a dynamic where you can increase/lower it depending on events happening in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a cap. And that's whats being suggested, either based on the amount of CCs or per room secured (power nodes)
Some sort of cap is the easiest to go with so short before release, they should figure out better ways to deal with the spam issue afterwards. It's what they have in place for the hydra (although arguably the cap is too low given the current hydra effectiveness, or the hydra needs a buff) So hopefully it's the path they decide to roll with now, that way we can at least get our anti-alien NS1 sentries back. Everyone will be happy and gameplay will actually benefit now that an important part of the tech tree isn't entirely useless anymore.
I've never heard that phrase before. It does sound like it makes sense, but I wonder in what context it is for.
@IronHorse: There is no structure cap in Starcraft. The only manipulator is the economy. If you wanted to, you could fill your entire base with Barracks. What is being suggested here is a structure cap. Albeit a dynamic cap, but a cap nonetheless.
@Xarius: Didn't they already try a sentry cap once before? I want sentries back as much as you do, but until we can find a proper solution to the sentries, we are just plugging leaks. If we were to return sentries to normal we would still have spam. If they didn't do much damage, the commander would drop more to do more damage. If they did a lot of damage, the commander would drop more to do even more damage. We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Didn't they already try a sentry cap once before?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope. It was put forward in a twitter feed once. The community objected en masse, but of course at the time we didn't realise they would manage to come up with WAY worse solutions than hardcapping them. That's why I say, bring on the hardcaps, it's a price I gladly pay for no longer having to deal with ###### redesigns.
It's an incredibly easy and efficient solution for the time being, just not very elegant.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The easiest solution is through the economy. If you have a proper economy model, there would NEVER be a point at which the commander just spams sentries, simply because that would be t.res not invested in other, possibly more important, stuff. I.e sure you can spam sentries, but if your marines don't get armor or weapon upgrades because of it, then it's likely not going to be a very successful strategy. (Certainly not in an environment where defence alone can't win you the game as marine)
Sentry spam in NS 2 almost always occured late game, when marines ran out of tech to research anyway. And this is before the days of dropping weapons, exos and jetpacks with T.res, mind you. At that inevitable point in every prolonged game, commanders basically HAD to spam either ARCs or Sentries, since it was the only thing (aside from armories and minor things like that) they could still consistently throw T.res at.
If there are more t.res sinks later on in the game (like is the case currently with weapon and prototype t.res drops), or if games only rarely reach a point where tech paths are entirely exhausted, you will simply NOT see sentry spam as an effective strategy.
<!--quoteo(post=1980989:date=Sep 20 2012, 02:03 PM:name=Blasphemy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blasphemy @ Sep 20 2012, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1980989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've never heard that phrase before. It does sound like it makes sense, but I wonder in what context it is for.
@IronHorse: There is no structure cap in Starcraft. The only manipulator is the economy. If you wanted to, you could fill your entire base with Barracks. What is being suggested here is a structure cap. Albeit a dynamic cap, but a cap nonetheless.
@Xarius: Didn't they already try a sentry cap once before? I want sentries back as much as you do, but until we can find a proper solution to the sentries, we are just plugging leaks. If we were to return sentries to normal we would still have spam. If they didn't do much damage, the commander would drop more to do more damage. If they did a lot of damage, the commander would drop more to do even more damage. We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but starcraft isnt an FPS RTS hybrid
starcraft has static defenses ... so shouldnt NS2 have decent static defence too ?
Oh but players dont like fighting AI
hard caps might be a no no in RTS games but for NS2 i think its the best solution
So by it being an FPS hybrid, couldn't we make it so the marine players (FPS) be the ones to manage the sentry instead of the commander? Personal sentries sound like a very good fit in this situation. Ones that the marine can drop and move at his command.
The SBAD system would definitely apply a very interesting dynamic to the game I think. I remember when sentries used to have ammo and commanders would have to refill it at a push of a button, but would always be so busy he would never remember to. What better person to resupply the sentry than the one who personally bought it, carried it over to the front lines, and built it? And it would inhibit turtling and spam because of the sustainability factor.
