Loool, it might just have been you who was whining on the forums about a Marine team turteling on 2 bases with exos for 2 hours and then winning the game. I think it was on tram. Lets see if i can dig up that thread.
At first i was going to make a serious post in the pro/con format Ironhorse suggested, but reading through the con list definitely changed my mind. There wasn't a single valid 'con' to be found.
[*] Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
Not true at all. If we simply evaluated this statement, we could ask: which change has the larger effect on reducing marine turtle in public games?
a) Tie t3 to 2 cc
b) Remove exo
Obviously option b. I'm not saying to actually remove exo, but that the above assertion is invalid. So i'll try addressing what i think it's trying to say (sorry if i misunderstand again ironhorse).
It might sound intuitive that t3 tech on 1 cc means more turtle, but tying it to 2 cc is just swapping one type of turtle for another. Infact, by increasing the hurdle cost for effective turtling via 2 cc, you will see overall more 2 cc turtle orientated games and less focus on actually being aggressive. We saw this pre 250 if you want empirical evidence, and i don't see a reason why we wouldn't see it again.
Trying to be super aggressive while chucking res out for a 2nd cc base is really dumb, bad for gameflow, and limits comeback pressure.
A turtle on 2 CCs isn't a turtle. Pre 250 there was no problem for the alien team to crush one of the bases. Simply because the number of marines needed to split up on the two bases.
I understand, that you want to see more aggressive play from marines. And that defending 2 CCs isn't your thing. But don't call it turtle. It completely misses the point.
You missed the point.
I am saying 1 CC, 2 CC, 3 CC, 4 CC, it doesn't matter how you change the requirements up. As long as you don't nerf exo/sentry power and buff late game alien power, it is turtle. It was turtle pre 250, and it's still turtle post 250. Don't kid yourself into thinking 2cc was not turtle because you had to "split marines up". The only 'splitting' you needed to do was having one exosuit on each techpoint because that was the only thing beacon/phasegates didn't effect.
It's actually less turtle now because mac's dont weld as fast as the armoury used to, and marines don't spawn as fast anymore.
[*] Allows marines to tech up without having to hold ground / forward positions
You lose forward positions, you lose resource towers, you lose res for teching, aliens out tech, alien lifeform conveyor belt (tres and pres), can't help support engagements (meds, nano), aliens win.
Marines still need forward positions and to hold key places in the map. 1 to keep their own resources, and 2, to deny aliens their future tech.
This is false.
[*] Potentially allows for faster exos and jet packs and W3/A3 for greater strat variety (does this actually happen? A link to a stream would be helpful confirming)
A lot of public commanders have started going 1-1 exos.
Quaxy likes to rush jetpacks at times.
[*] Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
Wrong. Largest contributor is weak tactics being executed poorly allowing for alien team to dominate more easily.
How many times do you see a containment marine start on refinery and a fast phasegate in pipeworks. Using all that res and time to secure this room is inefficient. It sends out the message "We want containment and pipeworks. We're going to sit in these big rooms and wait for turtle." Single CC is not contributing to this or else you'd have more advanced phasegates which protect more and provide front line reinforcements!
How many times do you see tech points claimed with a fast pg, then a fast 2nd cc, obs, and armory? People for some reason like dumping res in tech rooms.
[*]Unintuitive. Maintaining and holding map control is encouraged through every facet of this game. So why not one extra structure if you're already in that room??
Sure you can put a CC in a tech point room. You're not being disallowed. Although it's a bad idea because res can be put into other things like upgrades/supporting engagements.
[*] Unfair advantage. Aliens have to secure areas of the map just like marines but have to hold them as well to advance and keep their tech.
And yet aliens are winning the vast majority of engagements atm so it's easier to secure. It would be unfair for aliens to be able to be so mobile but only need 1 point of defense (their main hive). Because of their massive mobility, they should have to be pulled across the width of the map to defend multiple tech points and attack multiple targets. Marines can't hold 2 tech points easily whilst attacking/defending RTs unless they have the JPs already out and a strong exo train.
[*] Turtles aside, it becomes difficult to push marines back once they have tier 3 tech, even if they own no portion of the map.
If you're doing well on res biting, tier 3 tech shouldn't comm out for ages. If it comes out quick, you're losing and it snow balls like giving aliens a lot of res and their lifeform snowball. I think this is an RTS mechanic (I'm not an RTS player)
[*]Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
Wrong. The map control requirement has not changed. Marines need to deny alien expansion like always and by covering more ground themselves, they can tech up quicker and dispatch the aliens quicker whilst also getting more support. Adding a CC to a room doesn't add map control to marines. It adds it to aliens by giving them the option to drag marines from the offensive lines to base defending.
[*] Further isolates marine "island" starting areas. (i.e. Control in Veil, Terminal in Docking)
How? How does it isolate control and terminal? What does this mean?
You want to give aliens a free 3 hives on veil? Don't be silly. It encourages better, and more efficient PG play like a system PG to deny sub and give some defense to it whilst pushing nano/cargo.
[*]Promotes a "status quo" attitude regarding TSF team playstyles. ("Just keep 4-5 RT's up at all times, and we'll be golden.")
Why is this bad? That is an "ok" playstyle. That also incorporates 2-3 tech points unless somehow you've nicked some RTs behind hives. It's also easy to break as aliens because you're giving them 2 hives and unpressured 5-6 RTs bringing out fade after fade.
Would also like to add that the 1 CC all tech doesn't promote holding as many RTs as possible because this doesn't happen. Read fast PG on every tech point you can grab. leaving little defense to your peripheral resource nodes. This is currently the status quo and I imagine it will be forever more really.
[*]Gives aliens less bases to destroy, which are more satisfying /exciting than RTs.
You say it's less satisfying to destroy a base which marines will want to turtle more on because it's more important, and yet you complain about turtles?
Also this argument that it's not exciting to kill RTs baffles me. If you kill resource towers, marines will come to defend it. When you play marines, how many times does the commander say "logistics under attack" and about 4 guys will come to get you? You're bringing the encounters to yourself.
