<!--quoteo(post=1790494:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:12 PM:name=scott.exe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scott.exe @ Aug 1 2010, 08:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790494"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If any of you followed the starcraft 2 scene you would know that they changed the high ground advantage from starcraft1/broodwar to starcraft 2, this caused an outrage among the community. There were tons of threads about changing it back, and keeping it "you just want broodwar with new graphics" and flaming etc... In the end they kept the change, everyone got over it and the game turned out fine. Starcraft 2 is different from broodwar in a lot of way, but still over all the same thing.
This is the exact same thing, a minor change in game play mechanics that people judge to soon/get to worked up about. If history repeats itself, bots will build and threads will be about new things. I think natural selection 2 is still gunna feel the same as natural selection over all. These minor things don't affect game play as much as some of you appear to think, the largest difference would be; marines needing to secure the area before/during setup, rather then just having a marine do it when they manage to get there.
[all imo of course]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor is NS2, SC which you seem to love to constantly compare it to.
I'd also like to ask how does adding in the fact that marines can build also, take away from the com's RTS ability/micromanaging? Just sounds more like an ignorant statement if anything, I mean the fact that having marines build ALSO only creates MORE, and I emphasis the word MORE strategies and building options, would give the commander MORE to work with, how is this hard to understand?
I just don't understand why it's this big of a deal. You're still building structures, by helping to. Indirectly, maybe but it's still an integral part of the game, just because you as a marine aren't directly building structures doesn't mean you're being robbed of it. Yeah it was cool, I always liked building cause I suck at FPS' so, it made me feel like I was doing something. But, I wanna see where they go with marine-less building, and see what happens.
<!--quoteo(post=1790525:date=Aug 1 2010, 08:47 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 1 2010, 08:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790525"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nor is NS2, SC which you seem to love to constantly compare it to.
I'd also like to ask how does adding in the fact that marines can build also, take away from the com's RTS ability/micromanaging? Just sounds more like an ignorant statement if anything, I mean the fact that having marines build ALSO only creates MORE, and I emphasis the word MORE strategies and building options, would give the commander MORE to work with, how is this hard to understand?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."
Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC? Why not just send the marines who can defend themselves while they're out there, and I'll focus on other stuff." This quickly relegates the commander to the role of the marine banker. Especially with the aspects of controlling weapon and medikit handouts having been removed. Do you want to go back to the commander having to hand out the guns? Then do you want a commander whose only real presence is as a banker to hit the upgrade keys in the correct order?
Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command. Wait.. I thought he was supposed to be the commander.. guess not.
Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point. Currently, killing a MAC is a significant strategic win for the aliens, just like killing a drifter is for the marines. Give marines the ability to build, and killing a MAC is just killing another unit, and not even that important a unit either, since it can't actually do damage on its own. This means the alien strategy if marines can build is *always* go for the marines first, deal with the MAC later. If the MAC is the only one who can build, then the strategy option for the aliens opens up -- do we attempt to run for the MAC and hope we can take it out before they get us, or do we try to take them out and eat the defenseless MAC after.
As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place. But people don't want that.. which is why I think the real motivation is that marines are feeling a loss of control -- because they no longer can simply treat the commander as their ###### and demand he put down structures where they've happened to get to.
<!--quoteo(post=1790369:date=Aug 1 2010, 03:18 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Aug 1 2010, 03:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790369"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We are not discussing adding laser dolphins here, we are discussing adding a mechanic that has allready worked for years in NS1 here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really really want Laser Dolphins now.
I'm definitely pro marine building though, but i really think it should be limited, and i can understand peoples dislike of bringing it back. However i do think they believe we want it to be just like in NS1. Where for me this is far from it. This is my idea as to how to implement it.
Make a Marine require a building tool of some sort from the armoury that replaces 1 of his weapons. Make it limited to building only certain structures, although which 1s i do not know. Im not fully in the know on what structures will be in the game yet. So i cant say which it should be able to build and which should be reserved for the MAC etc. Make it build at Say Half the speed of a MAC. Only 1 Marine or at max 2 can Build at a time. Although im not sure how to handle How they would get the authorisation to start building a structure from the commander without people being able to spam stuff and annoy them.
Thus it means you cant automatically get 1 at the start of the game. Only a few marines who want 1 will take 1. This is something that i imagine people OPTING to take when they are trying to expand and a MAC just becomes to damn vulnerable to suicide strikes, rather than being something everybody takes as standard.
Of course it has its trade offs to.
