Helping Marine Comebacks

1567810

Comments

  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    "why kill a RT when i can kill a base faster ?"

    Because base is way easier to defend (and prevent) with spawning players and a commander, especially compared to some far away random room on the other side of a map with a single undefended structure. Also you'd need more players to accomplish this, which puts your team into the spawn queue when you fail, giving marines breathing room.

    No offense intended - because I do appreciate the effort to point out flaws - but you are just hypothetically listing scenarios that already occur. I could just as easily list scenarios that are the exact opposite and they would be just as likely.

    I think you misunderstand the goal of the idea ; it's not to lessen pressure, but instead to provide economical stability in the early game, followed by economical instability mid game on - in order to lessen the compounding advantage that comes with properly playing the meta game, to provide a better chance of a well earned comeback and to prevent demoralizing odds.


    I understand quite clearly in fact.

    Put yourself in a skulk shoes for a moment. What would be in this situation the goal(s) they have ?
    -PvP ?... It's useless if there is no reason to engage; we just don't.

    As long as the marines don't build anything it's no use to engage. Better wait for the structure. Ha... even if i wait for that RT i won't be able to kill it in time. So i need one buddy. Skulk Pack, nom nom nom.

    I don't see any reason to engage the marine if i just get a kill. I know the next one to come will probably kill me and he will save that extractor (or will start one). Usually the first engagement in a game aren't on the hive side but more on the Marine start side. I doubt any Khammander would want to expand that far right away. So no gain in killing the guy to protect the Cyst.

    We all know that the marine have the early game anyway. So if the Aliens don't have a single chance to make the difference in early game. 1 because they just die often without upgrades and 2 because they won't be able to stop the RT capping process (too much time to kill a fresh RT). Why bother ?

    -Harvester protection ? That one seems interesting. So if the Aliens cannot attack other things like RTs right away and cannot attack the Marine base (which isn't true) what would they do ? Protect the 2 naturals ? Probably.

    It would eventually looks like a staring contest when the marines (many) get there... The Marines won't be able to kill the harvesters right away either. Plus the Aliens are all there waiting. The Aliens didn't bother to attack extractors... So everybody will wait until the countdown is finished. Back to skulk packs.

    One option for the marines is to attack the harvesters with many. If they succeed, The Alien press F4.

    In every case the best is to pack more skulks and more marines. Could be ok with +18 slots but not 12.


    Ultra-Stable economy for the marines (no Extractor destroyed) is not an option for Aliens. Aliens have to kill Extractors right away from the start. They have to disrupt the Marine organization as much as possible. If they can't do that, it means the marines team will have enough upgrade to render Lerks useless. And we're back to "all rely on fades" or GT BB.

    In fact in early game :
    we can call a stable Marine economy when they keep 4 to 6 Extractors.
    we can call a stable Alien economy when they keep 2 to 3 Harvesters.

    The problem is the marine will attack the harvesters the same when possible (with W2 minimum), unless those harvesters get buffed like hell which won't happen. If this armor buff was only for alien : ok... but i'm sure you think of this for both teams. That leads to one question. Is the protection the same for both Extractors and Harvesters ? If it's the same, i won't even play a game. No chance of winning unless Alien rush the base (Looks like NS 1.2). Or changing the economy speed (both teams). It's not an option is it ?

    The regular Marine economy is the one that is supposed to suffer. It's the only way the aliens can keep up. It's also the only way to distract marines form other goals. The Aliens have to make them go back on a regular basis.

    The Khammander instead of expanding will just drop 3 upgrades Biomass and eventually a Crag for Harvesters. Better get out and help on the field.

    "it's not to lessen pressure". i didn't say that. In fact it's the contrary. The mid game won't be a big fight it will be a RT contest on who's is killing more.
    (yes i exaggerate but it's for you to get the picture, and humor never killed anyone... wait)
    So we go from Staring contest to biting RT / killing harvester contest as fast as possible.
    No big fights are necessary with higher lifeforms, the focus is on RTs. Mostly grinding machines are doing the big change on the map.

    If the Aliens fail to cripple the marines economy fast enough. X->Surrender. A righteous one as they won't have a chance. Marines already have many upgrades.
    If the marines see all RT are gone to fast and failed in killing Harvesters or a hive. X->Surrender. Demoralized reaction.

    What your suggestion do is removing the early Extractor kills, not making it harder. The marines can already save their Extractors fast enough (if only one skulk). So the strategic incentive is gone too. It will change behaviors but not to make PvP benefit from it.

    Else would be to pack skulks in one big meat ball from beginning to end. But the strategic layer is gone in that case as the PvP stuff. Not fun at all.

    I bet on this. And as far as know the gamer behavior; it won't appeal to the rookies. As everybody will say to them in early game : "stay put Skulky, don't go (engage). Make sure we keep our stuff".