You really need to add why things are PROs and why things are CONs because without the reasoning behind it, you're taking a statement that a person has said and let him decide if it's good or not for the game without discussing it.
Ok, than we have a different interpretation of the word "turtle". I don't want to start over semantics here. Only so much:
As marine being on one base with aliens camping both possible entrances is boring gameplay for me, because it is like running against a wall. (The same counts for aliens sieging this last base.)
As marine defending 2 bases and occasionally starting attacks to nearby enemy RTs and hives or to defend own RTs is fun for me.
The first one is what has increased with b250 and what I thought was this thread all about. (hence missing the point) It's what I would call the "marine turtle".
You are talking of defensive gameplay. This isn't turtling. While I agree to some part, that this isn't the ideal mechanic, I don't see it as such a big fun-destroying problem as the "one-base-turtling" is right now.
You mean a boring one, right?
Aggressive play should be encouraged, contrary to the OP - 2 CC requirements have the opposite effect.
Exosuit 1 CC turtle trains aren't a problem because they can be purchased on 1 tech point, they're a problem because the damage output is immense almost regardless of skill level. In higher player count server, aliens have little answer for it.
Marines getting locked into defending isn't an interesting way to play the game, and public players asking for instant phase gates to more efficiently sit around and not attack anything makes for very poor quality games. Tech points encourage this type of play.
Aliens not being able to break a turtle again should have little to do with 1 CC 3/3 or proto. Instead of implementing wholly unnecessary gameplay additions or limitations (hello powernodes), fix the actual problem of the alien end game. T3 abilities being useful would be a great start.
Yes. A boring yet balanced game.
@elodea You basically say any game in which marines defend is a turtle. I do not agree with that.
In my opinion a turtle is when marines are camping on one TP with one RT, making it really hard for aliens to win the game, due to a ridiculous tech-level. They don't prevent the inevitable, they only prolong the game for another boring 20-40 minutes.
At first i was going to make a serious post in the pro/con format Ironhorse suggested, but reading through the con list definitely changed my mind. There wasn't a single valid 'con' to be found.
[*] Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
Not true at all. If we simply evaluated this statement, we could ask: which change has the larger effect on reducing marine turtle in public games?
a) Tie t3 to 2 cc
b) Remove exo
Obviously option b. I'm not saying to actually remove exo, but that the above assertion is invalid. So i'll try addressing what i think it's trying to say (sorry if i misunderstand again ironhorse).
It might sound intuitive that t3 tech on 1 cc means more turtle, but tying it to 2 cc is just swapping one type of turtle for another. Infact, by increasing the hurdle cost for effective turtling via 2 cc, you will see overall more 2 cc turtle orientated games and less focus on actually being aggressive. We saw this pre 250 if you want empirical evidence, and i don't see a reason why we wouldn't see it again.
Trying to be super aggressive while chucking res out for a 2nd cc base is really dumb, bad for gameflow, and limits comeback pressure.
A turtle on 2 CCs isn't a turtle. Pre 250 there was no problem for the alien team to crush one of the bases. Simply because the number of marines needed to split up on the two bases.
I understand, that you want to see more aggressive play from marines. And that defending 2 CCs isn't your thing. But don't call it turtle. It completely misses the point.
You missed the point.
I am saying 1 CC, 2 CC, 3 CC, 4 CC, it doesn't matter how you change the requirements up. As long as you don't nerf exo/sentry power and buff late game alien power, it is turtle. It was turtle pre 250, and it's still turtle post 250. Don't kid yourself into thinking 2cc was not turtle because you had to "split marines up". The only 'splitting' you needed to do was having one exosuit on each techpoint because that was the only thing beacon/phasegates didn't effect.
It's actually less turtle now because mac's dont weld as fast as the armoury used to, and marines don't spawn as fast anymore.
I think the point necro is driving at is that a turtle without seemingly endless Jp's and exo's is easier to break than one where marines can buy Jp's on 1 CC.
The 2 CC requirement meant you would focus on taking out the exo's and jp's first knowing they could not be re-purchased.
This meant that any turtle is a lesser turtle.
Heck when they linked the exo's and JP's to the 2nd CC during the beta I said then that w3 a3 should also be tied in.
It does take multiple hives for aliens to hit full straps same should go for marines.
The power node, the concede function linking items to the 2nd CC...clearly turtles are an issue and have always been an issue even back in ns1 otherwise why did we see these things implemented?
If you dont like it being a physical other CC then it could be another object that can only be built in a tech point (but allows for w3 a3 research).
Lets put the marines on the same slippery slope as aliens, fun should not be asymmetry...having 1 side able to turtle (thus diminishing at the lest, the fun of the other team) but the other not just infuriates gamers new and old.
It is not fun to have the other side draw out a game simply because its fun to shoot aliens...especially if you dont have to go to them...they come to you as is the case.
I have enjoyed a turtle at times as a marine sure...its fun...even when its over you can still kill most lifeforms that come through the door.
But after 5 minutes thats tedious for both sides...time to accept that the issue is that marines can achieve/hold full tech even with 1 tech point but the other side cant.
That is not asymmetry...its crappy game play/design/balance.
What I liked most about the old fully cloaked camo was it meant if aliens went shade first...marines had to suddenly give a shit about holding something more than just res nodes (you needed to secure 2 other tech points at a higher priority).
It was the fact it forced marines to have another strat than simply "Hold base and 3-4 res nodes...we can always take those hives back once we have full tech".
Which in effect meant all marines were trying to do was hold out for x minutes...rather than trying to control the map and actually fight the invasion.
The times I played maps where shade was first hive by alien team I found more enjoyable as a marine, I felt it was more balanced tech wise between the teams.
With both sides focusing on tech points through out the game it vastly improved the to and fro of a game.
If marines have maximum achievable weap and armour upgrades linked to tech points then we would see shorter turtles and a snowball similar to what happens on the alien side.