The marines are able to push forward still but now they get focused instead of the MAC seeing as there isnt 1. Whilst the building is being constructed they are now 2 marines busy making their position more vulnerable Or they are 1 marine down making them slightly more vulnerable but for a longer period. But at least they were able to get into position and start building rather than losing a MAC over and over and over.
Of course the other problem is that if you get a mac somewhere and start building then the Kharaa suicide to kill it, whats to stop the marines who now know they are unlikely to get rushed again from simply finishing the structure themselves? The only thing i can think to balance this is making it so that either Only MACs can finish building MAC structures. Or Limit the building of the structure to 1marine at a time and increase the build time again.
That's just my first idea of how this could be implemented. I dont want it NS1 style where anybody can build anywhere. I want the MACs to play an important role but i want to have both a backup and an alternate option as it were. Build tools should be 1 of those items that its only worth it for 1 player in a squad to carry so only 1 player does.
Of course this is all based on speculation as to how the game will actually play.
And as a Final note i do realise there are flaws in my idea. But for me the basic premise of how to implement Players Being able to Build into the game is there. With some creative input and some balancing I see no reason why something along these lines couldnt be introduced to the game. It wouldn't be mandatory infact it would be discouraged in a way from it being of limited use. But it would be there as an option and have its pros and its cons, aswell as imo adding another level of choices and strategies into the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1790494:date=Aug 1 2010, 06:12 PM:name=scott.exe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scott.exe @ Aug 1 2010, 06:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790494"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If any of you followed the starcraft 2 scene you would know that they changed the high ground advantage from starcraft1/broodwar to starcraft 2, this caused an outrage among the community. There were tons of threads about changing it back, and keeping it "you just want broodwar with new graphics" and flaming etc... In the end they kept the change, everyone got over it and the game turned out fine. Starcraft 2 is different from broodwar in a lot of way, but still over all the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They also originally removed attacking while in the move animation, then added it back in.
They also originally messed with the Hydra code, and then put it back in.
I get what you're saying and there's a huge amount of "trust the devs, they will make good game" behind it, but at the same time there have always been concessions from both the community to live with it and the devs going back, so that argument is moot.
Didnt even consider removal of building from marines, I thought MAC was more of a fix lack of players who actually knew that welder is used for others.
Devs are cutting wrong parts again, pressure of change is really getting into them. Too many people have no idea what they are talking about but as soon as they get the game operational we can get to the details.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1790488:date=Aug 2 2010, 02:50 AM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Aug 2 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are you going to get good commanders in pub games? It's pretty rare. Suffice to say I think UWE wants their game to be a big hit and sell a lot of copies. That means a huge influx of new players, many of whom will not have any commanding experience, or little-to-no RTS experience. NS2 should not automatically assume that people will know how to play the game; in fact one of their mission statements for NS2 was to make the learning curve easier to grasp for new players. It is very overwhelming to have the entirety of the RTS load being borne by the commanders' shoulders. Why not allow marines to help alleviate that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How are you going to get good marines in pub games? It's pretty rare. Suffice to say I think UWE wants their game to be a big hit and sell a lot of copies. That means a huge influx of new players, many of whom will not have any marine experience, or little-to-no RTS experience. NS2 should not automatically assume that people will know how to play the game; in fact one of their mission statements for NS2 was to make the learning curve easier to grasp for new players. It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.
In ns2 new players have to bother less with the rts-part unless they are interested in it and want to become a commander one day.
<!--quoteo(post=1789629:date=Jul 30 2010, 08:25 PM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (glimmerman @ Jul 30 2010, 08:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are just as valid as your argument for pressing 'w' and 'MOUSE 1'.
Some people like to build, some like to shoot, most like to do both. To be honest I think the old system was much better than this MAC thing but maybe I''m just "old school".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like chocolate cake, but I don't mind trying a new chocolate cake. It doesn't mean you go about replacing the chocolate with apricots, it just means you only have to add a few extra ingredients or perhaps a different kind of chocolate. Otherwise it's no longer a chocolate cake.
<!--quoteo(post=1790575:date=Aug 2 2010, 07:39 AM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pSyk0mAn @ Aug 2 2010, 07:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are you going to get good marines in pub games? It's pretty rare. Suffice to say I think UWE wants their game to be a big hit and sell a lot of copies. That means a huge influx of new players, many of whom will not have any marine experience, or little-to-no RTS experience. NS2 should not automatically assume that people will know how to play the game; in fact one of their mission statements for NS2 was to make the learning curve easier to grasp for new players. It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good thing we still have the MACs, then.
