<!--quoteo(post=1790890:date=Aug 2 2010, 11:13 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Aug 2 2010, 11:13 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-->
And this is why you guys are great, you actually listen and take part of the community. And giving options is always a great thing because, for those that hate building, will never have to considering MAC's can build for them instead. I also kind of saw the MAC's more as base builders for when your team is pushing forward and no one is left back to repair or rebuild, as well as distract building. Where you push your team one way, send MAC's and a marine or two another to build, while your main force is keeping the aliens occupied.
Of course like you said it gives you more choices resource wise, you have the option of rushing tech, with marines building, or taking it slower and go for map control, this way you have choices and it gives the game more variety/strategies making it a more interesting game every round.
<!--quoteo(post=1790890:date=Aug 3 2010, 04:13 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Aug 3 2010, 04:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
just played ns1 today and it really does addsa lot of suspense...
<!--quoteo(post=1790890:date=Aug 3 2010, 12:13 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Aug 3 2010, 12:13 AM) <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--> I don't think anyone minds the time it takes for the MAC to drop a structure, so it really wouldn't matter much about the bot getting there and dropping it. I think most people simply didn't like the idea of a build bot being the only way it can get completed, what with it being up to a comm who could be otherwise engaged too busy to realize his tower isn't quite finished when a skulk took a bite out of crime. A marine with a welder could finish that job otherwise, or the MAC/comm could simply drop and run so the remaining forces can keep moving, leaving most marines to expand and capture and one guy to build. No real change to the current structure of the build menu, and opens up avenues of gameplay.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why cant the com place structures like he does in ns1, ie from his own menu. and then select a MAC and tell it to go build it. Im not a fan of having to click on the MAC in order to get to the build menu.
I would prefer this as it would allow the team to not have any mac's if they dont want (saving res), but in the pub games if no1 wants to build then the com has an extra option.
So we just have to whine enough and can get stuff changed even before we had a real chance of playing with the new sestem ?
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.
<!--quoteo(post=1790949:date=Aug 3 2010, 09:54 AM:name=5EuroSchein)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (5EuroSchein @ Aug 3 2010, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790949"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we just have to whine enough and can get stuff changed even before we had a real chance of playing with the new sestem ?
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because it's outrageous that the loyal fanbase of about a decade, who are supporting the dev team financially as well, have a say in changes that seem way out of place of NS's essence. Public outcry is powerful if it's justified, just look @ realID on bnet forums. Granted, Blizzard only relented because Cataclysm and SC2 were about to come out but it's still a decent motivator for devs. Yes stick to your guns but don't be rigid that you anger the majority of your fans.
Remember, nearly every extremely popular mod that moved on didn't need to alter so many gameplay mechanics - if any. Most people don't want a brand new game where everything or too much is changed. I just read in another thread how one person can see how the "powergrid" system may be confusing to new players. If you can't figure out the powergrid system within 10 seconds then stick to MW2. Exactly what demographic do you want to cater for now?
<!--quoteo(post=1790949:date=Aug 3 2010, 05:54 AM:name=5EuroSchein)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (5EuroSchein @ Aug 3 2010, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790949"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we just have to whine enough and can get stuff changed even before we had a real chance of playing with the new sestem ?
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
did you not read? flayra playtested it. He said he felt that the tension from building in NS1 was missing. The thread was made by none other than a playtester. Why do you assert that no playtesting has been done with this, when the entirety of NS1 was essentially a playtest pool from which to draw experience for NS2's mechanics?
Just out of interest who said that about the powergrid? I think I remember someone referencing that Flayra was worried that it might not be intuitive / or understandable and stated so in the Podcast17 interview, which is the entire reason it's under-review.
UWE has stated it wants to 'Unite the world through play', it can hardly do that it's games are unintuitive, that's not the same as simple or easy, you can have extreme levels of complexity that able to be understood at various levels the first of which is a easy jump for the average person.