@Ironhorse: Aside from them not reliably shooting targets, I agree they weren't really broken and the state they are in now is not very good.
@Xarius: More T.Res sinks will definitely change the course of the game in how much people spend where.
Anyway, arguing the specifics on how to address sentry spam is pretty moot as long as UWE remains as stubborn about the sentry's design. For now we should simply unite in our demand to get proper sentry guns back instead of yet another terrible attempt to redesign them. Whether it be with or without hard caps, or with some other mechanism in place to restrict their quantity to some extent, we need to get them back first.
I think we should brainstorm together a way of addressing sentries that is just so inconceivably good that UWE has no choice but to use it instead of what we have now. Even every idea that we may personally think is bad. As it were for XCOM's "A Thousand Stupid Ideas on the Road to Glory", we should try to view every idea we can, to spark the good ones.
From there I think we should find a way to compile our findings together into a visually pleasing and easy to read format (maybe with pictures) and ship it off to UWE.
Obviously the community is mostly unanimous in wanting to change the sentries to the way they were and so far we haven't made much stride, but if we can make an alternative too good to pass up, we may have better chances.
Not that I am implying we should use every idea we come across though. As it were said " the camel is a horse designed by a committee " I don't think we want the Sentry to become another camel.
<!--quoteo(post=1980948:date=Sep 20 2012, 07:36 PM:name=Blasphemy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blasphemy @ Sep 20 2012, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1980948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People keep suggesting this and I think they have haven't really thought it through, or do not read or something, so I am going to try and deal with this once again.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>There should never be a hard cap to the amount of structures in an RTS for any reason.</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
There is a reason you aren't limited to three Bunkers or two Barracks in games like Starcraft. That is because it is a bad idea. You limit the number of possible strategies when you do unimaginative quick fix solutions to a problem more complex than that. You limit the replay value of a game instead of adding more alternatives which could provide more variety and game depth. And an RTS game, which this game is, thrives off of variety of strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thinking about this i must agree. NS2 already has "unimaginative quick fix for balance" solutions that i don't like at all. Like the slowly backwards walking of marines. I understand they don't want you to backpedal and shoot aliens but truthfully it's an ugly solution to nerf backwards walking for the sake of gameplay balance.
I completely agree with the current state of sentries making them useless. Frankly at this stage, you can just remove them.
A better solution would be to add certain tradeoffs to them (plenty of good ideas in this thread already) while making them useful against aliens again. Make it expensive to spam turrets, but give marines the ability to use sentries as a strategic tool.
Honestly, Lerk gas confusing them should be enough to allow for useful sentries.
Hugh said in one of the NS2HD videos that NONE of the good teams use sentries, ever. You yourself admit that sentries are useless right now.
<!--quoteo(post=1977104:date=Sep 13 2012, 01:06 PM:name=Namm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Namm @ Sep 13 2012, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1977104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An idea that just popped up... Why not have Sentries that are like Mines, but only the Comm may drop them in proximity of the Robotics Factory. A Marine equips himself with the dropped Sentry (it then becomes strapped to his back). The Marine selects the Sentry like any other weapon and places it as a Gorge would place a Hydra (although only on floors and with the line-of-sight indicated). The placed Sentry needs to be activated (a Marine holds down <i>use</i>, just like building a structure, and gets scored for it). The Comm is the one that gets awarded for the Sentry kills, and the Comm can de-activate the Sentry, allowing an Marine to once again pick it up.
I'm imagining these Sentries to function without a power source and be quite effective against Alien players, but also expensive and perhaps requiring the Comm to supply them with ammo packs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was reading this thread specifically looking to see if this idea has been posted. This is pretty much the same thing I was thinking.
Do away with the battery, just make sentries researchable like mines, where a marine can purchase one from the armory for 15 res or so. The marine can place it anywhere and then it requires a fairly short build time. Just add a radius around each sentry where other sentries can't be placed, and there's your "soft" cap. I feel like this is the best solution and can allow for both offensive and defensive uses of sentries, making it a much more interesting and dynamic asset to the marine team. The only variables that need to be adjusted for balance are the resource cost, actual sentry damage/range/firing rate, and whether or not they are affected by the nanogrid.