Also I don't really think your comparison is valid, since NS2 will primarily be a shooter game and attract people who know how to shoot (but probably not command). --- <!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 04:20 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 04:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."
Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The MAC can build but not shoot aliens, so if you use it to build, you won't be one man down. That'll make a pretty big difference, especially in the competitive scene where you have max 6 marines total.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command. Wait.. I thought he was supposed to be the commander.. guess not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The commander will have spells to assist the marines, and keeping them alive will still be hugely important (==tension). If they can build if the MAC goes down, even more so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point. Currently, killing a MAC is a significant strategic win for the aliens, just like killing a drifter is for the marines. Give marines the ability to build, and killing a MAC is just killing another unit, and not even that important a unit either, since it can't actually do damage on its own. This means the alien strategy if marines can build is *always* go for the marines first, deal with the MAC later. If the MAC is the only one who can build, then the strategy option for the aliens opens up -- do we attempt to run for the MAC and hope we can take it out before they get us, or do we try to take them out and eat the defenseless MAC after.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is it's TOO important and fragile. It's about as important as a command station but can go down if you slip up for just a second, and then you have to go back and completely start over. Kind of like the 1.0 Gorge, which got changed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hope you're joking. You're basically suggesting players tie an arm behind their back, as if that's equivalent to an actual gameplay element.
<!--quoteo(post=1790431:date=Aug 1 2010, 05:47 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 1 2010, 05:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790431"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So holding off waves of aliens is less hands on than holding down "E" while sipping a pepsi?
If it helps you guys feel better why not just stand next to the MAC/Drifter, look down, and hold E? You can pretend you're building it and you'll get that same hands on feeling!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1790364:date=Aug 1 2010, 11:10 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Aug 1 2010, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But forcing everybody in the role of "just shooting" just kills gameplay diversity, it turns the game into big deathmatch where you don't take any active role in the RTS mechanics, you are just a spectator for the RTS mechanics without even getting the feeling of taking part in them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good point by rebirth. Marine building was about involving the foot soldier in the RTS aspect game. You didn't just kill things, you had to build critical structures, scout targets for siege cannons, etc.
If marine building is omitted (as well as the new siege system which just sounds like more escorting), you don't have any direct influence on the RTS part of the game, because the commander can do it without your help.
I don't see why some people are so vehemently opposed to a compromise. There have been some excellent suggestions about how to combine marine building and MAC building.
Give marines a slower build rate. Make marine building an upgrade option. Give marines a specific tool that allows them to build. Make MACs only functional in "powered-up" areas. Etc.
However, I don't think marine building is the ONLY way to give marines a more involved role in the RTS aspect. If marine building must be omitted, perhaps other features could be introduced, such as allowing Marines to deploy and reposition certain types of buildings (like mobile armouries, mini sentries, etc.)
Might I add, and this isn't really a big deal (universally) but, it was also another aspect of the game that differentiated the marines from the aliens, and this is something that is very important to me, no matter how minimal.
Also I don't think anyone here is saying the game will be ruined if marine building is not included. People will eventually get over it and enjoy the new aspects of the game. But, until that happens its fun to argue (well, it was at one point but not it's just getting redundant) ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1790525:date=Aug 1 2010, 09:47 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 1 2010, 09:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790525"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nor is NS2, SC which you seem to love to constantly compare it to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. The further away NS2 stays away from SC the better.
After playing for a little bit... I have to agree.
Even if you do allow drifters / macs, we should be able to build the buildings ourselves as well. The macs and drifters die so easily and the AI isn't that great and they're hard to control at times. I found I couldn't even get a drifter through a door any normal marine can walk through, so it had to go all the way around. Plus, microing drifters isn't that easy with the minimap in its current state.
Once the game is fully optimized and finished, I can see macs and drifters being a very fun and good addition to the game, but I agree on having an alternate form of building by hand in addition to the builders.
Possibly consider:
<b>Gorges being able to spawn drifters at 2 plasma instead of 1</b>
<b>Marines being able to purchase a portable MAC to simulate marine-building, at a heightened cost</b>
<u>and/or</u>
<b>MACs / drifters only being used to build a new command center / hive. Marines/gorges for everything else</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1790522:date=Aug 1 2010, 10:41 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 1 2010, 10:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790522"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do ya not understand that if BOTH CAN build, you can STILL allow the MAC's to build while every marine there guards them???? That option doesn't become obsolete, but having ONLY MAC's build makes marine building obsolete.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you not understand that you can't just throw in more options without rebalancing the game? If marines could build then structures would have to be balanced on the assumption that marines will help build them, and the MAC building would probably be slowed down a lot.
