What do you think of switching FL/GL with MG research wise?

VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver Posts: 3,223 Advanced user
After the Smash Hit "How is silence on shift hive still a thing?", here comes "How is silence on shift hive still a thing? 2: Electric Boogaloo; Or: What do you think of switching FL/GL with MG research wise?"

My thought process is as follows.

Grenade launchers and Flamethrowers are highly niche weapons with specific purposes, and most of the time, you don't need them. Still, inexperienced marines end up buying them once they are researched without much thought. It seems they are just looking for rifle replacements. Case in point: I just had a match where a rookie comm went AA first. Similarly skilled marines ended up buying FTs/Gls and were of absolutely no use to their team.

Usually, they end up dead quick, and a lot of pres goes down the drain.

At the same time, there's the MG. An alien killing tool that still allows you to kill structures in a ditch, an actual primary weapon and slight upgrade to the rifle (as opposed to a support weapon/sidegrade), and at the same time a criminally underused gun because it needs to be researched separately and who has the res and time to do that? And it's not like MG rushes are a thing (...that I have ever seen). Besides, most veterans will just go with shotguns, anyway.

Thus, I propose we switch advanced weaponry and the MG in the tech tree. Since you don't need Advanced Weaponry most of the time, no harm is done here, but you can still get them if your strategy includes it (GL rushes), and inexperienced or braindead players can still be of use to their team if they want to try out a fancy new gun that isn't as scary as the shotgun.

TLDR: Rookies buy shitty guns. This is bad. Make it so they can't buy shitty guns.
formerly known as F0rdPrefect

Comments

  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,120 admin
    Rather than restrict tool accessibility for a game where you need to adapt quickly to a changing battlefield, I'd suggest moving the MG to the AA and leave it all there.

    If the issue with rookies inadequately distinguishing weapon roles is that big of a problem I think time would be better spent making it more communicated or intuitive where needed.
    Hiding it behind an even farther away (timing wise) commander unlock has the potential to just further confuse players since later tech is typically associated with *better* tech instead of side grades or niche tools.
    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/
    The_Welsh_Wizard
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver Posts: 3,223 Advanced user
    edited August 28
    I guess that could also work. In that case, I suggest redesigning the Armory UI.

    For example, organise the items in different columns; something like "Grenades and Mines", "Support" (GL, FT, Welder) and "Assault" (Shotgun and MG). Additionally, I'd put a big notice in the tooltips of GL, FT and Welder that they replace primary weapon/Axe (the latter more for consistency).

    Alternatively, something two dimensional (similar to a tech tree), where MGs and Shotguns are farther up or two the right (depending on how it is organised) than advanced weaponry could also work. It would be a little less clear, but the position higher up in the hierachy would imply more power. In this scenario I don't know where to place Mines, Grenades and Welders, though.

    edit: play -> place
    Post edited by Vetinari on
    formerly known as F0rdPrefect
  • MoFo1MoFo1 United States Join Date: 2014-07-25 Member: 197612Members Posts: 570 Advanced user
    require ft and gl to be researched separately and you can guarantee that you'll very rarely (if ever) see ft researched... and gl would only be researched for rushes..

    It's already far far far too common for commanders to recycle the aa the instant they drop a proto because in their minds "ft and gl are useless"
  • HandschuhHandschuh Join Date: 2005-03-08 Member: 44338Members Posts: 177 Advanced user
    edited August 28
    To be fair recycling the aa gives you some ress if you get a normal armory, but your point is true as well.. like hitting 2 birds with one stone
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,006 Advanced user
    edited August 28
    If you intend to push the flamethrower to such an obscure tech path that nobody will ever research it, then you have made the game indistinguishable from just removing the weapon all together. I'd argue that the current state it's already like that, but you intend to make it worse? Just hit that delete button at this point.

    Why not just make the flamethrower useful? Give it actual utility in PvP. Faster rate of fire, reduce the structure damage a bit, perhaps a touch more range and it will be fine.

    If it can ever get to a point where the flamethrower alleviates the shotgun monopoly, I believe that would be good for the game.
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver Posts: 3,223 Advanced user
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    If you intend to push the flamethrower to such an obscure tech path that nobody will ever research it, then you have made the game indistinguishable from just removing the weapon all together. I'd argue that the current state it's already like that, but you intend to make it worse?

    Honestly? Yes.
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    Why not just make the flamethrower useful? Give it actual utility in PvP. Faster rate of fire, reduce the structure damage a bit, perhaps a touch more range and it will be fine.