    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in KodiakMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    Long response to unclecrunches what if scenarios.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    "why kill a RT when i can kill a base faster ?"
    Because base is way easier to defend (and prevent) with spawning players and a commander, especially compared to some far away random room on the other side of a map with a single undefended structure. Also you'd need more players to accomplish this, which puts your team into the spawn queue when you fail, giving marines breathing room.
    No offense intended - because I do appreciate the effort to point out flaws - but you are just hypothetically listing scenarios that already occur. I could just as easily list scenarios that are the exact opposite and they would be just as likely.
    I think you misunderstand the goal of the idea ; it's not to lessen pressure, but instead to provide economical stability in the early game, followed by economical instability mid game on - in order to lessen the compounding advantage that comes with properly playing the meta game, to provide a better chance of a well earned comeback and to prevent demoralizing odds.
    Put yourself in a skulk shoes for a moment. What would be in this situation the goal(s) they have ?
    -PvP ?... It's useless if there is no reason to engage; we just don't.
    Rookie or less skilled players will engage anyways since they seem to just rush in. To take myself for an example as a higher skilled pub player, I would be a little picker about my engagements but still would engage. I am not going to sit there. That is boring. At the very least I will try to force marines to do something. That is such a vague question dependent on a thousand different scenarios.
    As long as the marines don't build anything it's no use to engage. Better wait for the structure. Ha... even if i wait for that RT i won't be able to kill it in time. So i need one buddy. Skulk Pack, nom nom nom.
    If the marines are in a good position where I would just die I won't engage. I may try to sneak in closer but that is highly dependent on a thousand scenarios. By the one you seem to be describing, aliens are near the marine naturals but marines are not building an rt. As an alien that is great, please marines just stand there and do nothing while my khamm builds our rt's. So marine goes to build the rt and I am alone for some odd reason, I will probably try to get the kill. Depending on how soon I think the next marine will come I will bite the rt and run away before the next marine. As long as I hold the marines in their naturals I am happy. The vague scenario you are describing really seems no different than now honestly. Skulk packs are strong and should be used more often as is. It is
    I don't see any reason to engage the marine if i just get a kill.
    Because a dead marine is a good marine assuming you don't die either. The less marines on the field the better.
    I know the next one to come will probably kill me and he will save that extractor (or will start one).
    That could happen if you are alone, which you should so rarely be alone. Say you killed the guy before he started the extractor. Run back to the hive and heal, use that alien mobility to your advantage. Say you kill a guy and there is an extractor left, do some damage and run away before the next guy comes and kills you. That way the next skulk or skulk pack might kill the extractor sooner. If the marine welds that is good because he is not being offensive.
    Usually the first engagement in a game aren't on the hive side but more on the Marine start side. I doubt any Khammander would want to expand that far right away. So no gain in killing the guy to protect the Cyst.
    What cyst and where is it? Is the cyst in marine territory in the early game? Since cysts take so long to grow that sounds like a chain of cysts easy for the marines to kill, a tres loss for the khamm, and a bad move on the khamms part. Depending on this vague situation, maybe you should even defend the cyst instead of hiding doing nothing just because it is tres saved.
    We all know that the marine have the early game anyway. So if the Aliens don't have a single chance to make the difference in early game. 1 because they just die often without upgrades and 2 because they won't be able to stop the RT capping process (too much time to kill a fresh RT). Why bother ?
    "Don't have a single chance?" That sounds a bit exaggerated. Group up, get a skulk pack going. Skulk packs are strong. Best way to fight strong marines. It is even more effective on not strong marines. You keep bringing up that you should not attack an rt because it has too much health. That seems so wrong to me. Do damage to it even if you don't kill it. The next skulk or skulk pack will kill it or marines will spend time welding and not pushing your rt's.
    -Harvester protection ? That one seems interesting. So if the Aliens cannot attack other things like RTs right away and cannot attack the Marine base (which isn't true) what would they do ? Protect the 2 naturals ? Probably.
    If the aliens cannot attack rt's, (which isn't true), they could attack base just like they would now. If they can not kill marine rt's or attack a marine base it sounds like a possible marine stack. That or they need to defend their harvesters until higher lifeforms come out, which is no different than now. This whole vague example is nothing different than now.
    It would eventually looks like a staring contest when the marines (many) get there... The Marines won't be able to kill the harvesters right away either. Plus the Aliens are all there waiting. The Aliens didn't bother to attack extractors... So everybody will wait until the countdown is finished. Back to skulk packs.
    I am not even sure how to take this one. A staring contest, like looking into each others eyes until one blinks? You also say marines can not kill the harvester right away, which is not true. It is not like it would be invincible.
    How much extra armor the rt's might have has not even been defined. I am sure it would come to something reasonable after much testing if this idea even got to that point.
    "The countdown? Why would you wait when you can do damage now? Back to skulk packs? Good that sounds like good behavior.
    One option for the marines is to attack the harvesters with many. If they succeed, The Alien press F4.
    This sounds wrong too based on some vague stacked game example. Again you are making it sound like the rt's would be near invincible where you would need the whole team to kill an rt. If marines pushed a single harvester with most of their team as aliens I would go base rush or kill two or more harvesters. If most of the marines pushed a single rt like that, and to a lesser extent aliens, it would leave so many lanes open leaving the other team with many options.
    In every case the best is to pack more skulks and more marines. Could be ok with +18 slots but not 12.
    "Every case" I don't think so. Skulk packs are good. You do have a small point here with player counts though which is why I think there needs to be some sort of armor scaling based on player count.
    Ultra-Stable economy for the marines (no Extractor destroyed) is not an option for Aliens. Aliens have to kill Extractors right away from the start. They have to disrupt the Marine organization as much as possible. If they can't do that, it means the marines team will have enough upgrade to render Lerks useless. And we're back to "all rely on fades" or GT BB.
    This would make both teams have a stronger early game economy which would deteriorate quickly as time goes on. I DO NOT see why aliens could not kill extractors unless it was a stacked game.
    The regular Marine economy is the one that is supposed to suffer. It's the only way the aliens can keep up. It's also the only way to distract marines form other goals. The Aliens have to make them go back on a regular basis.
    I don't see why it still wouldn't suffer. It would not suffer as much in the early game sure.
    The Khammander instead of expanding will just drop 3 upgrades Biomass and eventually a Crag for Harvesters. Better get out and help on the field.
    Why would he not expand? Is this because you think marines would not need to defend their rt's? They still would.
    "it's not to lessen pressure". i didn't say that. In fact it's the contrary. The mid game won't be a big fight it will be a RT contest on who's is killing more.
    So we go from Staring contest to biting RT / killing harvester contest as fast as possible.
    Of course it would be an RT contest. This is the same as now. I still don't see why it would be a staring contest. Extractors would not be invincible for a set time or anything. Just increased armor in the proposed idea.
    If the Aliens fail to cripple the marines economy fast enough. X->Surrender. A righteous one as they won't have a chance. Marines already have many upgrades.
    If the marines see all RT are gone to fast and failed in killing Harvesters or a hive. X->Surrender. Demoralized reaction.
    This is literally word for word no different than now.
    What your suggestion do is removing the early Extractor kills, not making it harder. The marines can already save their Extractors fast enough (if only one skulk). So the strategic incentive is gone too. It will change behaviors but not to make PvP benefit from it.
    I really don't think it would remove early extractor kills. It would only make it harder. Also, why is there just one skulk? If it is just one skulk why he has the power to run away.
    Else would be to pack skulks in one big meat ball from beginning to end. But the strategic layer is gone in that case as the PvP stuff. Not fun at all.
    Skulks packs are strong, and great. As I have described before I think there would still be room for a lone skulk to be biting rt's because damage is damage. If the skulk doesn't kill the rt then the next skulk/s will. If the marine welds that is a good thing because he is not being offensive.