Seems pretty bloody obvious and I am seriously amazed this was never tried (that I recall), seems a pretty logical way to address the issue...after all its seemingly been implemented that way for 1 side.
Which is why I have for all too long now been an advocate of linking w3 a3 to at least 2 CC's.
Even with JP's and Exo's tied to the 2nd CC we still needed to have the concede feature added to help end games that had hit turtle stage (or at least that how it was perceived).
We still have all too many turtles, but only ever marines holed up...I am yet to see a turtle from aliens on 1 hive against a fully tech'd marine squad (atleast one that was actually trying to finish the game.)
I'm torn on the w3 a3 to 2 CC thing. It's a better idea than removing prototech though. At least with exo/jp marines have to pay for them. w3 is perhaps too good for all marines to have on one CC as it causes concentrated LMG fire to carve up onoses like butter. So the base marines are equipped with the ability to easily fend off the most expensive alien lifeform in the game, straight out of the infantry portal. That's perhaps too good for marines to have, just because they've managed to survive long enough to afford it (despite fighting a losing game). Sure an exo can carve through an onos like butter too, but at least they had to pay for it.
We had an hour long turtle on Summit, it ended with the aliens conceding because everything they tried to break the turtle failed. All thanks to 1cc exo's. My vote is on 2cc t3
So your saying when marines have JP's, the rest of the map and aliens are on 1 hive that they can overcome this by base rushes?
Absolutely. I've seen many games end exactly like this, both competitive and pub. Usually it's because they neglect to build a second command station, but it still happens.
Look at the differences between aliens taking down marine RTs, and marines taking down alien RTs. Maybe then you will understand why requiring marines to actively hold techpoints just leads to passive gameplay.
Don't confuse exo turtling strengths and the lack of higher tier alien abilities as a problem with prototype tech on 1 CC. The issue is somewhat worse with 250, but its more because of the nerfs made to onos HP then any other single change. Im not going to get dragged down into this argument as its just a facade for a personal vendetta.
One change will fix problems alot of people complain about, especially in relation to map-control for marines and turteling. I call it 'Boost'.
Marine technology / tech tree should have a 'Boost' setup: everything the commander researches works only temporary. To maintain it it needs to be 'reseached' (call it 'refreshed) again, for i guess somewhat lower costs then the 1st time. This way marines cant just get 5 early RT's, hold them for 5 minutes, then lose everything and win anyway. And they cannot turtle on 1 Rt with full technology availble to them. RT's keep their relevancy for the marines. I guess in this techtree-setup structure and technology costs and research times can be reduced for the marine team (so a good start is still a good start, just not so decisive in the long run, as it is now).
Because tech costs are lower and research times can be made faster the Fade-Explosion problem is fixed aswell: the tech boost a marine team with a good start has gives them a fair chance.
/me waits for the Agree's and Awesome's to pour in.
marines already get a big benefit from holding a techpoint : DENYING ALIEN TECH. If marines cant control any tech point, chances are theyre gonna lose badly anyway, because aliens are gonna get 9/12 biomass. There are very few instances where it is easy for marines to hold more than 3 rts without a tech point, maybe veil and docking if you hold bar +east wing youd be on 4. not to mention that dual exos are still tied to second chair.
the fact that you don't need to care as much for the tech points as marines means that holding other areas is more important in comparison, AKA aggressive pg locations AKA pg that will allow great map control instead of a pg that only lets you hold a single room with no map control.
if marines cant hold more than their base rt for more thant 10 minutes in a row they should just be forced to concede, I understand that the 1 rt turtle fest with full tech can be painful sometimes, but the solution to it shouldnt imply screwing with the mechanics.
i actually think that tech3 on 1cc is hurting marines in pub games.
without the 2nd cc 2 things happen:
1. without a forward base marines usualy have less mapcontrol
2. without a forward base "destracting" the aliens, the mainbase is the main-target.
i often saw 2nd cc bases well fortified with turrets and whatnot while the mainbase was largly undefended. and the aliens still kept attacking the 2nd cc base, that alone is a huge plus for the marines that doesnt happen anymore and i think is a big contributor to the bad win/loss ratio.
Marines need to deny alien expansion like always and by covering more ground themselves, they can tech up quicker and dispatch the aliens quicker whilst also getting more support. Adding a CC to a room doesn't add map control to marines. It adds it to aliens by giving them the option to drag marines from the offensive lines to base defending
Oh God if anything comes out of this thread, please let it be this in REALLY BIG LETTERS.
"comm, drop the cc!"
"dude, it's 3 minutes into the game..."
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
From a competitive view I would LOVE for the casters to queue in. They see so many matches they can say if tactics are more diverse!
As for public play, yes tactics are more diverse. I see rushed JP and exo, slow queued up exo and JP with plenty upgrades. I see advanced weapons or not. They use them.
The issue is not turtle. Marines turtled since ns1. The issue is breaking the turtle at which many, including myself, gave ideas on how to break a turtle with alien might.
1cc does not equal 1 base. If marines have 1 base, they have 1, perhap 2 rts. WHAT are aliens doing if they got the whole map and rines 1 rt? You outtech them. Crush them with your onos/gorge/lerk/illusion armor and destroy.
1 cc leaves ample room for bases or outposts. NOT locking down a techpoint as marines leaves it open to aliens. Marines must stay in or close to other techpoints to deny aliens them. If marines can solopush on 1 techpoint, aliens been sleeping and doing it wrong. (see earlier 1 rt comment)
If marines keep losing outposts and rebuilding new ones they are NOT on 1 base, yes 1 cc but not one base. Hell, focussing as marines on outposts rather then bases gives not only the ability to grab techpoints, but also chokepoints and far more effectively deny map control then any techpoint could. As long as marines have outposts/bases next to there 1cc main base they are actively pushing key points of the map.
Want to make marines push more and push harder? Make PGs cheaper. Let them drop more, let them drop many.