    If it can ever get to a point where the flamethrower alleviates the shotgun monopoly, I believe that would be good for the game.

    It was tried in the past, and we had a powerful FT for a few builds. (About two or three years ago, I think?)
    It was pretty terrible. It blocked the vision of aliens fighting it and it didn't require a great amount of aim.

    If there's a way to make the flamethrower work, fine. It's tricky, though, and it will still most likely be in a support niche. And we don't need half a team of rookies with a support weapon.
    It's safer to swtich the MG.

    Additionally, everything you said works as an argument for the MG, too.
    No one ever researches it, right now the game is pretty indistinguishable from the weapon not existing in the first place.
    formerly known as F0rdPrefect
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,006 Advanced user
    edited August 28
    Vetinari wrote: »
    If there's a way to make the flamethrower work, fine. It's tricky, though, and it will still most likely be in a support niche.
    Honestly that is just a lack of imagination.

    Don't make it a support niche. Make it comparable to lmg dps in pvp, but with reduced range and a little bit of splash (not so much that it doesn't require aim).

    Right now when you bring a ft to say deal with umbra/spores, that works fine for the first 10-15 seconds, till a random skulks just leaps on you, because you don't have the dps to deal with that, like you can, easily, with the free default lmg. If your lmg marines are supposed to keep the ft alive from skulks, then who shoots at the lerk that you're supposed to be dealing with? The flamethrower needs to have its own survivability, not rely on team mates vs basic skulks, otherwise it's a liability and a rookie trap and ought to be deleted from the game entirely.
    Post edited by SantaClaws on
    The_Welsh_WizardBestProfileNamecooliticResistor
  • KasharicKasharic Hull, England Join Date: 2013-03-27 Member: 184473Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester Posts: 439 Advanced user
    Ghouls mod has made FTs quite interesting imo. try it out and you'll see that FTs could be made more useful simply by implementing his changes.

    As for the MG, I don't see why making FT, GL AND MG all unlock when the AA is upgraded... you're not upgrading ALL armouries after all, just that 1. so, why, when upgrading that 1 armoury, do you then still have to research MGs as well? they should come with the AA like all the other advanced weapons.
    Meph isn't an NSL admin anymore!

    #blameHefty
  • BlrgBlrg Join Date: 2013-09-01 Member: 187580Members, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 122 Advanced user
    Shouldn't MGs be unlocked together with shotguns?

    As far as I know MGs try to be an alternative to shotguns to spice up the game a little bit, but filling a similar role in the game.

    If you unlock them with the AA, then some commanders would try to rush exos or jets even more, ignoring shotguns, because they would unlock MGs on the way. So they could save those 20 tres of shotguns without crippling their team that much in the mid game

    We should probably unlock "combat weapons" (shotgun, MG) together in the same way that we unlock "support weapons" (GL, flamer) with the AA. In that way your commander doesn't need to spend tres researching another weapon that fills the same role... and neither he has a free researched combat weapon when he is rushing a Prototype Lab




    SantaClawsThe_Welsh_WizardHandschuhDaphisto
  • The_Welsh_WizardThe_Welsh_Wizard Join Date: 2013-09-10 Member: 188101Members, Reinforced - Supporter Posts: 607 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Rather than restrict tool accessibility for a game where you need to adapt quickly to a changing battlefield, I'd suggest moving the MG to the AA and leave it all there.

    If the issue with rookies inadequately distinguishing weapon roles is that big of a problem I think time would be better spent making it more communicated or intuitive where needed.
    Hiding it behind an even farther away (timing wise) commander unlock has the potential to just further confuse players since later tech is typically associated with *better* tech instead of side grades or niche tools.

    The marine tech tree already is a joke and requires no strategic decisions at all, you would just make it worse.

    And yes, good point. There is not end tech weaponry for marines which aswell shows how bad the tech tree is. So the right thing here would be to fix that problem instead of making it a bigger one.
    If the issue with rookies inadequately distinguishing weapon roles is that big of a problem I think time would be better spent making it more communicated or intuitive where needed.
    It is not a problem if a rookie doesn't understand weapon roles. It is a problem when a beginner of the game who understands what is going on still haven't figured out the weapons roles. So I agree with you on that point atleast.
    NintendowsHandschuh
  • SquishpokePOOPFACESquishpokePOOPFACE -21,248 posts (ignore below) Join Date: 2012-10-31 Member: 165262Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,488 Advanced user
    If commanders were more vocal, and players listened more, we would have no problem.