    We may agree that it might not be the best thing if biting rt's took longer, but while I seem to think it would be 20% longer and worth biting with maybe a 2 deterioration minute timer you seem to suggest above that it would be 100% longer and with maybe a 5 deterioration minute timer and not worth biting.
    The problem is the marine will attack the harvesters the same when possible (with W2 minimum), unless those harvesters get buffed like hell which won't happen. If this armor buff was only for alien : ok... but i'm sure you think of this for both teams. That leads to one question. Is the protection the same for both Extractors and Harvesters ? If it's the same, i won't even play a game. No chance of winning unless Alien rush the base (Looks like NS 1.2). Or changing the economy speed (both teams). It's not an option is it ?

    All of your what if scenarios I have quoted and answered in the spoiler are pointless because we don't have hard numbers for how much armor will be added at the beginning, how fast it will deteriorate, if it will scale with player counts, if the economy speeds will be adjusted, or if marines can weld armor up to the original heightened armor value.

    @ironhorse: In fact that is a great question, how much armor if any can the marines weld back on the rt. If they can weld it back up to the full increased armor value, I wonder what the cost benefit would be in spending time welding rt's back up to full health? Can gorges heal harvesters back to full heightened armor values? Can crags heal or maintain the heightened harvester armor but have higher crag cost? Maybe heal wave repairs extra armor and you need multiple heal waves?

    These are all things that need to be figured out before anyone might consider making a mod to test. This whole idea is an IF right now. At this point in the discussion I want to think big. The economy has an effect on everything. Because of that I wonder how much can be figured out without playtesting a mod.



    I must say, I really like where this discussion has come to. We have a decent sounding idea. The idea is being fleshed out and discussed both its pros, cons, and possible effects. This is what I hoped this thread would be from the start.

    Post edited by Nordic on
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
    Benson
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NYMembers, Constellation Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Posts: 1,481 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    At this point in the discussion I want to think big.

    It's already small, sticky, and sterile
    mattji104
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    We may agree that it might not be the best thing if biting rt's took longer, but while I seem to think it would be 20% longer and worth biting with maybe a 2 deterioration minute timer you seem to suggest above that it would be 100% longer and with maybe a 5 deterioration minute timer and not worth biting.

    You can consider the early game to be between 4 to 7 minutes. Say the first Fade egg limit. it would only be logical that the shield was around 5 minutes. Less wouldn't worth the trip. With 6/7 Extractors, 3 Harvesters always up for that time, the Commander can guarantee A2/W2/SG. Less chances of survival for the fades as biomass and metabolize would come a little late. Worse if a second hive is on the way, but i exclude that for the moment. See ? a lot of things have to change to make it barely ok.

    Packs with 6 people are not that easy as you seems to agree. It would make a 3 pack and a couple + Kham from time to time. That means the element of surprise is quite diminished for anyone who has eyes. Only 2 hot spots to deal with. Of course more players can make more "leopard brothers" or "hyena packs". But it will stay less hot spots. I let you see what are the counter and details. Strong numbers on one spot, less on others. Not good.

    Marine have welders (especially high level). It's cheap, efficient, etc. So a single skulk wont be much of a problem. But what if 2 skulks aren't either ? This force "skulk packs" to be the rule. It reduces the possibilities and diminish versatility on a large scale. Brute force strategy is a strategy, yes... But if it is the only one; i fear that NS would become more dumb without appealing the rookies.

    As you adequately put this make holes the marines can use to attack Harvesters too... Nothing different from today but in a 'worst manner'. It's what i describe. All will be worst on many aspect of the game while we can be tricked into thinking it's a minor change. I consider it to be a 'do or die' thing that won't be entertaining. I use to think that being good at this game is being smarter than the opponent. Removing options isn't to my taste i'm afraid.

    Same question... does my harvester get uber-scales ? or does it pump res faster? Dunno; but without a change in there... i feel it's bad omen. That's also one point. This shield modification have quite a magnitude on a lot of game mechanics. Far more than Auto-defense (Cyst /harvester).
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in KodiakMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    Nordic wrote: »
    We may agree that it might not be the best thing if biting rt's took longer, but while I seem to think it would be 20% longer and worth biting with maybe a 2 deterioration minute timer you seem to suggest above that it would be 100% longer and with maybe a 5 deterioration minute timer and not worth biting.

    You can consider the early game to be between 4 to 7 minutes. Say the first Fade egg limit. it would only be logical that the shield was around 5 minutes. Less wouldn't worth the trip. With 6/7 Extractors, 3 Harvesters always up for that time, the Commander can guarantee A2/W2/SG. Less chances of survival for the fades as biomass and metabolize would come a little late. Worse if a second hive is on the way, but i exclude that for the moment. See ? a lot of things have to change to make it barely ok.

