PVE vs PVP
Frothybeverage
Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13593Members
Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13593Members
I was thinking about the general consensus of killing structures being PVE, but this really isn't the case.
Structures are placed by the commander, are as a by-product of this an extension of their PVP power.
They have a few avenues of direct influence on the game, that is if you exclude strategies, which can be a team thing as opposed to the commander calling the shots.
Excluding structures -
The Marine commander has:
Medpacks, Ammo, Nanoshield, Scan, MACs, ARCs, and item placement(Which I rarely see being used, barring the occasional single-arm exo).
The Alien/Kharaa Commander/Khammander has:
Drifters, Mist, Egg drops, Bonewall, and Enzyme(because of drifters).
People keep citing Charlie as saying he doesn't want PVE to have a huge impact on the game, if this is true(I'd like to see a source), what is he defining as PVE?
Obviously he's including structures in this definition, but some structures have a direct impact(Whips, and Observatories come to mind immediately) on the PVP aspect of the game.
Where does he draw the line?
Is it if a structure is able to do damage to a player?
It can't be that, because whips can attack players.
Does it count as PVE if the structure can damage a player at a range?
If so, that explains the general uselessness of sentries, but that doesn't explain bombard whips(Arguably useful).
What if the structure can't damage a player?
Observatories themselves are passive, but they do offer a reactive/pre-emptive ability(Scan).
Armouries are arguably passive, they don't do anything unless a player engages them, and they don't have any affect on aliens near them.
Crags are similar to armouries in this way.
It can't be the distinction of killing structures being "unfun", as you're essentially required(Or at least it makes ending the game easier) to kill pretty much every structure that the opposing team has.
Structures are placed by the commander, are as a by-product of this an extension of their PVP power.
They have a few avenues of direct influence on the game, that is if you exclude strategies, which can be a team thing as opposed to the commander calling the shots.
Excluding structures -
The Marine commander has:
Medpacks, Ammo, Nanoshield, Scan, MACs, ARCs, and item placement(Which I rarely see being used, barring the occasional single-arm exo).
The Alien/Kharaa Commander/Khammander has:
Drifters, Mist, Egg drops, Bonewall, and Enzyme(because of drifters).
People keep citing Charlie as saying he doesn't want PVE to have a huge impact on the game, if this is true(I'd like to see a source), what is he defining as PVE?
Obviously he's including structures in this definition, but some structures have a direct impact(Whips, and Observatories come to mind immediately) on the PVP aspect of the game.
Where does he draw the line?
Is it if a structure is able to do damage to a player?
It can't be that, because whips can attack players.
Does it count as PVE if the structure can damage a player at a range?
If so, that explains the general uselessness of sentries, but that doesn't explain bombard whips(Arguably useful).
What if the structure can't damage a player?
Observatories themselves are passive, but they do offer a reactive/pre-emptive ability(Scan).
Armouries are arguably passive, they don't do anything unless a player engages them, and they don't have any affect on aliens near them.
Crags are similar to armouries in this way.
It can't be the distinction of killing structures being "unfun", as you're essentially required(Or at least it makes ending the game easier) to kill pretty much every structure that the opposing team has.
Comments
(You missed sentries)
All the stuff I listed was stuff that the Alien/Marine commander(s) have to directly control for them to be effective.
I guess its not really a structure :P
(As long as players themselves are placing the NPCs/structures/<insert environment elements here>, then it's more of a PvP game than a PvE game.)
Plus, I say NPC elements really make the game more lively and more interesting because as players (and in a game like NS2), players should be able to interact with a lot more stuff than other players themselves IMO (again, makes thing more fun)>
Also as a commander, you don't want to rely 100% on players only. You want stuff like MACs (which is neat), and their ability to attack (if only 5 damage, it's still allowing the commander to do something). Defensive structures are also fun.
In NS1, Sentry Turrets and Offense Chambers weren't a problem in the game (because they were balanced correctly, and as long as NPCs are balanced correctly, it can work easily). This was the especially the case with Marines "Electric" structures (the resource tower and the turret factory). Electric structures weren't overpowered, it basically prevented skulks and lerks from being able to take out structures.
"However" it costs 20 resources (which was a decent investment) and if the skulk had a gorge (which wasn't a big deal), then the electric resource tower was probably going to go down (gorges can heal the skulk while the skulk is biting the RT).
So, NPC elements can work well in PvP games. NS1 was PvP most of the time anyway.
As long as NPC elements aren't too strong, then I say those things should stay in the game.
Also, Sentries warding off skulks or even lerks from attacking isn't a bad thing. It's good because it means the aliens can't go alone and they need "teamwork" and "strategy" and "planning" to attack an area. If there were no static defense and you had to rely solely on players for defense, that can turn the game into mostly "base trades" situation.
In any game, I always enjoyed the aspect of NPCs, even if the game is supposed to be PvP.
It makes the game more "alive" (that there are things you can interact with in the game, besides other players) and it adds a lot to the game, and I think NS2 should be fine with things like Sentries in games.
Technically, sentries and other stuff aren't really "PvE" since a lot of things (sentries, structures, MACs, Drifters, etc) have to be built by a player and usually controlled by a player.