They dont need another CC. What does it do? Give dual exo, another spot for ips? What does a hive do for aliens? (biomass, upgrades, hive specialty, respawns)
What do they need? Outposts.
Just find a way to break turtles when aliens won, like when they got all techpoints minus the 1cc the marines have. That will be far more effective then gimping strategies again.
If pub comms are not using marine strategies but are brainlessly camping, they can only do that if alien kham is equally stupid.
Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
This seems like a very biased statement to be honest. Marine turtles were a thing long before the 2nd CC requirement was dropped as well. Have they exacerbated the problem? No doubt. But are they the largest cause? I don't think so...
If anything, aliens lacking proper lategame options is probably a much bigger contributor to marine turtles
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 August 2013
@_necro_ i think you got that backwards, like biz did? See the violet title just before the list? Let me know if not.
@bert0r : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
@seahunts : Added the first one, but your con was already added.
@elodea : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
@bacillus : Good points. This thread is mostly just a crowd sourced poll in disguise. I was curious what the reception of the mechanic was.. which ties in nicely with your note of "people dont seem to have a consensus on what kind of gameplay NS2 is supposed to provide"
@nachos : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
Many of you seem to be missing the point of this thread and are attempting to engage in an in depth discussion with me...
I mean, feel free to discuss among yourselves, but like i said, i will not be participating, as that ruins the whole point of why i made it. I have already admitted i don't like it.. entering in any debate after promising to simply collect people's viewpoints and reactions would be misleading and disingenuous. I just wish to collect people's viewpoints on the matter. That means opinions and anecdotal evidence.
To which many many will disagree with and find flaws.. which is ok, that's part and parcel to this subject (and opinions!) and things should be discussed and hammered out, of course... but i only wish to *for once* collect a list from everyone willing on how they feel about the mechanic in order to have some form of organized discussion down the road.. something to point at, instead of
a) no actual key points or arguments being presented all the time
b) the little information and key points lost within pages for no one to review.
c) certain groups of people dismissing reactions and viewpoints to it because of a goal they wish to achieve with gameplay/design
Basically, think of this thread as an opinionated crowd sourced poll to gauge reactions and gather arguments in for reference.
No its not some evil facade! lol!.. tho i do love the predictable people's reaction to collecting info.. so hostile and dismissive and exactly the reason why i wanted a compiled list.
Just count me out of the discussion for once in 3 years.
I have a lot to say about the subject, but I cannot see how making a list of every opinion, whether based on anything or not, is going to help anything. Might be interesting, sure, but I'll save my breath.
Because it compiles the arguments for and against for once. There's a laundry list of points on either side that just get lost in the depths of the forums.
Even if the person is incorrect, wrong, or misunderstanding something, this is a place where their argument can be placed for discussion. (excluding me)
Also, i feel that people lose sight of the importance of gauging people's reactions - no matter how misguided or misinformed - as feedback about mechanics aren't just about balance, correct? "Fun" is supposed to be weighed in too.. even if they are blaming the wrong thing, that's still useful feedback and productive to the topic.
So this thread will just pick out the people who know what they're saying from those who don't?
In part, yes, it will serve to debunk the incorrect info once and for all, for both sides.
Everything is on the table for once for everyone to review.
This is why i'm somewhat surprised by the amount of those who took the time to make giant rebuttals but didn't actually contribute to the list of arguments.. so many are quick to tell others they are wrong, but not actually provide arguments themselves.. :-/
Because in my opinion laundry lists are useless, and can even be detrimental. You can take a quick look at the first page of this thread and go 'oh, look at that, the red list has much more bullets than the green list, it must mean that moving the tech to 2 CCs is the better solution' without actually following the conversation and arguments involved with those bullets. I'm sure that's not your intention, but a lot of people will probably base their arguments on this thread in the future, as 'proof' of their opinion without having to back it up themselves. What's important is discussing the matter with enough experience to understand what parts of the gameplay any changes will affect and how. Not collect a rather worthless list of every opinion, however biased, and then just leave it out there hanging.
I could easily balance that list by making up a dozen new pros with varying credibility, but I cannot see this going anywhere, so I just cannot bother.
I dont think tech level on CC is the main problem underlying here. It is the victory conditions beneath. Change victory conditions to, for instance, a ticket system like CoH based on number of RTs+hives/CC and the problem is solved; Marines can turtle all they want, they will lose.
I say that because there has been some good points made in this thread, and not a single one is listed under your 'Pros' section in the OP. However almost every single con that has been brought up has been listed there. Its obvious your biased in regards to this topic, you admit it yourself... There is no point to this discussion because people will propose endless pros/cons with varying relevance and accuracy.
Ah, the age old topic..
I still recall may 2011 when Charlie "Flayra" first decided to scrap the requirement in the alpha.. No more did marines need to maintain map control (the winning condition) to reach the highest level of tech. Turtles were how every match ended (though the performance didn't help marines)
I was thinking of a way to minimize marine turtle end games.
Aliens would get a new feature that is only activated after aliens control all hives -1 hive (for marines) for x amount of minutes.
Example:
1. Map has 5 tech points.
2. Aliens control 4 tech points.
3. When aliens cap the 4rth tech point, a three minute cool-down timer starts for alien ability "Bone Skin". When three minutes is up, alien commander can activate "Bone Skin", giving all alien players a major armor boost.
4. Marine turtles become dramatically shorter due to increase alien bone armor.
As for tech 3 at 1 CC...
Pros:
+ In the release build of NS2, when marines would lose their 2nd CC, it was very difficult to regain it back. For the next 10-15 minutes, the marines would mostly get slowly widdled down until the round was over. The balance mod sort of fixes this by eliminating the need to hold tech points, and rather control map presence by holding resource points instead.
+ Again, in the release build, removing very powerful tech/abilities after losing the 2nd CC and then trying to take it back with far less effective equipment/weapons was found to be frustrating for players that are not accustomed to unconventional game design. The balance mod attempt to fix this.