5EuroSchein has a valid concern, but perhaps he didn't state it in a very helpful manner. I don't think there's a danger of UWE making anything but the game they want to make.
I just hope that the commander's role is improved in what it can do, I thought the builders were a way of giving them the reason to have some non-player interaction that the commander can handle himself without needing to rely on the little people below. But judging from the recent podcast I guess there's a lot of abilities we don't know of yet.
Also, Flayra stole my Gorge-Hat avatar! P.S <b>It's yours buddy</b>, just promise that we get Gorge-plushies at some point :p
<!--quoteo(post=1790949:date=Aug 3 2010, 11:54 AM:name=5EuroSchein)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (5EuroSchein @ Aug 3 2010, 11:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790949"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we just have to whine enough and can get stuff changed even before we had a real chance of playing with the new sestem ?
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My thoughts exactely..... Â except for the unnecessary threat of asking for a refund, though.
It too surprised me that Flayra, as the lead-game designer, should so readily cave in to public no-hard-facts-based vapourous speculations on hypothetical gameplay. Â
<!--coloro:#ffff00--><span style="color:#ffff00"><!--/coloro-->If you have a vision for gameplay you should stand up to it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> at least until hard evidence proves that you should reconsider your position.
Anyway, i think there are more important points to be adressed at this stage of the game development.
<!--quoteo(post=1790353:date=Aug 1 2010, 10:44 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Aug 1 2010, 10:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790353"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->then call for a MAC, see how that works?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Guys. We're missing the obvious. We need a MACPACK (a portmanteau of MAC and backpack). Give the commander an option to fold up the MAC, players can pick it up, and drop it wherever needed. Screw the escort missions, slink that sucka on your back!
<!--quoteo(post=1790975:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:14 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 3 2010, 07:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790975"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Guys. We're missing the obvious. We need a MACPACK (a portmanteau of MAC and backpack). Give the commander an option to fold up the MAC, players can pick it up, and drop it wherever needed. Screw the escort missions, slink that sucka on your back!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be pointless. Why not just let marine players build by default then.
So you wouldn't have to hold down the E button, and get bitten in the ass. So the MAC still has a resource cost, and if you die, it still represents a loss in resources. You should try thinking about it, rather than shoot the idea down immediately because you have your own preconceptions about how the game should play.
As in, the Commander places the blueprint of the structure a la NS1 from his own build menu, Marines can still build (albeit much slower than a MAC) but the Commander has the option of investing in MACs, which automatically go and build any blueprint he places.
They still represent a gamble - Do you buy a MAC or two to speed up your building, or save the resources and get your Marines to build when they could be doing something else? Do you take 2 or more Marines out of the fight (1 to build, 1 to cover) for several minutes or let get a MAC to do it in half the time?
You could balance this a couple of ways. Structures build at 1 (slower) speed no matter how many Marines are helping, while they build at 1 (faster) speed when a MAC is doing it, perhaps.
The tactical possibilities here are huge - a good Commander could be building stuff in two places at once, one with a Marine team, one with Macs.
Before anyone asks, no, Ive no idea how complicated this would be to code. I just thought it sounded like a good idea. I think it would still work even without the completely automated aspect.
Some of these suggestions are just getting way too complicated. I think MACs and players need to be distinct. They need to have immediately obvious, clear cut roles that doesn't require the player to think about the question "why", but "how". It also makes balancing a lot easier when you know what things should be balanced against what based on what they should be doing.
I think having upgrades that allow marines (and MACs) to perform an increasingly wide variety of functions would be a nice way to give marines something to do other than shoot, yet at the same time, make it clear to players that marines are distinct entities with a specific role. By having an explicit upgrade button, you are acknowledging and understanding the fact that you want to modify the role of the entity in question to something else.
This is kind of like how in NS1, Aliens by default have specific roles based on their innate abilities. By upgrading, you can bend these roles one way or another with certain combinations of upgrades.