    Packs with 6 people are not that easy as you seems to agree. It would make a 3 pack and a couple + Kham from time to time. That means the element of surprise is quite diminished for anyone who has eyes. Only 2 hot spots to deal with. Of course more players can make more "leopard brothers" or "hyena packs". But it will stay less hot spots. I let you see what are the counter and details. Strong numbers on one spot, less on others. Not good.

    Marine have welders (especially high level). It's cheap, efficient, etc. So a single skulk wont be much of a problem. But what if 2 skulks aren't either ? This force "skulk packs" to be the rule. It reduces the possibilities and diminish versatility on a large scale. Brute force strategy is a strategy, yes... But if it is the only one; i fear that NS would become more dumb without appealing the rookies.

    As you adequately put this make holes the marines can use to attack Harvesters too... Nothing different from today but in a 'worst manner'. It's what i describe. All will be worst on many aspect of the game while we can be tricked into thinking it's a minor change. I consider it to be a 'do or die' thing that won't be entertaining. I use to think that being good at this game is being smarter than the opponent. Removing options isn't to my taste i'm afraid.

    Same question... does my harvester get uber-scales ? or does it pump res faster? Dunno; but without a change in there... i feel it's bad omen. That's also one point. This shield modification have quite a magnitude on a lot of game mechanics. Far more than Auto-defense (Cyst /harvester).

    Although I attempted to counter most of your what if's in my previous post, it was for show. Before we can really discuss we need to figure out at least some base things like how much armor additional armor would an rt have? 20? 50%? 100%? Then what is the rate that the armor deteriorates in time? If it is 20% and 5 minute deterioration that is really slow. Without defining these we are effectively speaking a different language because the scenarios are so different.

    You seem to think I don't know there would be a large ripple effect if this was done without changing the resource flow. I am assuming all timings are the same. The timing of the second hive drop. The timing of lerks, fades, and onos. When shotguns are researched. When marines get armor and weapon upgrades etc. When jetpacks come out. Everything. The resource flow would have to be adjusted accordingly.


    Just to go out on a limb, with no testing, I will define some numbers I think are reasonable for the time being. I will also just use a skulk biting an rt as an example for now. I also want to note I think the armor values should scale with player count. 6v6 should have different values than 12v12.

    Math and thought train. Lots of numbers.
    According to the ns2 wiki, as accurate as that may be, an extractor has health of 3500 and armor of 500.
    A skulk's bite does 75 normal type damage with a fire rate of .45.
    With normal type damage 1 armor point absorbs 2 damage.
    So against a skulks bite a marine extractor has an effective health of 4500.

    http://wiki.unknownworlds.com/ns2/Extractor
    http://wiki.unknownworlds.com/ns2/Skulk#Bite
    http://wiki.unknownworlds.com/ns2/Damage_Types#List_of_Damage_Types
    So at an effective health of 4500 it takes 60 bites to kill an extractor, or 27 seconds assuming a single skulk.

    So if initial time to kill extractor increased by 20%:
    32.4 seconds to kill extractor. 72 bites. 950.25 armor, or 5400.5 effective health.]

    I personally think this might be too low. It wouldn't not make a big enough difference.

    So if initial time to kill extractor increased by 50%:
    40.5 seconds to kill extractor. 90 bites. 1625 armor, or 6750 effective health.

    40.5 seconds, 90 bites sounds very reasonable to me for a starting armor.

    So if initial time to kill extractor increased by 100%:
    54 seconds to kill extractor. 120 bites. 2750 armor, or 9000 effective health.

    54 seconds, 120 bites sounds somewhat reasonable to me also but I don't think I would go any higher.

    The armor also decreases while your biting it, so actually biting time would be less than 40.5 or 54 seconds.

    So now we need to decide how quick it the armor level falls, and the minimum armor it falls to.

    I think 250 armor minimum if untouched sounds reasonable for the time being, since for now this is all pretty arbitrary. That would leave it with 4000 effective health after the time limit.

    I will start with 3 minutes decrease time just because it sounds reasonable. So going from 1625 armor down to 250 over 3 minutes would be a reduction of 7.638 armor every second.

    Following this thought train, it would also be important to figure out the timing of the decrease. Is it every second or every 10 seconds because they changes how long it takes for an rt to be killed. 10 seconds might be better for performance reasons so I will run with that.

    So armor would decrease at a rate of 76.38 every 10 seconds. It would require a formula I don't intend to find, to figure out how long it would take a skulk to kill an rt with a damage tick of 76.38 every 10 seconds just to armor. I estimate it would be about 38 seconds.

    I hope how I kept repeating phrases with the word reasonable shows how arbitrary these numbers are.

    I mostly play 8v8. I may be biased in my thinking so that balance numbers I think are reasonable may be best for 8v8.

    So in 8v8 gameplay following ironhorses suggestion, I would suggest an increase 50% initial armor that degrades for 3 minutes down to 250 armor, or half the base armor of 500. I estimate this would take about 38 seconds or about 85 continuous bites for a lone skulk to kill a single extractor.

    I have no idea how this would effect life form/upgrade/second hive drop timings, which is crucial. I have no idea if those same numbers would work for alien harvesters. There is a large ripple effect so many things would need to be adjusted accordingly. That is what makes this idea fun and interesting. It would really shake up ns2/3.

    The most interesting of these changes it he extra time to defend extractors early on. So @unclecrunch, assuming life form/upgrade/second hive drop timings are the same, how would upto 11 extra seconds to defend an extractor effect marines? I don't know. I think it is an interesting thought. I would like to hear what @ironhorse thinks an extra 11 or less seconds for marines to defend their extractor would do. That is 11 seconds if it is starting to be bit down immediately, because every 10 seconds it can be killed quicker. Don't like 11 seconds? What would up to 30 seconds do?