    I like to warn people to NOT to buy the noob traps, and explain that if everyone bought a FT or GL we would be fucked. Sometimes it works, which is nice
    For each word spoken, one forgotten. For every thought, a memory rotten. I LIKE POOP
    cooliticResistor
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver Posts: 3,223 Advanced user
    If commanders were more vocal, and players listened more, we would have no problem.

    Man, we would have so many problems less.
    formerly known as F0rdPrefect
    coolitic
  • Me9aMe9a Join Date: 2008-03-27 Member: 63981Members Posts: 92 Fully active user
    some people might be sick of the "lets compare ns1 to ns2"

    but just as a hint on ns1:
    it was like:
    Armory automatically unlocks Sgs (Grenades had to be researched for 10 tres)
    Advanced Armory unlocked automatically Hmgs and Gls

    So if you would do that on ns2 as well and as a tradeoff increase the cost of the Arms lab or the upgrades on the Arms lab.

    you will end up with more different strategy's/Rounds and more weapon variety.
    All the time on the Field.
    Daphisto
  • Soul_RiderSoul_Rider Mod Bean Join Date: 2004-06-19 Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue Posts: 4,231 Advanced user
    Me9a wrote: »
    some people might be sick of the "lets compare ns1 to ns2"

    but just as a hint on ns1:
    it was like:
    Armory automatically unlocks Sgs (Grenades had to be researched for 10 tres)
    Advanced Armory unlocked automatically Hmgs and Gls

    So if you would do that on ns2 as well and as a tradeoff increase the cost of the Arms lab or the upgrades on the Arms lab.

    you will end up with more different strategy's/Rounds and more weapon variety.
    All the time on the Field.

    Apples to Oranges much? In NS Comm decided who got what weapons, so there was no chance of anyone having a GL or whatever if the comm didn't drop it.
    Games:Subnautica Fan Game Mods: GorgeCraft & CTF & Proving Grounds Website: andysoulrider.uk
    Twitter: @AndySoulRider Twitch: Twitch.tv/SoulRider YouTube: Youtube.com/user/IamSoulRider/videos

    Capitalisation is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
    Knowledge is gained through listening, Understanding is gained through discussion.
    NintendowscooliticNousWanderer
  • RevanCoranaRevanCorana Join Date: 2015-08-14 Member: 207125Members Posts: 514 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    If you intend to push the flamethrower to such an obscure tech path that nobody will ever research it, then you have made the game indistinguishable from just removing the weapon all together. I'd argue that the current state it's already like that, but you intend to make it worse? Just hit that delete button at this point.

    Why not just make the flamethrower useful? Give it actual utility in PvP. Faster rate of fire, reduce the structure damage a bit, perhaps a touch more range and it will be fine.

    If it can ever get to a point where the flamethrower alleviates the shotgun monopoly, I believe that would be good for the game.

    Isnt your idea kinda to turn the FT into a rifle? might as well delete it too then.
    Yea it's definitely too weak in pvp.

    This what I'd do:
    1st - Remove the energy leech component, is there anything in the alien arsenal that takes your ammo away? no because it's dumb, it's a dumb mechanic artificially added to suplement the failings of the original design which are adressed in following points rendering this useless

    2nd - Increase the damage over time component by making every tick stack. This is what define flame thrower intuitively to anyone with common sense what fight a flamethrower feels like, it also has clear gameplay value/depth, the more you stay in the fight the more the burn will bite you, unless you have a gorge. Also make it so gorge heal wave only remove a certain amount of stacks, not all of them.

    3rd - Increase the duration for areas set ablaze by the FT and introduce self burn damage when walking upon these. This is to further refine the defining aspects of the FT in accordance with purposeful and intuitive mechanics that is the area denial aspect that fuses pvp and pve aspects of this wep.

    4th - make it cost the same as the GL
    VetinaricooliticantouDaphisto
  • RevanCoranaRevanCorana Join Date: 2015-08-14 Member: 207125Members Posts: 514 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    There's nothing wrong with a "support oriented" weapon to have some killing power (GL except GL is a bit retarded and bugged but thats another story for another day) albeit not as much as the rifle and shotgun. Imo research should be ordered in 2 trees, pve and pvp, so remove advanced armory and all current weapon research, and add PVE armory (GL FT) or PVP armory (shotgun MG) each being fully self contained with their own merits and each unlocking the proto.
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,006 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    SantaClaws wrote: »
    If you intend to push the flamethrower to such an obscure tech path that nobody will ever research it, then you have made the game indistinguishable from just removing the weapon all together. I'd argue that the current state it's already like that, but you intend to make it worse? Just hit that delete button at this point.