<!--quoteo(post=1790575:date=Aug 2 2010, 02:39 AM:name=pSyk0mAn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pSyk0mAn @ Aug 2 2010, 02:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are you going to get good marines in pub games? It's pretty rare. Suffice to say I think UWE wants their game to be a big hit and sell a lot of copies. That means a huge influx of new players, many of whom will not have any marine experience, or little-to-no RTS experience. NS2 should not automatically assume that people will know how to play the game; in fact one of their mission statements for NS2 was to make the learning curve easier to grasp for new players. It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.
In ns2 new players have to bother less with the rts-part unless they are interested in it and want to become a commander one day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bad argument is bad. a good marine just has to shoot well. There are plenty of other players that will come from other FPS's and will know exactly what to do when they see an alien: point their gun at them and click mouse1. how hard would it be for them to get a tooltip to press 'e' on an unbuilt structure next to them? Not very. You don't require good marines for building buildings. You do require a good commander to manage MAC-only building. Plus, there was always a lack of good commanders in NS1 in the pub scene, regardless of the overall quality of players.
<!--quoteo(post=1790656:date=Aug 2 2010, 05:18 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Aug 2 2010, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not understand that you can't just throw in more options without rebalancing the game? If marines could build then structures would have to be balanced on the assumption that marines will help build them, and the MAC building would probably be slowed down a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Zero attempt has been made for balance, adding it now would be only +++++ and would require any other effort than making it possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1790473:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That vulnerability has been given to the commander who will rely on his teammates which will promote the RTS / FPS interactions that everyone wants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't know what everyone wants, nor do we agree on what results in more interaction.
<!--quoteo(post=1790473:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If teamwork and relying on the guy next to you is so important why are these same people unwilling to stay near a builder bot? Yeah, teamwork sounds real important to them...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Players aren't the same as bots. I thought that'd be obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=1790473:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If UWE can remove mundane aspects from NS1 while making the RTS side actually feel like an RTS then they should do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What you consider mundane can be considered fun by someone else, hence we're debating that the option should exist.
There's also plenty of aspects to commanding that make it 'feel like an RTS' without restricting building to bots.
<!--quoteo(post=1790656:date=Aug 3 2010, 12:18 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Aug 3 2010, 12:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not understand that you can't just throw in more options without rebalancing the game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everything that is added or changed in a game requires rebalancing. We're not disputing that, nor is it a compelling counter-argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd rather the option than any resulting increased tension due to not having one. If you really want more tension at the expense of options the marines should only be able to use one gun and so on.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC? Why not just send the marines who can defend themselves while they're out there, and I'll focus on other stuff."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the commander will have plenty to focus on other than building. There'll always be situations where a bot is the best choice, for instance players don't always listen or stick to their orders. They might not be anywhere near the building that needs to be constructed/repaired at the time either.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That ignores everything else that makes commanding tense and the dynamic nature of commander-player interaction.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't want to be completely dependent on bots, that's essentially the main point.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is your assumption about the appeal of building. Not the independence from bots I want.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But people don't want that.. which is why I think the real motivation is that marines are feeling a loss of control -- because they no longer can simply treat the commander as their ###### and demand he put down structures where they've happened to get to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our motivations have nothing to do with your narrow, negative idea of typical commander-player interaction in NS1.
To be honest, I'll let the UW crew decide what to put in the game for an alpha.
Half the game isn't even in yet, let alone finished.
I, for one, am very much okay with MACs as they are right now. Why? Because I like the concept, and the game has many, many more months of reworking. We don't know what MAC stats will be by the end of the game, we really don't know anything beyond basics, and even that will change.
So don't go assuming things work this way, or that way, from arguments on either side.
<!--quoteo(post=1790752:date=Aug 2 2010, 03:45 PM:name=Snazz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Snazz @ Aug 2 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790752"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't know what everyone wants, nor do we agree on what results in more interaction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. Did you even read that or are you just quoting everything I say now? So 'your side' doesn't want interaction between the RTS/FPS aspects?
Did you guys know that I really hate flour? I mean, it sucks and doesn't taste good. I like it when it's combined with yeast though.