I think UWE should strongly consider this as a way to make sentries a useful part of the game.
EDIT: Apologies to anyyone else after page 3 who has encouraged this same idea (Blasphemy). I was just looking through the thread to see if it had been suggested and then the first post I saw I went straight to reply.
I don't really understand what the big deal is why uwe feels the need to nerf sentries into oblivion. I think if sentries get nerfed to the pooper hydras and whips should follow right behind. It is not fair and balanced play to give one team an obvious structure advantage over the other.
I have whipped up a very rough mockup in the Spark Cinematic Editor of what I believe it would look like if Marines were to be able to purchase and move Sentries around. Note that it doesn't appear that you can layer animation events together in the SCE, so that is why the Marine freaks out when he drops the sentry. I also couldn't find a way to lock the rifle/sentry to the Marine's hands, so I had to animate each individually.
I don't think it would look right having the sentry mount on the Marine's back. I think that if he were to move it around, he would have to carry it in his hands the whole way and he would probably move slower than usual while doing so.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Youtube Video Description"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Youtube Video Description")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Messing around with the Spark Cinematic Editor. There is quite a bit of missing functionality in comparison to programs such as Source Filmmaker, but it serves its purpose fairly well.
The idea behind this video is to visually represent the alternative idea of Sentries, where Marines would purchase and deploy them instead of the Commander. The idea was originally intended to serve as a way to deal with turtling.
While I believe this idea is flawed in concept for that particular reasoning, I do believe this would be an attractive alternative to purchasing a better weapon such as a shotgun or flamethrower. It would also give a "mechanic" style of play more of a role in the early stages of a game if the Marine were to purchase a welder in conjunction.
Another idea I believe would work with this would be a return to the ammo system. Methods of re-arming a sentry would involve either manually installing more with the build tool, or having a commander drop an SBAD (Sentry Battery Ammo Dispenser) to resupply automatically. The SBAD would be fairly pricey in comparison to the price of a Sentry, and would therefore be the controlling factor in marine defensive capability.
Considering how the Sentry would be fairly useless once its ammunition is spent, I believe the SBAD idea combined with the Personal Sentry idea to help with the longstanding problem of marine hardshelled defense, without damaging Sentry effectiveness or role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely looks interesting but how would you address the problem of spammability? This changes nothing about the fact that sentries when spammed are troublesome/not fun to deal with, which is really the ONLY problem with commander placed sentries. So you're basically fixing a problem that doesn't exist, by putting sentries on p.res. Marines can spam mines, which is already annoying , no reason why they couldn't spam sentries instead.
Also, it takes away commander control when it comes to proper defences, and sentry positioning is very important so it's something better left to one person (with top down perspective) rather than 10 different ones. (Not to mention marine's have less understanding of power node mechanics and may end up placing sentries outside power node ranges and what not) Lastly, there's a very big likelihood that a change like this would make sentries an offensive rather than a defensive weapon of choice. At such a point you may as well just have a marine manned deployable HMG.
<!--quoteo(post=1982358:date=Sep 24 2012, 11:47 AM:name=Xarius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xarius @ Sep 24 2012, 11:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1982358"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Definitely looks interesting but how would you address the problem of spammability?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never quite got that spam argument. Bilebomb ftw, make them super effective against turrets, voila. An ammo limit to turrents means there are more ways to deal with them, and the firing arcs are another balancing drawback they already have. If a commander spends so much res on spamming turrets then he can't do much else.
I'm not even against limiting the total number of turrets, after all we have the same thing with hydras right now (max of 3 per gorge).
I personally don't think it would be an issue any more as well, there's power nodes, lerk gas, onos stomp, fade vortex (have vortex on TF affect sentries) and gorge bilebomb. If sentries go back to NS 1 stats, with maybe slightly less HP, any number of them willl be easy to deal with if unsupported by marines. (And even if supported, just need proper alien coordination)
Sentries were nerfed by UWE at a time when lerk still had the bilebomb, which obviously wasn't very effective vs sentry spam (since it has to fly in close) I would REALLY like them to test sentries in the current environment, where gorge bilebomb will be able to easily decimate them from a safe range. But it's clear UWE doesn't believe this, else they would have long fixed sentries. Heck, I'm pretty convinced you wouldn't even need a hardcap. Same way you don't need a hardcap on hydras with the p.res cost on them.