    I need more time to really answer that question myself. Thought only goes so far. In real gameplay for hundreds of hours of testing it might act differently than we expected. The meta game is very different now over a year after then it was even months after sewleks balance changes. Off the top of my head I think it would encourage more pack play. It would also encourage to get behind marine lines to get the older extractors. Knowing which extractors are weakest would be a new skill. Most fun of all, it might increase early game pvp which I find the most fun. As you have pointed out, it may increase early game base rushes too.

    Post edited by Nordic on
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Posts: 4,219 Advanced user
    It would be interesting to make it a tradeoff that commanders can choose explicitly

    Reduce the resource rate once rts are old. Commanders can choose to turbo charge the rt at any time which increases its rate but reduces its armor. This means that for a team to press its advantage, it has to choose places to be weaker. At the same time, a coordinated team that can only manage one or two rts can get more money out if then by turbocharging early and protecting them well.

    This would give commanding a macro mechanic, where predicting what your team can hold effectively would give you more resources. It would add more decisions and more tension to the commander for both teams.
    Bensonmeatmachine
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    Nordic wrote: »
    how long do you consider a short while for the armor to go down? 30 seconds, 2 minutes, 5 minutes?
    I think 5 minutes is a fair amount of time to at least start testing with.

    Assuming a typical pub build time for naturals, that'd put them in a vulnerable position roughly before the mid-game begins with the earliest possible timing for fades.
    An additional 5 minutes later (if they were destroyed and replaced around when they hit 0% armor) would again roughly fall just before Onos timing / late game.
    @Benson At 10 tres cost per extractor, 1 tres accrued per 6 seconds, It takes 60 seconds to earn its cost in Tres. I think that's an adequate timeframe to be back at a typical level of armor, so if 100% of armor is lost by 5 minutes in, then a 20% increase in armor would match typical armor levels exactly when it earns its cost in Tres. :)

    Essentially this would create a vulnerability just before certain stages / tech explosions occur, to create a bit more tension through decision making and allow full exploitation of this mechanic before the tech can contest it.
    Of course that's all in a vacuum, though.. it would need seriously thorough testing as you suggested @Nordic . I am much more concerned about 16-24 playercount as a sample compared to top tier though.. not because both wouldn't be valuable data, just that that level of player playing competitively at that low of a player count, already has more of an ability to create a high tension game that is ripe for comebacks. They may not see it is as needed, per se, and thus in all likelihood would not make it into their official version of the game, the comp mod. I wouldn't blame them, said playercounts are much more fun.

    Scaling with player counts sounds interesting, but it almost feels like it'd be attempting to address another large issue entirely... one where there is a laundry list of things to address first. (essentially it'd be "lipstick on a pig")

    ___________________________________________________________________

    @UncleCrunch
    Again I am going to have to say what I said before : You keep suggesting hypothetical examples which A ) already occur and B ) are just as likely as any other, to include opposing scenarios.
    Also I do not think you do fully understand the goal because you keep saying things like:

    "As long as the marines don't build anything it's no use to engage." -- This is not true in any scenario, unless you are singularly attempting to enter a marine base with the whole team in it.
    "I don't see any reason to engage the marine if i just get a kill." -- Because it's less reinforcement to pressure your team's progress? Also see the next line :
    "because they won't be able to stop the RT capping process (too much time to kill a fresh RT)" -- They stop the capping process from occurring by winning the engagements.
    "One option for the marines is to attack the harvesters with many. If they succeed, The Alien press F4." -- How is that any different from now?
    "What your suggestion do is removing the early Extractor kills, not making it harder." -- THIS is where you misunderstand :

    You seem to think of this suggestion as causing "invincible RTs" in the early game, when all that is being suggested by Benson is allowing a longer time to respond to a freshly constructed tower being attacked.
    That small adjustment does not create scenarios where you cannot stop the enemy team from capping? He's not talking about making RTs invincible nor even close to doubling their effective HP.
    Which is what would be required to make such bold calls like you have. Slowing them just ensures each side has more chances of having a more stable beginning.

    Will a team always find the most effective route? Yes
    Should a value ever be used for initially high armor that negates a player from ever attempting to damage it? God no.
    You are either arguing against something that isn't being suggested, or you are grossly overestimating the reaction to such a change.
    Ignoring the realistic low frequency of RTs you would encounter exactly when built, Nanoshield is 32% increase in shields (not even suggesting that) and yet alone with no risk or other structure in a room, you would still continue to do damage to it.
    Also consider that any damage to it, at any time, decreases the amount of time until it is eventually 0% armor.

    Allllll this being said... I am much more concerned and interested about the proposal of decaying armor on RTs than I am about initially higher levels upon building - which may in fact need more discussion..
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in KodiakMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    @ironhorse, 6v6 to 12v12 is a huge gap. 8v8 to 12v12 is also a big gap. A large enough gap that where I think scaling would be better than having some middle value.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    @Nordic I tend to think that is an entirely different subject that requires an entirely different discussion.. it's a massive undertaking trying to make everything scale.

    Also after reading your post where you crunched the numbers.. I think 11 seconds is too much. I like 30% as a middle ground, giving 8 seconds - IF 20% / 5.5 sec isn't enough
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in KodiakMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    IronHorse wrote: »
    @Nordic I tend to think that is an entirely different subject that requires an entirely different discussion.. it's a massive undertaking trying to make everything scale.

    Also after reading your post where you crunched the numbers.. I think 11 seconds is too much. I like 30% as a middle ground, giving 8 seconds - IF 20% / 5.5 sec isn't enough
    It is up to 11 seconds. More than likely it will sit there over a minute and be more like 6 seconds. Either way, it goes to show how much lower we are thinking than unclecrunch.
    Post edited by Nordic on
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
    IronHorse
  • YojimboYojimbo EnglandMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2009-03-19 Member: 66806Posts: 1,252 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    @Nordic I tend to think that is an entirely different subject that requires an entirely different discussion.. it's a massive undertaking trying to make everything scale.