NS2 is supposed to have some strategical positioning elements and static defense and NPC defense/offense help that.
NPCs placed by players can be compared to Chess players placing chess pieces. Chess is a very strategic and positional game, and players in NS2 being able to place things (like sentries, hydras, whips, etc) in certain locations is like that.
So the fact that these "NPCs" are placed in certain points by "actual players" makes the game not really PvE but PvP, especially because (like Chess) you want to place structures (like chess pieces) in strategic locations to defend or attack (which again, makes it not PvE because it requires actual player involvement to move or command those "NPCs").
Another comparison is pure RTS games. You only control the units. If you leave the unit by itself, it automatically defends. There can be static defense structures, which again, can be placed by structures.
Overall, I think we should not fear "PvE" because technically nothing is really "PvE" in the game because most of the stuff is placed by players themselves.
Also it's not just because NS2 is an "RTS"/FPS hybrid either because even if NS2 was a pure FPS game, NPCs would be okay as long as the players are the ones placing said NPCs in certain locations to defend or attack (Team Fortress Engineer for example).
Edit - I get the point of not wanting marines (for example) to spend like 5 minutes trying to take out a Hydra, or vice versa with aliens trying to take out a Sentry (for example). In that case, it's not a problem of PvE but balance. I mean, if you replace sentry with "Marine with lots of armor but does little damage but can't move but can still attack and is controlled by a player", then that same situation would apply because of balance issues, not because it's an NPC. So, as long as NPCs aren't OP, NPCs are fine in the game IMO.
I say the NS1 electric resource towers and sentry turrets (which can attack in any direction) is a good example of NPCs in a PvP game done right. Sentries and Electric RTs weren't bothersome, they allowed the marines to be more flexible and strategic with their options (instead of one marine having to base camp all day, you can set a few turrets).
Also this is the same way for aliens too. As aliens, I wasn't really annoyed with electric RTs or Sentries because those required an investment and it meant I couldn't just jump in and take everything out myself. It required planning from the aliens (usually just a gorge though) and it added to the game because of that (it added more depth).
(Also when I say NPCs, I use it in a broad sense which includes structures.)
You sir, get my awesome.
Edit:
It's still technically PVP, because the commander had to physically place those structures.
They're just automated.
What would be interesting would be if they nerfed turrets more(About half current damage), but made it so if the commander told the turrets to attack a specific target they did more damage(1.5x-2x current damage).
At that point it's no longer arguable that it's PVE, as the commander has to physically tell the turrets to attack a target, and it's taking away from his attention(Medding marines, dropping scans) elsewhere to boot.
With the commander interface as it is, there is no way in hell that would work. And even if a com was dedicated to clicking a troop, he would have to do it every time a unit moved out of sight.
Imagine that you had to tell three mac's to weld different (moving) structures, or just try to click a moving mac even.
As long as the recipient of said command has LoS of the target, the waypoint follows the target.
Whip: Easily to counter by staying out of range and killing it.
Whip Bombard: Not deadly, only armor. (Exos may be a special case.)
Hydra: very weak damage
Sentries: weak damage, slow targeting
Drifter, MACs: very weak damage
Babblers: weak damage
Hydras aren't that weak, also I took out 2 exos the other day by making 5 shaded bombard whips behind them, when they finally started retreating they both died
well, imo player versus building isn't detrimental to depth, skill or fun. when attacking an RT; it's basically pvp because you're forcing your opponent into an engagement. this principle is essential for rewarding exciting gameplay elements such as misdirection and aggression; instead of rewarding campers.
the detrimental pve side is when you have buildings which deal damage, ergo they force a conflict by themselves with no support from players. for example you could create hydras, babblers or whips near a marine RT, and the marines would be forced to react with players to counter those non-players. it's essentially boring, because a braindead marine can shoot a whip just the same as chuck norris marine.
another smaller issue is crags because they take a long time to kill, and sponge a lot of ammunition. however, they're not really 'priority' targets like well-placed hydra or sentry gun. they don't really force a fight, and can be safely ignored until you're ready (unless you're trying to snipe a hive).
I'm just trying to spur a discussion on the subject.
TF2 actually caps at 5x, so it's often better to just let your team hump the cart while you go and do Scout things.
TF2 sentries are a bit different from NS2 sentries :P
Hydras and clogs can be fairly effective is placed correctly along with a gorge tending them. Wouldn't it make sense for turrets effectiveness to be similarly enhanced by a marine presence? I even recall a beta patch that reportedly had a similar goal in mind. Does anyone recall that or why it was abandoned?
I guess I'm arguing that PVE with a players support should be considerably more effective than PVE alone. The main problem with this involves turtling capability.
If turrets were better, it'd take teamwork to take them down, as opposed to a single alien.
Turrets are enhanced by marine presence, the aliens ignore the turrets, and go for the marine.
If the marine is smart, he fights in front of the turrets so that they do a bit of damage to the alien while he unloads his weapon of choice.
The thing is, turrets are just not worth building unless you're swimming in res, or you already have all the upgrades.
The game is already like this.
Any sort of offensive/defensive structure becomes far more effective with player support.
Yay, non-contributing post.
Team res is worth more than personal res, in my opinion.