I was just playing the 'devil's advocate' in asking that question about spammability. Until proven in practice, I'm absolutely convinced sentry spam wouldn't be a problem with the current alien mechanics in place.
I have read this entire thread, and I really still can't understand the logic behind why NS1 style sentries cant just be directly imported. They worked great against skulks, and certainly helped against fades if you had a few, but really didnt do much at all to ONOS. If you feel theres going to be a spamming problem, create a 4 sentry cap per room (there is really no economical justification for more then 4 sentries in a room).
BAM solution. I am really a little dumbfounded as to how this situation has evolved to the giant problem it is today.
If UWE is going to great lengths to avoid capping the maximum number of structures because it is BAD BAD BAD, then why can gorges only place three hydras maximum?
If UWE is nerfing sentries to avoid spam, then why can the alien commander spam whips and crags?
Fix the sentry so it acquires targets reasonably fast, and delivers reasonable damage to them. Then, either: 1. Adjust the cost so sentries aren't so spammable, and/or 2. Allow X sentries per power node.
The game is so much more fun without sentries. Public servers never get bogged down or have "no-go" areas. I would rather see clogs and hydras removed as well, but they aren't nearly as bad as sentries. Player vs Player combat is king.
oldassgamersJoin Date: 2011-02-02Member: 80033Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1982365:date=Sep 24 2012, 12:39 PM:name=statikg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (statikg @ Sep 24 2012, 12:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1982365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have read this entire thread, and I really still can't understand the logic behind why NS1 style sentries cant just be directly imported. They worked great against skulks, and certainly helped against fades if you had a few, but really didnt do much at all to ONOS. If you feel theres going to be a spamming problem, create a 4 sentry cap per room (there is really no economical justification for more then 4 sentries in a room).
BAM solution. I am really a little dumbfounded as to how this situation has evolved to the giant problem it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally agree with that. better having turrent be effective against skulk, but sentries are usesless against onoses. Also a cap of 4 per room prevent the spam issues :D
The conclusion of this must be that the potential outcry from new players outweighs the opinions of seasoned beta testers and veterans. Because I have yet to see a single non-UWE person complaining about the turrets. Just like so many other developers these days, you underestimate the intellect of your player base and the common person, trying your hardest to make the game more accessible to some imaginary half-wit who wouldn't be able to tell game balance from a spoon. Does it baffle you that Dota 2 has more players than Counter-Strike? It has a steep learning curve and isn't even out of beta. It provides the tools for the players to experiment with, and lets the player loose. The experimentation of different strategies is what makes these kinds of games fun! Don't shy away from it.
UWE, You must understand at this point: we aren't trying to sabotage your game. The reason there is such a reaction to this is because people, and I'm talking about real people who've played your game lots and lots of hours, care and think this change is for the worse. And I bet you a lot of these people have as much RTS experience, and perhaps NS experience, as you guys. Couldn't it be worth revisiting this decision?
<!--quoteo(post=1982377:date=Sep 24 2012, 04:28 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Sep 24 2012, 04:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1982377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game is so much more fun without sentries. Public servers never get bogged down or have "no-go" areas. I would rather see clogs and hydras removed as well, but they aren't nearly as bad as sentries. Player vs Player combat is king.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But sentries barely tickle the aliens now, and weren't that hot even before the battery nonsense. Plus bile bomb just melts them in seconds, they could even double their health and they'd still be a risky res sink.
Yes, but what wilson said is, that the game is more fun with broken, not used sentries than with sentries that lock the default-alien class out of parts of the map. And I'm with him. Seeing how unfun games with working sentries were. Not to mention, that they were essential in marine turtles and that the typical noob-com will spam sentries.
I think they can work with a cap, that denies a placement without weak points. They should always be beatable by the default skulk if not defended by marines.