    Also after reading your post where you crunched the numbers.. I think 11 seconds is too much. I like 30% as a middle ground, giving 8 seconds - IF 20% / 5.5 sec isn't enough

    In regards to RT's how about the more damaged a resource tower is, the less effective it becomes at generating resources per tick? This may help encourage players to damage the enemies economy more, even if they fail in destroying the resource they have made an impact on the economy?
    Today's rookies are tomorrow's vets.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    George Carlin.
    vartija
  • meatmachinemeatmachine South EnglandMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Join Date: 2013-01-06 Member: 177858Posts: 1,551 Advanced user
    More 'hidden' mechanics?
    It seems like the quality of this proposed change is being judged based on how much it will or wont break the game.
    Too weird to live, yet too rare to die
    vartijaDaveodeth2cough
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    edited May 2015
    Nordic wrote: »
    The most interesting of these changes it he extra time to defend extractors early on. So @unclecrunch, assuming life form/upgrade/second hive drop timings are the same, how would upto 11 extra seconds to defend an extractor effect marines? I don't know. I think it is an interesting thought. I would like to hear what @ironhorse thinks an extra 11 or less seconds for marines to defend their extractor would do. That is 11 seconds if it is starting to be bit down immediately, because every 10 seconds it can be killed quicker. Don't like 11 seconds? What would up to 30 seconds do?

    The pros don't need the extra seconds. Nobody would say no for an extra (money reflex), but they already are well organized to save the Extractors. If they don't they're already doing some nasty stuff somewhere else. It's always 'trades off'. On the other hand 11 seconds isn't enough for rookies/public.
    So... this or that:
    *you go more than 11 seconds and no pro match is worth the trip for the aliens. Or aliens would have to win every engagement with no upgrade. I don't think it will happen. Do or die syndrome. Change the whole economy and timings = lot of work.
    *You go 11 or less. No big deal but it required many changes in the economy for minimal effect (risky). Close to useless considering the work done 'behind'.

    @IronHorse
    Yes i keep saying that because it's simply what happens. The marine you meet for the first engagement are the ones that are 'en route' to the hive (or to the first Harvester). Example: You can kill the Marine in Repair but the next one (from Logistics) will kill you. It won't be a big delay or a big loss for the Marines as it will probably cost only medpacks. Not the Extractor.

    2on2: same principle. early games = the marines win. If by chance a skulk survives, it won't be for long, or he won't have enough time to kill the RT (yeah the com goofed).

    That's precisely the point. With these godlike aim guys; killing an extractor in early game is already really difficult. Even with skulk packs. So if you can't kill the Extractor in time (or because there is none to kill), it simply doesn't worth the trip. ->Do something else. Delaying one time isn't enough. It would need to be like winning every 1on1 engagement to produce a serious "change" (The meat ball cannot be everywhere at the same time (ubiquity) so it's out of the question).

    "Change" in the way they loose extractors. We know it won't happen. Any commander that hear from his men "i got 2/3 boogies" he doesn't drop the RT. Only after the fight.

    And if.. with the help of a mystical conjuration of luck; the Marines can't cap RT nodes fast (like 4/6); they change plans and upgrade fast (or surrender/F4). Money flow faster for the marines. Eventually leading to 'they still get the early game'.

    I understand quite clearly the goal but i do not think it will be good for the the early and mid game.
    • Granting Early game more stability by removing options or render early engagement useless isn't providing better games. You can't go smoothly on the "RT armor" as it would be useless. Too much would be overpowered and would require so many changes...
    • Simply because it's out of reach if economy changes have to be made. Unless UWE/CDT say "we gonna change a lot" of course.
    • Because it will be the same unforgiving mid game, probably worse. Eventually leading to more 'rage quit' or Surrender which will annoy every single one player... more. Then what's the point ?
    It's like smoking cigarettes (it's bad for health, quit it) in an ammunition storage facility.


    Better make auto defense and 're-buy the same class for a cheaper price'. ("Class" as JP/SG of Fade+2 ups, etc)
    • Better response on RT attack (spore + players). A more stable front line leading to more stable early game.
    • No change in the economy (tick, res income, timings)
    • Rookies can train (FINAAAAAAALLLYYYYYY... ho goooooooood, finallyyyyyyyyy!). Because we know they won't go through tutorial (even with bots) and nothing will prevent them to join a server a soon as they can.
    • Extended mid game (yay shotgun vs fades all over the place). I'm no pro but i'm sure they will like it.
    • Better stats. The winner will be the one that wins more fights in mid game. You can flash 3 times a fade, of course but usually the best team will be the one that kill 3 times that fade. Less unforgiving etc.
    • Exos would finally be an option (yay). They must be rusty by now... :)
    • Easy to extend or reduce mid game by changing the "discount" ratio (not the initial price).
    • Reducing Onos spam becomes easy by having different discount for different lifeforms etc.
    Post edited by UncleCrunch on
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
    Daveodeth
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    The pros don't need the extra seconds
    I've already said this. I said this on Page 1, Page 4, Page 7, and then I just said it again in response to you last page.
    So using it as an example of where something needs adjustment, like when you say "With these godlike aim guys", is entirely irrelevant!
    Please re read my last post to you that covers this subject already.
    I understand quite clearly the goal but i do not think it will be good for the the early and mid game. Because it will render early engagement useless
    ?? Then you really do not understand the goal of either suggestion, decaying armor or initially increased armor.
    Frankly at this point I am going to have to respectfully decline continuing a debate with you because I believe there must be a language barrier that is preventing an actual productive discussion.
    I truly do not mean to offend, I just want you to know why I am ceasing debating this with you, as I can no longer go around and around in circles.