    Why not just make the flamethrower useful? Give it actual utility in PvP. Faster rate of fire, reduce the structure damage a bit, perhaps a touch more range and it will be fine.

    If it can ever get to a point where the flamethrower alleviates the shotgun monopoly, I believe that would be good for the game.

    Isnt your idea kinda to turn the FT into a rifle? might as well delete it too then.
    Except the lmg does not have splash damage, it does not have damage over time, it has a much smaller clip, it does not disable buildings, it does not leech energy and it is not limited in range...

    Other than that they are kind of similar I guess?
  • HandschuhHandschuh Join Date: 2005-03-08 Member: 44338Members Posts: 177 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    As long as there is no "friendly fire" with these weapons with splash damage on pubs - they are simply annoying... if they have no toll

    Take GL as an example. You can simply spam them into your marines in north tunnel in tram and they do insanely high Playerdamage, so the aliens cannot do shit to defend Warehouse against Arcs, since marines have godmode on against there own weapons. Even if the damage would be only 1% with friendlyfire, it would make a huge difference in any groupfight.


    One Addition:

    Combined with the fact that you simply cannot dodge these "thrown" Weapons like in other games.
    You see the GL Fire, but you're already hit and cannot dodge, because of the 100ms lagcompensation of the engine (or even higher with the meddling LUAcode)
    In the Halflife 1 Engine (natural selection 1) if the Pings were like 50-80 I saw the fucking GL shoot or a gorge Spit from a mid-range distance and by manouvering left or right I could easily dodge midfight 80%+ of the hits ... even if the ping was higher... seems like they did something obviously right..
    while in ns2 engine it's more like dumb luck in midrange... in high-range scenarios you can dodge, but only you move when the spit "started"... if you start dodging after the spit/gl already flew 50% of the distance you are basically already hit...

    Another example, if you move Left you are at position A and Right you are at position B... (like 1m distance)... if a gorge is alternately shooting his spits between A and B constantly and you try to dodge these Spits by switching between position A and B - you need to walk into the spits in order to dodge all the spit's because of the lagcompensation... which feels simply wrong... and if you have different gorges with different connections it get's even weirder...

    if you ever played a jump&run game you know this is fucked up
    Post edited by Handschuh on
    RevanCorana
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,006 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    I wouldn't lump in the flamethrower there @Handschuh . Yes you can aim at your team mates and deal splash damage with no friendly damage, but you can do a similar thing with the lmg or the shotgun.
    RevanCorana
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver Posts: 3,223 Advanced user
    I like the idea of putting the flamethrower in an area denial role with the stacking damage over time and putting more focus on lingering fire. However, I'm worried that this may be too powerful against aliens, which are fundamentally melee oriented, and that it could make a group of marines invincible if they have a flamethrower marine that keeps them on fire constantly. It would be worth a test, though, I think.
    formerly known as F0rdPrefect
    RevanCoranaTriggerHappyBroMouse
  • RevanCoranaRevanCorana Join Date: 2015-08-14 Member: 207125Members Posts: 514 Advanced user
    edited September 12
    Well there's always this thing called tweaking, tweaking damage, firerate, reload time, weight etc etc. It doesnt need to be the new imba thing behind paywall sort of deal.

    I also agree that all splash damage should have friendly fire. Also please fix the fking GL reload animation (3rd person) that is completely garbage.

    And also fix the damn fade crouch animation for OP ceiling hugs broken crap since day1
  • MouseMouse The Lighter Side of Pessimism Join Date: 2002-03-02 Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 3,352 mod
    edited September 12
    Vetinari wrote: »
    I like the idea of putting the flamethrower in an area denial role with the stacking damage over time and putting more focus on lingering fire. However, I'm worried that this may be too powerful against aliens, which are fundamentally melee oriented, and that it could make a group of marines invincible if they have a flamethrower marine that keeps them on fire constantly. It would be worth a test, though, I think.

    These are the main factors I can think of that would affect it's power for area denial:
    - The amount of time that you need to focus on a spot to make it light up. If it's instantaneous that'd be a lot more powerful than if you needed to focus on a spot for a whole second before it lit up.
    - The amount of time that an area would burn for.
    - The minimum & maximum size of a burning area.
    - The actual DoT, the jump between each stack of damage, and the balance between player damage and structure damage.
    -/AUS/- PS_Mouse
Sign In or Register to comment.