+ The release build of NS2 never really felt like there was more than 2 tiers of tech for the marines. Back then, the Flamethrower and GL were mostly just utility tools, rather than real weapons (well, GL still is a utility tool even now...). The current balance mod seems to be successfully expanding the mid-game by having the following tiers, even if they are not all directly linked to tech points:
Tier 1: Standard Rifles / Welders
Tier 2: Shotguns/Flamethrowers/Grenade Launchers/Single Minigun Exo Suit/Railgun Exo Suit/Jetpack
Tier 3: Dual Minigun Exo Suit
+ Exo Suits make an appearance in almost every game now.
Cons:
- In gaming, we have come accustomed to psychologically linking tech points and tech trees together. We find this satisfying and logical. With the current NS2 tech/abilities, NS2 maps would need to include 6-7 tech points per map to have this concept workable to it's strongest degree and be one that appeals to the masses.
- Turtle marine base endgames that have Exo Suits / grenade launcher spam that hold down remaining marine base for far too long. Could be easily resolvable though by power-buffing the alien team via new ability (mentioned above) that becomes active only while the aliens controls all tech points.
I don't like it and the reasons are already written down by others, so I will just add this:
I was working several months on a new map where one team has to assault a castle and the other one has to survive for a certain time. I balanced it around RTs and three CCs. The attacker had to overcome walls and gates until they secure a 2nd CC. Then the real assault with JPs 'n' Exos should start in order to assault the keep as final "highlight" -> This is not going to happen when you can research everything with one CC. As a player and mapper, I would be happy if the system could be reverted.
I say that because there has been some good points made in this thread, and not a single one is listed under your 'Pros' section in the OP. However almost every single con that has been brought up has been listed there. Its obvious your biased in regards to this topic, you admit it yourself... There is no point to this discussion because people will propose endless pros/cons with varying relevance and accuracy.
Read the OP, dragon...
I'll add whatever to the list if you format it correctly.. (if you check, everyone who did so was added)
Otherwise I just assume you are debating a point.
What's important is discussing the matter with enough experience to understand what parts of the gameplay any changes will affect and how. Not collect a rather worthless list of every opinion, however biased, and then just leave it out there hanging.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that??
That's exactly what the list is for..
I just personally won't be involved in it.
*edit : not to target you, but i also love how many believe themselves, or some small circle of people, are the ones who aren't giving opinions, but rather facts. Both sides can easily be torn apart ad nauseum, seen as only unfounded opinion, and now you finally have a list in which debunk /resolve every single pro and con.
This whole *throws hands up in the air* "I won't be apart of something that's not vetted by only the most experienced!" gesture just seems like a cop out from having an actual organized debate on the manner by not willing to participate through elitist dismissal and exclusion.
If you truly felt like the # of arguments provided on each side swayed people, you'd think you would be contributing to it.. *shrug*
@daphisto : Added. Though your cons are already included.
I think the problem is not the 1cc, it is the lack of Alien sieging abilities. Aliens don't have any viable hive three abilities that matter, Onos are too weak health wise, and all of the like. Flamethrower counters the only real AoE Aliens have of Bilebomb and Spores. Aliens have no way to siege areas that are not a direct line of sight as well, example being MACs hitting through walls and the ability to bounce grenades. Aliens need a way to siege that is not countered by a weapon and does not need direct line of sight.
2CCs should be needed just to make Marines have more of a reason to get map control, but just 2CCs will not fix the issues with the turtle power of the Marines.
From a competitive view I would LOVE for the casters to queue in. They see so many matches they can say if tactics are more diverse!
As for public play, yes tactics are more diverse. I see rushed JP and exo, slow queued up exo and JP with plenty upgrades. I see advanced weapons or not. They use them.
The issue is not turtle. Marines turtled since ns1. The issue is breaking the turtle at which many, including myself, gave ideas on how to break a turtle with alien might.
1cc does not equal 1 base. If marines have 1 base, they have 1, perhap 2 rts. WHAT are aliens doing if they got the whole map and rines 1 rt? You outtech them. Crush them with your onos/gorge/lerk/illusion armor and destroy.
1 cc leaves ample room for bases or outposts. NOT locking down a techpoint as marines leaves it open to aliens. Marines must stay in or close to other techpoints to deny aliens them. If marines can solopush on 1 techpoint, aliens been sleeping and doing it wrong. (see earlier 1 rt comment)
If marines keep losing outposts and rebuilding new ones they are NOT on 1 base, yes 1 cc but not one base. Hell, focussing as marines on outposts rather then bases gives not only the ability to grab techpoints, but also chokepoints and far more effectively deny map control then any techpoint could. As long as marines have outposts/bases next to there 1cc main base they are actively pushing key points of the map.
Want to make marines push more and push harder? Make PGs cheaper. Let them drop more, let them drop many.
They dont need another CC. What does it do? Give dual exo, another spot for ips? What does a hive do for aliens? (biomass, upgrades, hive specialty, respawns)
What do they need? Outposts.
Just find a way to break turtles when aliens won, like when they got all techpoints minus the 1cc the marines have. That will be far more effective then gimping strategies again.
If pub comms are not using marine strategies but are brainlessly camping, they can only do that if alien kham is equally stupid.
suicide is an excellent base buster. killing 5 marines at once with two skulks, good trade. especially since it'll tie up the ips.
Comments
I am saying 1 CC, 2 CC, 3 CC, 4 CC, it doesn't matter how you change the requirements up. As long as you don't nerf exo/sentry power and buff late game alien power, it is turtle. It was turtle pre 250, and it's still turtle post 250. Don't kid yourself into thinking 2cc was not turtle because you had to "split marines up". The only 'splitting' you needed to do was having one exosuit on each techpoint because that was the only thing beacon/phasegates didn't effect.
It's actually less turtle now because mac's dont weld as fast as the armoury used to, and marines don't spawn as fast anymore.