    There is a reason why I asked for your point and an explanation in a single concise sentence. ;)
    You keep bringing up irrelevant points or things which are easily refutable, and when these are countered (like in my last post) you come back with more irrelevant points and things which are refutable, (like the 2nd sentence in the quote above) which basically leaves me feeling like I am debating with someone who is either not fully understanding or is unable to clearly and concisely explain themselves in english. Or worse.. someone who continues to throw non-sequiturs into a debate because they like debating irrelevant semantics.
    Thanks for your contributions to the subject, however.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    My single sentence is: I bet it won't work as it is described without many more changes in economy, lifeforms and upgrade speed (which is redesigning the entire game, BTW).

    I don't think you brought (re reading it) proper example on why it will work fine. Far from it IMO. So let's do it the other way. Describe to me "step by step" how this would actually work fine. Like a RPG, turn by turn. Do this exercise on your own if you prefer. Numbers, timing, decaying time, res income etc. I'm sure you will find something odd proceeding this way. And if you want to know it's a really good way to analyze this kind of things.
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    I am only interested in hashing out / discussing potential flaws of armor decay.
    Benson's idea regarding initially higher armor when freshly built needs a lot more discussion and planning, obviously.

    That being said, this post explains why armor decay would work.

    Thank you for that singular sentence, but are you able to say specifically why it wouldn't work without more changes - without you listing hypothetical examples? (as in, explain why "in a nutshell")
    That might help me understand. Thanks
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    I am only interested in hashing out / discussing potential flaws of armor decay.
    Benson's idea regarding initially higher armor when freshly built needs a lot more discussion and planning, obviously.

    That being said, this post explains why armor decay would work.

    Thank you for that singular sentence, but are you able to say specifically why it wouldn't work without more changes - without you listing hypothetical examples? (as in, explain why "in a nutshell")
    That might help me understand. Thanks

    If Armor decay isn't big enough the extractor will fall the same. So it wouldn't achieve what it was intended for.
    If it's set to an amount that is satisfying the Marines; the probability of Extractors destroyed by alien is reduced quite drastically.
    Therefore :
    • The marine will upgrade faster -> More danger/stress for Lerks and then Fades. Leading to the Marines win faster/easier.
    • Less need for PG, so Arms lab may become the unique plan -> so the Aliens resist with the unique plan they got... Nash game theory etc. It has a tendency to dumb down things.
    • A tendency to form a 'siege' situation where marines cover all exits of a hive sooner than expected/usual. They could intercept the little biters more often in their territory (which bought time and time is literally money in this case).
    • The need for a GT becomes more critical (at least to get out the hive safely and be able to bite).

    It would require many changes to adapt the whole thing (too many?). It has a magnitude that goes deep in the game mechanics.

    How do i do that ?
    RPG (board) is quite good for testing many (not all) things. It's cool to have a printer too (Grid) but a LibreOffice Calc does the trick too. In fact it helps for counting res income.
    Rules are simple but accurate:
    • Travel time between Res Nodes is between 10 to 15 seconds in most maps.
    • I use 1 x "5 seconds travel time" move and 1 action per turn (fight - damage on buildings / build - repair). Anything is possible if you want to go 1sec/turn.
    • The commander have 2 to 3 actions per turn (regular upgrade etc). He doesn't build RT if a fight is on the area (always after).
    • Enemy is detected 2 turns away.
    • Fight is when to opponent meet on the same grid square.
    • I use 4 scenarios for the 1st and 2nd engagements (XonX) in order to give a general tendency.
    • -Aliens / Marines win the 1st 2 fights (the winner is always wounded - half of HP)
    • -Single unit vs Packs (deployed as 3 and 2).

    With this you can cover pretty fast many scenarios. The first 2 minutes at least.
    (forums seems weird at the moment - sorry if you see 2 copies of the same message).
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    Lol you just can't help but speak in theoreticals, huh?..
    If Armor decay isn't big enough the extractor will fall the same. So it wouldn't achieve what it was intended for.
    What you're saying is *if* it is imbalanced, it won't work and there will be consequences.
    That's all you're saying, this entire time..

    And that basically applies to any design or mechanic, ever.
    If you mean to say that it is inevitable that it would be imbalanced, well then I'd say your theoreticals are just that.. Broad possibilities that are essentially large assumptions based on nuanced details such as values that have yet to be settled on .

    Basically you're reaching, and basing your concerns off of too little information. Your time would be better spent recommending actual values with which to then bring up your beloved theoreticals as arguments of why they should be used. ;)
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    Simply because there is none that i could find (i did try).
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NYMembers, Constellation Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Posts: 1,481 Advanced user
    Simply because there is none that i could find (i did try).

    I know for certain people have made timing maps and put them on the forums
    mattji104
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise landMembers, Reinforced - Onos Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Posts: 1,543 Advanced user
    mattji104 wrote: »
    I know for certain people have made timing maps and put them on the forums

    Yes i did for my map... I may be wrong but you probably understood that i was talking about the time to go from "TP start to RT 1", etc, on a specific map. I have it already. I was saying that i couldn't find any value for the shield that didn't have big if not huge ripple effect while doing the RPG stuff.

    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    Shield? You don't mean initial high armor, do you?

    What timing do you recommend for armor to reach 0% for resource towers, once built?
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • WobWob Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Posts: 485 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    What timing do you recommend for armor to reach 0% for resource towers, once built?

    I thought the total eHP decreases, not just armor. If it is just armor then you might well see more fade balls to devastating effect. (pre balance mod b250 .__.)
    Nordic
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in KodiakMembers, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Posts: 4,771 Advanced user
    I was thinking about that when I proposed some values earlier. I left 250 armor, so there was 4000 eHP at the end. 250 armor isn't a lot, but it is enough to slow a fade down.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws DenmarkMembers, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Posts: 1,082 Advanced user
    Since you're talking about values now, I made a spreadsheet you can use.