Another idea. Sentries easily kills a lone skulk. When multiple aliens attack at the same time the turrets keeps switching between the targets dealing less total damage to the attacking aliens than it would do to a lone attacker.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but what wilson said is, that the game is more fun with broken, not used sentries than with sentries that lock the default-alien class out of parts of the map. And I'm with him. Seeing how unfun games with working sentries were. Not to mention, that they were essential in marine turtles and that the typical noob-com will spam sentries.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're basing this off your experience with sentry spam in the lerk bilebomb days. Seriously, surely you can see how irrelevant that experience is today? Aliens have received a bunch more AND better tools to combat sentries compared to those days. It's at least worth reimplementing them to see how they manage with all the changes that took place.
Trying to justify these useless sentries in 220 based on experience with sentries in B200 is just laughable.
No one wants to see annoying sentry farms make a comeback, but it's highly unlikely they would be anywhere near as 'viable' (or even just annoying) as they used to be in old b200 games. Heck, marine gameplay may actually become a lot more fun and not consist of this bland armory - PG strategy you see in every game.
Comments
By limiting sentries based off of reasons of turtling, by extension, we affect the Marine's ability to defend. What we should be doing is making new ideas that affect affect turtling by extension instead.
Financial limitation does seem to be the tried and true method, but Ammo reserves is also possibly another alternative. "An Army runs on their stomachs" as it were.
If any of you guys have played Wargame European Escalation, you will know that in order to keep your front strong, you need trucks or helicopters to bring supply to the soldiers. You could have a super strong M1A1 Abrams tank or a T-80, but without any shells to shoot, they are just cannon fodder.
Having a lot of sentries should be a viable strategy. It should just have the drawbacks that make you think twice about doing so.
Thats a cap.
And that's whats being suggested, either based on the amount of CCs or per room secured (power nodes)
Pwease UWE. It's such an easy fix.
@IronHorse: There is no structure cap in Starcraft. The only manipulator is the economy. If you wanted to, you could fill your entire base with Barracks. What is being suggested here is a structure cap. Albeit a dynamic cap, but a cap nonetheless.
@Xarius: Didn't they already try a sentry cap once before? I want sentries back as much as you do, but until we can find a proper solution to the sentries, we are just plugging leaks. If we were to return sentries to normal we would still have spam. If they didn't do much damage, the commander would drop more to do more damage. If they did a lot of damage, the commander would drop more to do even more damage. We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.
It's an incredibly easy and efficient solution for the time being, just not very elegant.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The easiest solution is through the economy. If you have a proper economy model, there would NEVER be a point at which the commander just spams sentries, simply because that would be t.res not invested in other, possibly more important, stuff. I.e sure you can spam sentries, but if your marines don't get armor or weapon upgrades because of it, then it's likely not going to be a very successful strategy. (Certainly not in an environment where defence alone can't win you the game as marine)
Sentry spam in NS 2 almost always occured late game, when marines ran out of tech to research anyway. And this is before the days of dropping weapons, exos and jetpacks with T.res, mind you. At that inevitable point in every prolonged game, commanders basically HAD to spam either ARCs or Sentries, since it was the only thing (aside from armories and minor things like that) they could still consistently throw T.res at.
If there are more t.res sinks later on in the game (like is the case currently with weapon and prototype t.res drops), or if games only rarely reach a point where tech paths are entirely exhausted, you will simply NOT see sentry spam as an effective strategy.
@IronHorse: There is no structure cap in Starcraft. The only manipulator is the economy. If you wanted to, you could fill your entire base with Barracks. What is being suggested here is a structure cap. Albeit a dynamic cap, but a cap nonetheless.
@Xarius: Didn't they already try a sentry cap once before? I want sentries back as much as you do, but until we can find a proper solution to the sentries, we are just plugging leaks. If we were to return sentries to normal we would still have spam. If they didn't do much damage, the commander would drop more to do more damage. If they did a lot of damage, the commander would drop more to do even more damage. We need to make the commander not want to "just drop more", and there are some very good ideas for fixing that. Some may be more difficult to implement than others, but definitely things we should try. Hopefully we can try it before the game goes gold because I don't know how well the new player base would like being guinea pigs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but starcraft isnt an FPS RTS hybrid
starcraft has static defenses ... so shouldnt NS2 have decent static defence too ?