You lose forward positions, you lose resource towers, you lose res for teching, aliens out tech, alien lifeform conveyor belt (tres and pres), can't help support engagements (meds, nano), aliens win.
Marines still need forward positions and to hold key places in the map. 1 to keep their own resources, and 2, to deny aliens their future tech.
This is false.
A lot of public commanders have started going 1-1 exos.
Quaxy likes to rush jetpacks at times.
Killing the CCs = Killing the hives. Wat?
It's possible, not probable and is more the exception than the rule.
Cons :
Wrong. Largest contributor is weak tactics being executed poorly allowing for alien team to dominate more easily.
How many times do you see a containment marine start on refinery and a fast phasegate in pipeworks. Using all that res and time to secure this room is inefficient. It sends out the message "We want containment and pipeworks. We're going to sit in these big rooms and wait for turtle." Single CC is not contributing to this or else you'd have more advanced phasegates which protect more and provide front line reinforcements!
How many times do you see tech points claimed with a fast pg, then a fast 2nd cc, obs, and armory? People for some reason like dumping res in tech rooms.
Sure you can put a CC in a tech point room. You're not being disallowed. Although it's a bad idea because res can be put into other things like upgrades/supporting engagements.
And yet aliens are winning the vast majority of engagements atm so it's easier to secure. It would be unfair for aliens to be able to be so mobile but only need 1 point of defense (their main hive). Because of their massive mobility, they should have to be pulled across the width of the map to defend multiple tech points and attack multiple targets. Marines can't hold 2 tech points easily whilst attacking/defending RTs unless they have the JPs already out and a strong exo train.
If you're doing well on res biting, tier 3 tech shouldn't comm out for ages. If it comes out quick, you're losing and it snow balls like giving aliens a lot of res and their lifeform snowball. I think this is an RTS mechanic (I'm not an RTS player)
Slow the clock by biting res. Also, is "beating the clock" a bad thing? And are fully teched marines impossible to deal with?
Wrong. The map control requirement has not changed. Marines need to deny alien expansion like always and by covering more ground themselves, they can tech up quicker and dispatch the aliens quicker whilst also getting more support. Adding a CC to a room doesn't add map control to marines. It adds it to aliens by giving them the option to drag marines from the offensive lines to base defending.
What does this mean? 1 CC is a tres decrease. Why is this bad?
How? How does it isolate control and terminal? What does this mean?
You want to give aliens a free 3 hives on veil? Don't be silly. It encourages better, and more efficient PG play like a system PG to deny sub and give some defense to it whilst pushing nano/cargo.
Why is this bad? That is an "ok" playstyle. That also incorporates 2-3 tech points unless somehow you've nicked some RTs behind hives. It's also easy to break as aliens because you're giving them 2 hives and unpressured 5-6 RTs bringing out fade after fade.
Would also like to add that the 1 CC all tech doesn't promote holding as many RTs as possible because this doesn't happen. Read fast PG on every tech point you can grab. leaving little defense to your peripheral resource nodes. This is currently the status quo and I imagine it will be forever more really.
This is bad because....?
Why is this a negative of 1 CC?
2nd CC for dual exos which can be extremely powerful. There's a point of having a 2nd CC. Why shouldn't phasegates be more important than a 2nd CC?
You say it's less satisfying to destroy a base which marines will want to turtle more on because it's more important, and yet you complain about turtles?
Also this argument that it's not exciting to kill RTs baffles me. If you kill resource towers, marines will come to defend it. When you play marines, how many times does the commander say "logistics under attack" and about 4 guys will come to get you? You're bringing the encounters to yourself.
You really need to add why things are PROs and why things are CONs because without the reasoning behind it, you're taking a statement that a person has said and let him decide if it's good or not for the game without discussing it.
E.g.
Statement - Turrets available on 1 CC - Con.
As marine being on one base with aliens camping both possible entrances is boring gameplay for me, because it is like running against a wall. (The same counts for aliens sieging this last base.)
As marine defending 2 bases and occasionally starting attacks to nearby enemy RTs and hives or to defend own RTs is fun for me.
The first one is what has increased with b250 and what I thought was this thread all about. (hence missing the point) It's what I would call the "marine turtle".
You are talking of defensive gameplay. This isn't turtling. While I agree to some part, that this isn't the ideal mechanic, I don't see it as such a big fun-destroying problem as the "one-base-turtling" is right now.
Yes. A boring yet balanced game.
@elodea You basically say any game in which marines defend is a turtle. I do not agree with that.
In my opinion a turtle is when marines are camping on one TP with one RT, making it really hard for aliens to win the game, due to a ridiculous tech-level. They don't prevent the inevitable, they only prolong the game for another boring 20-40 minutes.
I think the point necro is driving at is that a turtle without seemingly endless Jp's and exo's is easier to break than one where marines can buy Jp's on 1 CC.
The 2 CC requirement meant you would focus on taking out the exo's and jp's first knowing they could not be re-purchased.
This meant that any turtle is a lesser turtle.
Heck when they linked the exo's and JP's to the 2nd CC during the beta I said then that w3 a3 should also be tied in.
It does take multiple hives for aliens to hit full straps same should go for marines.
The power node, the concede function linking items to the 2nd CC...clearly turtles are an issue and have always been an issue even back in ns1 otherwise why did we see these things implemented?
If you dont like it being a physical other CC then it could be another object that can only be built in a tech point (but allows for w3 a3 research).
Lets put the marines on the same slippery slope as aliens, fun should not be asymmetry...having 1 side able to turtle (thus diminishing at the lest, the fun of the other team) but the other not just infuriates gamers new and old.
It is not fun to have the other side draw out a game simply because its fun to shoot aliens...especially if you dont have to go to them...they come to you as is the case.
I have enjoyed a turtle at times as a marine sure...its fun...even when its over you can still kill most lifeforms that come through the door.
But after 5 minutes thats tedious for both sides...time to accept that the issue is that marines can achieve/hold full tech even with 1 tech point but the other side cant.