    You can input a random time, i.e. 30 seconds; and it will put out the eHP a structure needs in order for each lifeform to kill it in 30 seconds.

    Or you can input Health and armor values, and it will spit out the time it would take for each lifeform to kill that structure.

    Does not account for energy though - and I havn't bothered to add special attacks like spikes, bilebomb, xeno, stab or stomp.

    Spreadsheet
    Nordic
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    That's a good point @nachos
    My concern though with going the route of total eHP and not just armor, is both a lack of an intuitive approach such as going from 100% to 0%, (because you're not suggesting entirely destroying RTs, right?) but also the difficulty in balancing not just timing anymore, but also the bottom eHP that will be reached.

    Something to consider is a fade increasing their chances of being pinched when trying to destroy a natural RT, potentially spending 38 seconds, low on energy, with marines more than likely responding from both directions.
    Any non 0% armor RT isn't going to be worth sitting on considering that time /energy requirement. And who knows, maybe with other subtle changes, such as welder repair rate increase or easier access to macs (maybe researched on the chair for cheap?) the frequency of seeing such occurrences might decrease further.

    Not to mention the time that could have been spent offensively on the front lines instead.
    This is the reason why the balance change of fades doing normal damage to a structure once the armor is gone wasn't that negatively impactful (I still don't like it), and that's because they are much more useful to the team by attacking marines still, so most of the time a fade is on an RT is when the team is already doing so well they don't need them offensively, or the RT was 2 seconds from being down anyways.


    Essentially I don't think it would act as a fade buff so much as a trap, both physically and tactically.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • WobWob Members, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2005-04-08 Member: 47814Posts: 485 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Something to consider is a fade increasing their chances of being pinched when trying to destroy a natural RT, potentially spending 38 seconds, low on energy, with marines more than likely responding from both directions.
    Metabolise means fades won't be low on energy and thus fighting these fades will be just as hard as fighting them almost anywhere else on the map. If more marines are commited to trapping these lifeforms, then skulks can get behind the opposite side of the map to equally vulnerable RTs.

    IronHorse wrote: »
    Any non 0% armor RT isn't going to be worth sitting on considering that time /energy requirement
    Agreed. However RTs that are being attacked will lose their armor quicker under this system than vanilla RTs meaning fades will be MORE impactful on res biting, and I don't think we want to see that.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Not to mention the time that could have been spent offensively on the front lines instead.

    Start res biting as fade, attract res-capper/defender, kill, create space for skulks. That then moves the frontline to the RTs.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    This is the reason why the balance change of fades doing normal damage to a structure once the armor is gone wasn't that negatively impactful (I still don't like it), and that's because they are much more useful to the team by attacking marines still

    Sometimes you can't commit that far forwards, sometimes you need to quickly kill structures like sentries with no armor. Sometimes the marines pick your skulks on the PG and you're stuck there doing 22 dmg/swipe making the entire attack useless.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    or the RT was 2 seconds from being down anyways.

    Sometimes those 2 seconds prevent a skulk getting locked into an area he can't escape from or allow the skulk to move into an ambush spot.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Essentially I don't think it would act as a fade buff so much as a trap, both physically and tactically.

    So I disagree. I think it would be a fade buff.

    On the whole I'm starting to think maybe this change should be alien harvester only because afterall, aliens don't have any problems with comebacks, it's mainly a marine issue and this is what we're discussing.
    JektDaveodeth
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    @nachos
    It is mainly a marine issue, as the thread title suggests, and aliens are much more equipped with healing / maintaining upkeep of damaged RTs.
    But it still seems like it would increase variability to a larger degree if both teams shared this.. not to mention it'd be far more intuitive (I hate special rules when it comes to homogeneous goals like resource accumulation).

    I see your point regarding Fade res biting being indirectly buffed, however.. I just did a test it and it takes 17 seconds for a fade to down an armorless RT (!), whereas half armor ~27 seconds and full armor ~40.
    This makes me dislike the "Fade does normal damage to armorless structures" change even more now that it soils this idea!... lol.

    Maybe it would work solely on alien harvesters after all - if we didn't want to change that class buff that fades got.
    Assuming the comm drops ammo, it takes a single marine 28 seconds to kill a mature harvester with W0, so that's as long as it will ever take.
    21.8% of that harvester's eHP is armor, so assuming that was completely depleted by midgame with W2 - a 20% increase in dmg for marines - for a total combined 41.8% decrease in time = 11.7 seconds.

    2 marines would result in downing it in 5.8 seconds. Granted, that's a "worst case scenario"... considering it may take 5 whole minutes and a negligent alien team to get there.
    This would put a huge amount of pressure on aliens mid game to not only lane properly, but more than likely plop down crags or an active gorge / static defenses - if they played properly.

    I like it..


    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • BensonBenson Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2012-03-07 Member: 148303Posts: 1,296 Advanced user
    One thing to consider with the E-HP drop over time is marines being able to recycle their structures.

    If the reduction in E-HP is permanent, marines can just recycle their RTs and rebuild when they get to that point.

    Granted, they would lose a few Tres, but in the long run, but losing a few Tres to rebuild could pay off more than having them be gone for longer (easier to kill).
    If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are. - Capt. Jean Luc Picard
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    Building a new tower would be more expensive and having a player in the room to build would be better spent with a cheap pres welder to repair it.

    Still not sure if marine extractors should even have decay, since it would buff fades unnecessarily, as nachos pointed out..
    Unless it was both HP and armor.. but then you couldn't let extractors just automatically self destruct - that'd just be annoying instead of creating a counter-able vulnerability - so then the extractors would only drop to a certain % of eHP ... and that'd be opposite of an intuitive design, imo.

    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    Benson
Sign In or Register to comment.