Oh but players dont like fighting AI
hard caps might be a no no in RTS games but for NS2 i think its the best solution
The SBAD system would definitely apply a very interesting dynamic to the game I think. I remember when sentries used to have ammo and commanders would have to refill it at a push of a button, but would always be so busy he would never remember to. What better person to resupply the sentry than the one who personally bought it, carried it over to the front lines, and built it? And it would inhibit turtling and spam because of the sustainability factor.
@Ironhorse: Aside from them not reliably shooting targets, I agree they weren't really broken and the state they are in now is not very good.
@Xarius: More T.Res sinks will definitely change the course of the game in how much people spend where.
From there I think we should find a way to compile our findings together into a visually pleasing and easy to read format (maybe with pictures) and ship it off to UWE.
Obviously the community is mostly unanimous in wanting to change the sentries to the way they were and so far we haven't made much stride, but if we can make an alternative too good to pass up, we may have better chances.
Not that I am implying we should use every idea we come across though. As it were said " the camel is a horse designed by a committee " I don't think we want the Sentry to become another camel.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>There should never be a hard cap to the amount of structures in an RTS for any reason.</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
There is a reason you aren't limited to three Bunkers or two Barracks in games like Starcraft. That is because it is a bad idea. You limit the number of possible strategies when you do unimaginative quick fix solutions to a problem more complex than that. You limit the replay value of a game instead of adding more alternatives which could provide more variety and game depth. And an RTS game, which this game is, thrives off of variety of strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thinking about this i must agree. NS2 already has "unimaginative quick fix for balance" solutions that i don't like at all. Like the slowly backwards walking of marines. I understand they don't want you to backpedal and shoot aliens but truthfully it's an ugly solution to nerf backwards walking for the sake of gameplay balance.
A better solution would be to add certain tradeoffs to them (plenty of good ideas in this thread already) while making them useful against aliens again. Make it expensive to spam turrets, but give marines the ability to use sentries as a strategic tool.
Honestly, Lerk gas confusing them should be enough to allow for useful sentries.
Hugh said in one of the NS2HD videos that NONE of the good teams use sentries, ever. You yourself admit that sentries are useless right now.
I'm imagining these Sentries to function without a power source and be quite effective against Alien players, but also expensive and perhaps requiring the Comm to supply them with ammo packs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was reading this thread specifically looking to see if this idea has been posted. This is pretty much the same thing I was thinking.
Do away with the battery, just make sentries researchable like mines, where a marine can purchase one from the armory for 15 res or so. The marine can place it anywhere and then it requires a fairly short build time. Just add a radius around each sentry where other sentries can't be placed, and there's your "soft" cap. I feel like this is the best solution and can allow for both offensive and defensive uses of sentries, making it a much more interesting and dynamic asset to the marine team. The only variables that need to be adjusted for balance are the resource cost, actual sentry damage/range/firing rate, and whether or not they are affected by the nanogrid.
I think UWE should strongly consider this as a way to make sentries a useful part of the game.
EDIT: Apologies to anyyone else after page 3 who has encouraged this same idea (Blasphemy). I was just looking through the thread to see if it had been suggested and then the first post I saw I went straight to reply.
I don't think it would look right having the sentry mount on the Marine's back. I think that if he were to move it around, he would have to carry it in his hands the whole way and he would probably move slower than usual while doing so.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ce3i6L5iv8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8ce3i6L5iv8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Here is the video description:
<!--QuoteBegin-"Youtube Video Description"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Youtube Video Description")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Messing around with the Spark Cinematic Editor. There is quite a bit of missing functionality in comparison to programs such as Source Filmmaker, but it serves its purpose fairly well.
The idea behind this video is to visually represent the alternative idea of Sentries, where Marines would purchase and deploy them instead of the Commander. The idea was originally intended to serve as a way to deal with turtling.