<!--quoteo(post=1790840:date=Aug 2 2010, 08:47 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 08:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did you guys know that I really hate flour? I mean, it sucks and doesn't taste good. I like it when it's combined with yeast though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So flour is MACs building and yeast is marines building?
<!--quoteo(post=1790840:date=Aug 3 2010, 10:47 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 3 2010, 10:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lol. Did you even read that or are you just quoting everything I say now? So 'your side' doesn't want interaction between the RTS/FPS aspects?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 'Our side' wants more interaction too, we just have a different view of how to acheive it. That's been made quite clear so perhaps you need to do some reading.
<!--quoteo(post=1790849:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:06 PM:name=Snazz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Snazz @ Aug 2 2010, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790849"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->'Our side' wants more interaction too, we just have a different view of how to acheive it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1790870:date=Aug 2 2010, 10:57 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 10:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh ok, so I do know what everyone wants. Thanks.
I'm like some kind of soothsayer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dangit, now I have to beware the ides of march. Thanks.
Thanks for the well-written post. You definitely have me thinking. It's pretty hard to argue against allowing players to build, especially as NS1 did it and I can see some cool options with it.
So I guess MACs would create the "ghost" structure immediately, as in NS1. Then the MAC could build it or players could help build it. It feels a little clunky to me, but we could also put the "build" menu on the Command Station itself, so you wouldn't need a MAC to build at all if you didn't want to. I don't like the redundancy of it, but again this does give more options, including one for playing MAC-less and saving your plasma for other abilities later.
I also really do miss the element of NS1 where you put your weapon away as you build and are staring at a structure while you hear noises all around you and you're trying to get a structure online and asking people to cover you.
This is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. It's high-level enough that we want to make sure we get these details right as soon as possible (to minimize the affect of the change). Thanks!
<!--quoteo(post=1790890:date=Aug 3 2010, 02:13 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Aug 3 2010, 02:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for the well-written post. You definitely have me thinking. It's pretty hard to argue against allowing players to build, especially as NS1 did it and I can see some cool options with it.
So I guess MACs would create the "ghost" structure immediately, as in NS1. Then the MAC could build it or players could help build it. It feels a little clunky to me, but we could also put the "build" menu on the Command Station itself, so you wouldn't need a MAC to build at all if you didn't want to. I don't like the redundancy of it, but again this does give more options, including one for playing MAC-less and saving your plasma for other abilities later.
I also really do miss the element of NS1 where you put your weapon away as you build and are staring at a structure while you hear noises all around you and you're trying to get a structure online and asking people to cover you.
This is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. It's high-level enough that we want to make sure we get these details right as soon as possible (to minimize the affect of the change). Thanks!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also let us put com chairs anywhere and i'll buy another copy :)
Comments
This is the exact same thing, a minor change in game play mechanics that people judge to soon/get to worked up about. If history repeats itself, bots will build and threads will be about new things. I think natural selection 2 is still gunna feel the same as natural selection over all. These minor things don't affect game play as much as some of you appear to think, the largest difference would be; marines needing to secure the area before/during setup, rather then just having a marine do it when they manage to get there.
[all imo of course]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor is NS2, SC which you seem to love to constantly compare it to.
I'd also like to ask how does adding in the fact that marines can build also, take away from the com's RTS ability/micromanaging? Just sounds more like an ignorant statement if anything, I mean the fact that having marines build ALSO only creates MORE, and I emphasis the word MORE strategies and building options, would give the commander MORE to work with, how is this hard to understand?
thoughts?
I'd also like to ask how does adding in the fact that marines can build also, take away from the com's RTS ability/micromanaging? Just sounds more like an ignorant statement if anything, I mean the fact that having marines build ALSO only creates MORE, and I emphasis the word MORE strategies and building options, would give the commander MORE to work with, how is this hard to understand?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."
Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC? Why not just send the marines who can defend themselves while they're out there, and I'll focus on other stuff." This quickly relegates the commander to the role of the marine banker. Especially with the aspects of controlling weapon and medikit handouts having been removed. Do you want to go back to the commander having to hand out the guns? Then do you want a commander whose only real presence is as a banker to hit the upgrade keys in the correct order?
Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command. Wait.. I thought he was supposed to be the commander.. guess not.
Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point. Currently, killing a MAC is a significant strategic win for the aliens, just like killing a drifter is for the marines. Give marines the ability to build, and killing a MAC is just killing another unit, and not even that important a unit either, since it can't actually do damage on its own. This means the alien strategy if marines can build is *always* go for the marines first, deal with the MAC later. If the MAC is the only one who can build, then the strategy option for the aliens opens up -- do we attempt to run for the MAC and hope we can take it out before they get us, or do we try to take them out and eat the defenseless MAC after.
As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place. But people don't want that.. which is why I think the real motivation is that marines are feeling a loss of control -- because they no longer can simply treat the commander as their ###### and demand he put down structures where they've happened to get to.
I really really want Laser Dolphins now.
I'm definitely pro marine building though, but i really think it should be limited, and i can understand peoples dislike of bringing it back.
However i do think they believe we want it to be just like in NS1. Where for me this is far from it.
This is my idea as to how to implement it.
Make a Marine require a building tool of some sort from the armoury that replaces 1 of his weapons.
Make it limited to building only certain structures, although which 1s i do not know. Im not fully in the know on what structures will be in the game yet. So i cant say which it should be able to build and which should be reserved for the MAC etc.
Make it build at Say Half the speed of a MAC.
Only 1 Marine or at max 2 can Build at a time.
Although im not sure how to handle How they would get the authorisation to start building a structure from the commander without people being able to spam stuff and annoy them.
Thus it means you cant automatically get 1 at the start of the game. Only a few marines who want 1 will take 1.
This is something that i imagine people OPTING to take when they are trying to expand and a MAC just becomes to damn vulnerable to suicide strikes, rather than being something everybody takes as standard.
Of course it has its trade offs to.
The marines are able to push forward still but now they get focused instead of the MAC seeing as there isnt 1.
Whilst the building is being constructed they are now 2 marines busy making their position more vulnerable Or they are 1 marine down making them slightly more vulnerable but for a longer period.
But at least they were able to get into position and start building rather than losing a MAC over and over and over.
Of course the other problem is that if you get a mac somewhere and start building then the Kharaa suicide to kill it, whats to stop the marines who now know they are unlikely to get rushed again from simply finishing the structure themselves?
The only thing i can think to balance this is making it so that either Only MACs can finish building MAC structures. Or Limit the building of the structure to 1marine at a time and increase the build time again.
That's just my first idea of how this could be implemented.
I dont want it NS1 style where anybody can build anywhere. I want the MACs to play an important role but i want to have both a backup and an alternate option as it were. Build tools should be 1 of those items that its only worth it for 1 player in a squad to carry so only 1 player does.
Of course this is all based on speculation as to how the game will actually play.
And as a Final note i do realise there are flaws in my idea. But for me the basic premise of how to implement Players Being able to Build into the game is there. With some creative input and some balancing I see no reason why something along these lines couldnt be introduced to the game.
It wouldn't be mandatory infact it would be discouraged in a way from it being of limited use. But it would be there as an option and have its pros and its cons, aswell as imo adding another level of choices and strategies into the game.
They also originally removed attacking while in the move animation, then added it back in.
They also originally messed with the Hydra code, and then put it back in.
I get what you're saying and there's a huge amount of "trust the devs, they will make good game" behind it, but at the same time there have always been concessions from both the community to live with it and the devs going back, so that argument is moot.
Devs are cutting wrong parts again, pressure of change is really getting into them. Too many people have no idea what they are talking about but as soon as they get the game operational we can get to the details.
How are you going to get good marines in pub games? It's pretty rare. Suffice to say I think UWE wants their game to be a big hit and sell a lot of copies. That means a huge influx of new players, many of whom will not have any marine experience, or little-to-no RTS experience. NS2 should not automatically assume that people will know how to play the game; in fact one of their mission statements for NS2 was to make the learning curve easier to grasp for new players.
It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.
In ns2 new players have to bother less with the rts-part unless they are interested in it and want to become a commander one day.
Some people like to build, some like to shoot, most like to do both. To be honest I think the old system was much better than this MAC thing but maybe I''m just "old school".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i totally agree. the old system all the way
It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good thing we still have the MACs, then.
Also I don't really think your comparison is valid, since NS2 will primarily be a shooter game and attract people who know how to shoot (but probably not command).
---
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 04:20 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 04:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."
Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The MAC can build but not shoot aliens, so if you use it to build, you won't be one man down. That'll make a pretty big difference, especially in the competitive scene where you have max 6 marines total.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command. Wait.. I thought he was supposed to be the commander.. guess not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The commander will have spells to assist the marines, and keeping them alive will still be hugely important (==tension). If they can build if the MAC goes down, even more so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point. Currently, killing a MAC is a significant strategic win for the aliens, just like killing a drifter is for the marines. Give marines the ability to build, and killing a MAC is just killing another unit, and not even that important a unit either, since it can't actually do damage on its own. This means the alien strategy if marines can build is *always* go for the marines first, deal with the MAC later. If the MAC is the only one who can build, then the strategy option for the aliens opens up -- do we attempt to run for the MAC and hope we can take it out before they get us, or do we try to take them out and eat the defenseless MAC after.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is it's TOO important and fragile. It's about as important as a command station but can go down if you slip up for just a second, and then you have to go back and completely start over. Kind of like the 1.0 Gorge, which got changed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you're joking. You're basically suggesting players tie an arm behind their back, as if that's equivalent to an actual gameplay element.
If it helps you guys feel better why not just stand next to the MAC/Drifter, look down, and hold E? You can pretend you're building it and you'll get that same hands on feeling!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1790364:date=Aug 1 2010, 11:10 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Aug 1 2010, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But forcing everybody in the role of "just shooting" just kills gameplay diversity, it turns the game into big deathmatch where you don't take any active role in the RTS mechanics, you are just a spectator for the RTS mechanics without even getting the feeling of taking part in them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good point by rebirth. Marine building was about involving the foot soldier in the RTS aspect game. You didn't just kill things, you had to build critical structures, scout targets for siege cannons, etc.
If marine building is omitted (as well as the new siege system which just sounds like more escorting), you don't have any direct influence on the RTS part of the game, because the commander can do it without your help.
I don't see why some people are so vehemently opposed to a compromise. There have been some excellent suggestions about how to combine marine building and MAC building.
Give marines a slower build rate. Make marine building an upgrade option. Give marines a specific tool that allows them to build. Make MACs only functional in "powered-up" areas. Etc.
However, I don't think marine building is the ONLY way to give marines a more involved role in the RTS aspect. If marine building must be omitted, perhaps other features could be introduced, such as allowing Marines to deploy and reposition certain types of buildings (like mobile armouries, mini sentries, etc.)
Exactly. The further away NS2 stays away from SC the better.
Even if you do allow drifters / macs, we should be able to build the buildings ourselves as well. The macs and drifters die so easily and the AI isn't that great and they're hard to control at times. I found I couldn't even get a drifter through a door any normal marine can walk through, so it had to go all the way around. Plus, microing drifters isn't that easy with the minimap in its current state.
Once the game is fully optimized and finished, I can see macs and drifters being a very fun and good addition to the game, but I agree on having an alternate form of building by hand in addition to the builders.
Possibly consider:
<b>Gorges being able to spawn drifters at 2 plasma instead of 1</b>
<b>Marines being able to purchase a portable MAC to simulate marine-building, at a heightened cost</b>
<u>and/or</u>
<b>MACs / drifters only being used to build a new command center / hive. Marines/gorges for everything else</b>
Do you not understand that you can't just throw in more options without rebalancing the game? If marines could build then structures would have to be balanced on the assumption that marines will help build them, and the MAC building would probably be slowed down a lot.
It is very annoying as a commander, when clueless, overwhelmed marines don't know how and when to build and thus break that game, because you can't expand or get upgrades done.
In ns2 new players have to bother less with the rts-part unless they are interested in it and want to become a commander one day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bad argument is bad. a good marine just has to shoot well. There are plenty of other players that will come from other FPS's and will know exactly what to do when they see an alien: point their gun at them and click mouse1. how hard would it be for them to get a tooltip to press 'e' on an unbuilt structure next to them? Not very. You don't require good marines for building buildings. You do require a good commander to manage MAC-only building. Plus, there was always a lack of good commanders in NS1 in the pub scene, regardless of the overall quality of players.
Zero attempt has been made for balance, adding it now would be only +++++ and would require any other effort than making it possible.
You don't know what everyone wants, nor do we agree on what results in more interaction.
<!--quoteo(post=1790473:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If teamwork and relying on the guy next to you is so important why are these same people unwilling to stay near a builder bot? Yeah, teamwork sounds real important to them...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Players aren't the same as bots. I thought that'd be obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=1790473:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 2 2010, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If UWE can remove mundane aspects from NS1 while making the RTS side actually feel like an RTS then they should do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you consider mundane can be considered fun by someone else, hence we're debating that the option should exist.
There's also plenty of aspects to commanding that make it 'feel like an RTS' without restricting building to bots.