That is not asymmetry...its crappy game play/design/balance.
What I liked most about the old fully cloaked camo was it meant if aliens went shade first...marines had to suddenly give a shit about holding something more than just res nodes (you needed to secure 2 other tech points at a higher priority).
It was the fact it forced marines to have another strat than simply "Hold base and 3-4 res nodes...we can always take those hives back once we have full tech".
Which in effect meant all marines were trying to do was hold out for x minutes...rather than trying to control the map and actually fight the invasion.
The times I played maps where shade was first hive by alien team I found more enjoyable as a marine, I felt it was more balanced tech wise between the teams.
With both sides focusing on tech points through out the game it vastly improved the to and fro of a game.
If marines have maximum achievable weap and armour upgrades linked to tech points then we would see shorter turtles and a snowball similar to what happens on the alien side.
Seems pretty bloody obvious and I am seriously amazed this was never tried (that I recall), seems a pretty logical way to address the issue...after all its seemingly been implemented that way for 1 side.
I'm torn on the w3 a3 to 2 CC thing. It's a better idea than removing prototech though. At least with exo/jp marines have to pay for them. w3 is perhaps too good for all marines to have on one CC as it causes concentrated LMG fire to carve up onoses like butter. So the base marines are equipped with the ability to easily fend off the most expensive alien lifeform in the game, straight out of the infantry portal. That's perhaps too good for marines to have, just because they've managed to survive long enough to afford it (despite fighting a losing game). Sure an exo can carve through an onos like butter too, but at least they had to pay for it.
Absolutely. I've seen many games end exactly like this, both competitive and pub. Usually it's because they neglect to build a second command station, but it still happens.
If you inferred that from what I said than that's your business :P I don't think it implies that at all.
Don't confuse exo turtling strengths and the lack of higher tier alien abilities as a problem with prototype tech on 1 CC. The issue is somewhat worse with 250, but its more because of the nerfs made to onos HP then any other single change. Im not going to get dragged down into this argument as its just a facade for a personal vendetta.
Marine technology / tech tree should have a 'Boost' setup: everything the commander researches works only temporary. To maintain it it needs to be 'reseached' (call it 'refreshed) again, for i guess somewhat lower costs then the 1st time. This way marines cant just get 5 early RT's, hold them for 5 minutes, then lose everything and win anyway. And they cannot turtle on 1 Rt with full technology availble to them. RT's keep their relevancy for the marines. I guess in this techtree-setup structure and technology costs and research times can be reduced for the marine team (so a good start is still a good start, just not so decisive in the long run, as it is now).
Because tech costs are lower and research times can be made faster the Fade-Explosion problem is fixed aswell: the tech boost a marine team with a good start has gives them a fair chance.
/me waits for the Agree's and Awesome's to pour in.
the fact that you don't need to care as much for the tech points as marines means that holding other areas is more important in comparison, AKA aggressive pg locations AKA pg that will allow great map control instead of a pg that only lets you hold a single room with no map control.
if marines cant hold more than their base rt for more thant 10 minutes in a row they should just be forced to concede, I understand that the 1 rt turtle fest with full tech can be painful sometimes, but the solution to it shouldnt imply screwing with the mechanics.
without the 2nd cc 2 things happen:
1. without a forward base marines usualy have less mapcontrol
2. without a forward base "destracting" the aliens, the mainbase is the main-target.
i often saw 2nd cc bases well fortified with turrets and whatnot while the mainbase was largly undefended. and the aliens still kept attacking the 2nd cc base, that alone is a huge plus for the marines that doesnt happen anymore and i think is a big contributor to the bad win/loss ratio.
it's a complete failure of a strategy at low skill levels and large player counts unless you get some lucky phasegate
Oh God if anything comes out of this thread, please let it be this in REALLY BIG LETTERS.
"comm, drop the cc!"
"dude, it's 3 minutes into the game..."
As for public play, yes tactics are more diverse. I see rushed JP and exo, slow queued up exo and JP with plenty upgrades. I see advanced weapons or not. They use them.
The issue is not turtle. Marines turtled since ns1. The issue is breaking the turtle at which many, including myself, gave ideas on how to break a turtle with alien might.
1cc does not equal 1 base. If marines have 1 base, they have 1, perhap 2 rts. WHAT are aliens doing if they got the whole map and rines 1 rt? You outtech them. Crush them with your onos/gorge/lerk/illusion armor and destroy.
1 cc leaves ample room for bases or outposts. NOT locking down a techpoint as marines leaves it open to aliens. Marines must stay in or close to other techpoints to deny aliens them. If marines can solopush on 1 techpoint, aliens been sleeping and doing it wrong. (see earlier 1 rt comment)
If marines keep losing outposts and rebuilding new ones they are NOT on 1 base, yes 1 cc but not one base. Hell, focussing as marines on outposts rather then bases gives not only the ability to grab techpoints, but also chokepoints and far more effectively deny map control then any techpoint could.
As long as marines have outposts/bases next to there 1cc main base they are actively pushing key points of the map.
Want to make marines push more and push harder? Make PGs cheaper. Let them drop more, let them drop many.
They dont need another CC. What does it do? Give dual exo, another spot for ips? What does a hive do for aliens? (biomass, upgrades, hive specialty, respawns)
What do they need? Outposts.
Just find a way to break turtles when aliens won, like when they got all techpoints minus the 1cc the marines have. That will be far more effective then gimping strategies again.
If pub comms are not using marine strategies but are brainlessly camping, they can only do that if alien kham is equally stupid.
If anything, aliens lacking proper lategame options is probably a much bigger contributor to marine turtles
@bert0r : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
@seahunts : Added the first one, but your con was already added.
@elodea : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
@bacillus : Good points. This thread is mostly just a crowd sourced poll in disguise. I was curious what the reception of the mechanic was.. which ties in nicely with your note of "people dont seem to have a consensus on what kind of gameplay NS2 is supposed to provide"
@nachos : Like i said, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less. That can happen in the Beta test thread. Feel free to contribute to the pros and cons tho.