While I believe this idea is flawed in concept for that particular reasoning, I do believe this would be an attractive alternative to purchasing a better weapon such as a shotgun or flamethrower. It would also give a "mechanic" style of play more of a role in the early stages of a game if the Marine were to purchase a welder in conjunction.
Another idea I believe would work with this would be a return to the ammo system. Methods of re-arming a sentry would involve either manually installing more with the build tool, or having a commander drop an SBAD (Sentry Battery Ammo Dispenser) to resupply automatically. The SBAD would be fairly pricey in comparison to the price of a Sentry, and would therefore be the controlling factor in marine defensive capability.
Considering how the Sentry would be fairly useless once its ammunition is spent, I believe the SBAD idea combined with the Personal Sentry idea to help with the longstanding problem of marine hardshelled defense, without damaging Sentry effectiveness or role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, it takes away commander control when it comes to proper defences, and sentry positioning is very important so it's something better left to one person (with top down perspective) rather than 10 different ones. (Not to mention marine's have less understanding of power node mechanics and may end up placing sentries outside power node ranges and what not) Lastly, there's a very big likelihood that a change like this would make sentries an offensive rather than a defensive weapon of choice. At such a point you may as well just have a marine manned deployable HMG.
I never quite got that spam argument. Bilebomb ftw, make them super effective against turrets, voila. An ammo limit to turrents means there are more ways to deal with them, and the firing arcs are another balancing drawback they already have.
If a commander spends so much res on spamming turrets then he can't do much else.
I'm not even against limiting the total number of turrets, after all we have the same thing with hydras right now (max of 3 per gorge).
Sentries were nerfed by UWE at a time when lerk still had the bilebomb, which obviously wasn't very effective vs sentry spam (since it has to fly in close) I would REALLY like them to test sentries in the current environment, where gorge bilebomb will be able to easily decimate them from a safe range. But it's clear UWE doesn't believe this, else they would have long fixed sentries. Heck, I'm pretty convinced you wouldn't even need a hardcap. Same way you don't need a hardcap on hydras with the p.res cost on them.
I was just playing the 'devil's advocate' in asking that question about spammability. Until proven in practice, I'm absolutely convinced sentry spam wouldn't be a problem with the current alien mechanics in place.
BAM solution. I am really a little dumbfounded as to how this situation has evolved to the giant problem it is today.
If UWE is nerfing sentries to avoid spam, then why can the alien commander spam whips and crags?
Fix the sentry so it acquires targets reasonably fast, and delivers reasonable damage to them. Then, either:
1. Adjust the cost so sentries aren't so spammable, and/or
2. Allow X sentries per power node.
End of problem.
BAM solution. I am really a little dumbfounded as to how this situation has evolved to the giant problem it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally agree with that. better having turrent be effective against skulk, but sentries are usesless against onoses. Also a cap of 4 per room prevent the spam issues :D
UWE, You must understand at this point: we aren't trying to sabotage your game. The reason there is such a reaction to this is because people, and I'm talking about real people who've played your game lots and lots of hours, care and think this change is for the worse. And I bet you a lot of these people have as much RTS experience, and perhaps NS experience, as you guys. Couldn't it be worth revisiting this decision?
But sentries barely tickle the aliens now, and weren't that hot even before the battery nonsense.
Plus bile bomb just melts them in seconds, they could even double their health and they'd still be a risky res sink.
I think they can work with a cap, that denies a placement without weak points. They should always be beatable by the default skulk if not defended by marines.
You're basing this off your experience with sentry spam in the lerk bilebomb days. Seriously, surely you can see how irrelevant that experience is today? Aliens have received a bunch more AND better tools to combat sentries compared to those days. It's at least worth reimplementing them to see how they manage with all the changes that took place.
Trying to justify these useless sentries in 220 based on experience with sentries in B200 is just laughable.
No one wants to see annoying sentry farms make a comeback, but it's highly unlikely they would be anywhere near as 'viable' (or even just annoying) as they used to be in old b200 games. Heck, marine gameplay may actually become a lot more fun and not consist of this bland armory - PG strategy you see in every game.