<!--quoteo(post=1790656:date=Aug 3 2010, 12:18 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Aug 3 2010, 12:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you not understand that you can't just throw in more options without rebalancing the game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything that is added or changed in a game requires rebalancing. We're not disputing that, nor is it a compelling counter-argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know that tension you so want as a builder? You know who gets it now? The commander. You know what happens if marines can build? That tension is gone. That huge interdependance of marines depending on the commander to ensure the MAC stays safe so it can build the next part of their forward base, and of the commander depending on the marines to protect him as he pilots the MAC.. that's gone. Instead, if the MAC dies but marines can build it's "Oh.. oh well. They'll get it done."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd rather the option than any resulting increased tension due to not having one. If you really want more tension at the expense of options the marines should only be able to use one gun and so on.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which quickly leads to the question of "Why bother sending a MAC? Why not just send the marines who can defend themselves while they're out there, and I'll focus on other stuff."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the commander will have plenty to focus on other than building. There'll always be situations where a bot is the best choice, for instance players don't always listen or stick to their orders. They might not be anywhere near the building that needs to be constructed/repaired at the time either.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having the marines able to build effectively means that the Commander has no tension. He doesn't have the tension of making sure the marines are properly supplied, and he doesn't have the tension of making sure that he's getting things to the build site. All he's got is the waiting game until marines get to the site so he can drop the structure as they command.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That ignores everything else that makes commanding tense and the dynamic nature of commander-player interaction.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, having a marine able to build means that the MAC is no longer a focal point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to be completely dependent on bots, that's essentially the main point.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As pointed out, everything about marine building can be replicated by standing beside a MAC, facing the build target, and holding down E.. the building builds, you're vulnerable. Tah-dah.. tension back in place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is your assumption about the appeal of building. Not the independence from bots I want.
<!--quoteo(post=1790533:date=Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 2 2010, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But people don't want that.. which is why I think the real motivation is that marines are feeling a loss of control -- because they no longer can simply treat the commander as their ###### and demand he put down structures where they've happened to get to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our motivations have nothing to do with your narrow, negative idea of typical commander-player interaction in NS1.
Half the game isn't even in yet, let alone finished.
I, for one, am very much okay with MACs as they are right now. Why? Because I like the concept, and the game has many, many more months of reworking. We don't know what MAC stats will be by the end of the game, we really don't know anything beyond basics, and even that will change.
So don't go assuming things work this way, or that way, from arguments on either side.
lol. Did you even read that or are you just quoting everything I say now? So 'your side' doesn't want interaction between the RTS/FPS aspects?
Did you guys know that I really hate flour? I mean, it sucks and doesn't taste good. I like it when it's combined with yeast though.
So flour is MACs building and yeast is marines building?
'Our side' wants more interaction too, we just have a different view of how to acheive it. That's been made quite clear so perhaps you need to do some reading.
Oh ok, so I do know what everyone wants. Thanks.
I'm like some kind of soothsayer.
I'm like some kind of soothsayer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dangit, now I have to beware the ides of march. Thanks.
So I guess MACs would create the "ghost" structure immediately, as in NS1. Then the MAC could build it or players could help build it. It feels a little clunky to me, but we could also put the "build" menu on the Command Station itself, so you wouldn't need a MAC to build at all if you didn't want to. I don't like the redundancy of it, but again this does give more options, including one for playing MAC-less and saving your plasma for other abilities later.
I also really do miss the element of NS1 where you put your weapon away as you build and are staring at a structure while you hear noises all around you and you're trying to get a structure online and asking people to cover you.
This is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. It's high-level enough that we want to make sure we get these details right as soon as possible (to minimize the affect of the change). Thanks!
So I guess MACs would create the "ghost" structure immediately, as in NS1. Then the MAC could build it or players could help build it. It feels a little clunky to me, but we could also put the "build" menu on the Command Station itself, so you wouldn't need a MAC to build at all if you didn't want to. I don't like the redundancy of it, but again this does give more options, including one for playing MAC-less and saving your plasma for other abilities later.
I also really do miss the element of NS1 where you put your weapon away as you build and are staring at a structure while you hear noises all around you and you're trying to get a structure online and asking people to cover you.
This is exactly the kind of feedback that's helpful. It's high-level enough that we want to make sure we get these details right as soon as possible (to minimize the affect of the change). Thanks!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also let us put com chairs anywhere and i'll buy another copy :)