Many of you seem to be missing the point of this thread and are attempting to engage in an in depth discussion with me...
I mean, feel free to discuss among yourselves, but like i said, i will not be participating, as that ruins the whole point of why i made it. I have already admitted i don't like it.. entering in any debate after promising to simply collect people's viewpoints and reactions would be misleading and disingenuous. I just wish to collect people's viewpoints on the matter.
That means opinions and anecdotal evidence.
To which many many will disagree with and find flaws.. which is ok, that's part and parcel to this subject (and opinions!) and things should be discussed and hammered out, of course... but i only wish to *for once* collect a list from everyone willing on how they feel about the mechanic in order to have some form of organized discussion down the road.. something to point at, instead of
a) no actual key points or arguments being presented all the time
b) the little information and key points lost within pages for no one to review.
c) certain groups of people dismissing reactions and viewpoints to it because of a goal they wish to achieve with gameplay/design
Basically, think of this thread as an opinionated crowd sourced poll to gauge reactions and gather arguments in for reference.
No its not some evil facade! lol!.. tho i do love the predictable people's reaction to collecting info.. so hostile and dismissive and exactly the reason why i wanted a compiled list.
Just count me out of the discussion for once in 3 years.
Because it compiles the arguments for and against for once. There's a laundry list of points on either side that just get lost in the depths of the forums.
Even if the person is incorrect, wrong, or misunderstanding something, this is a place where their argument can be placed for discussion. (excluding me)
Also, i feel that people lose sight of the importance of gauging people's reactions - no matter how misguided or misinformed - as feedback about mechanics aren't just about balance, correct? "Fun" is supposed to be weighed in too.. even if they are blaming the wrong thing, that's still useful feedback and productive to the topic.
In part, yes, it will serve to debunk the incorrect info once and for all, for both sides.
Everything is on the table for once for everyone to review.
This is why i'm somewhat surprised by the amount of those who took the time to make giant rebuttals but didn't actually contribute to the list of arguments.. so many are quick to tell others they are wrong, but not actually provide arguments themselves.. :-/
I could easily balance that list by making up a dozen new pros with varying credibility, but I cannot see this going anywhere, so I just cannot bother.
I was thinking of a way to minimize marine turtle end games.
Aliens would get a new feature that is only activated after aliens control all hives -1 hive (for marines) for x amount of minutes.
Example:
1. Map has 5 tech points.
2. Aliens control 4 tech points.
3. When aliens cap the 4rth tech point, a three minute cool-down timer starts for alien ability "Bone Skin". When three minutes is up, alien commander can activate "Bone Skin", giving all alien players a major armor boost.
4. Marine turtles become dramatically shorter due to increase alien bone armor.
As for tech 3 at 1 CC...
Pros:
+ In the release build of NS2, when marines would lose their 2nd CC, it was very difficult to regain it back. For the next 10-15 minutes, the marines would mostly get slowly widdled down until the round was over. The balance mod sort of fixes this by eliminating the need to hold tech points, and rather control map presence by holding resource points instead.
+ Again, in the release build, removing very powerful tech/abilities after losing the 2nd CC and then trying to take it back with far less effective equipment/weapons was found to be frustrating for players that are not accustomed to unconventional game design. The balance mod attempt to fix this.
+ The release build of NS2 never really felt like there was more than 2 tiers of tech for the marines. Back then, the Flamethrower and GL were mostly just utility tools, rather than real weapons (well, GL still is a utility tool even now...). The current balance mod seems to be successfully expanding the mid-game by having the following tiers, even if they are not all directly linked to tech points:
Tier 1: Standard Rifles / Welders
Tier 2: Shotguns/Flamethrowers/Grenade Launchers/Single Minigun Exo Suit/Railgun Exo Suit/Jetpack
Tier 3: Dual Minigun Exo Suit
+ Exo Suits make an appearance in almost every game now.
Cons:
- In gaming, we have come accustomed to psychologically linking tech points and tech trees together. We find this satisfying and logical. With the current NS2 tech/abilities, NS2 maps would need to include 6-7 tech points per map to have this concept workable to it's strongest degree and be one that appeals to the masses.
- Turtle marine base endgames that have Exo Suits / grenade launcher spam that hold down remaining marine base for far too long. Could be easily resolvable though by power-buffing the alien team via new ability (mentioned above) that becomes active only while the aliens controls all tech points.
I was working several months on a new map where one team has to assault a castle and the other one has to survive for a certain time. I balanced it around RTs and three CCs. The attacker had to overcome walls and gates until they secure a 2nd CC. Then the real assault with JPs 'n' Exos should start in order to assault the keep as final "highlight" -> This is not going to happen when you can research everything with one CC. As a player and mapper, I would be happy if the system could be reverted.
I'll add whatever to the list if you format it correctly.. (if you check, everyone who did so was added)
Otherwise I just assume you are debating a point.
That's exactly what the list is for..
I just personally won't be involved in it.
*edit : not to target you, but i also love how many believe themselves, or some small circle of people, are the ones who aren't giving opinions, but rather facts. Both sides can easily be torn apart ad nauseum, seen as only unfounded opinion, and now you finally have a list in which debunk /resolve every single pro and con.
This whole *throws hands up in the air* "I won't be apart of something that's not vetted by only the most experienced!" gesture just seems like a cop out from having an actual organized debate on the manner by not willing to participate through elitist dismissal and exclusion.
If you truly felt like the # of arguments provided on each side swayed people, you'd think you would be contributing to it.. *shrug*
@daphisto : Added. Though your cons are already included.
2CCs should be needed just to make Marines have more of a reason to get map control, but just 2CCs will not fix the issues with the turtle power of the Marines.
suicide is an excellent base buster. killing 5 marines at once with two skulks, good trade. especially since it'll tie up the ips.