I quite liked building buildings as marine! I was very disappointed when they announced it would be dropped.
It felt like one of those decisions which make the game lean more towards FPS. And that's disappoint for me, because the strength of NS1 was always the team spirit of it all. I even felt adventurous just building things right behind the front line, skulks wheezing past, fades blinking around and you're there pressing 'e'... that was a lot of ACTION (I actually mean this seriously).
So what's the gist of this thread? Will it be implemented back in?
I just hope that if we start making commanding and building more like NS1 again, that the MAC won't be rendered near useless for experienced pub and competitive play. I'd like to at least get a feel for the MAC when the netcode and hitboxes get fixed, so I can see how much I enjoy his role, before we revert back to an older game style.
I also really hope the Power Grid/DI system stays in. These changes are what got me excited about NS2 in the first place, since they seemed to unique and opened up endless strategic possibilities. I really don't want to play a graphically updated, slightly gameplay tweaked version of NS1. I played NS1 for years, and while it was one of my favorite games of all time, ever game eventually gets old on you.
<!--quoteo(post=1790970:date=Aug 3 2010, 12:02 PM:name=Sturmwind)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sturmwind @ Aug 3 2010, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My thoughts exactely..... Â except for the unnecessary threat of asking for a refund, though.
It too surprised me that Flayra, as the lead-game designer, should so readily cave in to public no-hard-facts-based vapourous speculations on hypothetical gameplay. Â
<!--coloro:#ffff00--><span style="color:#ffff00"><!--/coloro-->If you have a vision for gameplay you should stand up to it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> at least until hard evidence proves that you should reconsider your position.
Anyway, i think there are more important points to be adressed at this stage of the game development.
edit: typo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly how I feel.
Play test the current system first before 1.0 then if it needs changing do it then. Don't change it before we've had a proper go with it.
Where did they state that it will be included in the next patch? This alpha has truckloads of problems, so it may be low priority until the other, technical problems are fixed.
I think <b>forcing</b> commander to have one more task to handle it will just make it more unfriendly to new commanders. The old system was already hard enough to master as you have to deal with real players having different problems at the same time. Adding more commanders to the role isn't going to help either, it will only make it more confusing and remove people avaliable from the battlefield.
The main balance issue of NS1 regarding building is that as an alien you don't have the build option avaliable for every lifeform. So why not make a "toll" to have an option to build? Like a weapon (welder?). If costs resources to be a Gorge it should be fair enough to cost for marines to have an option to build. That way you give commander an option to delegate building skills to some players if he see the need (that would even allow back ninjas). If he doesn't want marines to waste time building it is up to him not giving the weapon. Plain simple. I don't know why argue so much to have or not to have building if you can easily delegate to commander to chose to have or NOT have marines building something.
<!--quoteo(post=1789527:date=Jul 30 2010, 06:10 PM:name=Revi.uk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Revi.uk @ Jul 30 2010, 06:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789527"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1 everyone hated being the commander, at the start of every game there would be "who wants to comm..." then someone would almost have to forfeit their game in order to do something they disliked. The point of the MACs is to make being a commander more rewarding and exciting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having played NS1 throughout its stages of development, even though it now seems like a chore to be com due to the lack of input from your team back in the day where games were usually filled with chatter among people and strong communities formed being commander was a really, REALLY fun thing to do and was extremely rewarding / challenging.
PrefixÉirinn go BráchJoin Date: 2006-12-31Member: 59353Members, Constellation
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1789562:date=Jul 30 2010, 07:12 PM:name=Killpo1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Killpo1 @ Jul 30 2010, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1789562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think a Marine should be able to assist the bots, but of course that will take their attention away, you could always make it also that you could speed up how fast the bots build by taking manual control over it, like press E on the MAC and it'll bring up a Display allowing you to take manual control and allowing you to build faster, however it'll distract you from your surroundings, could also be applied if their was ever a weapon attached to the MAC also. Another Thought, maybe like a little psp sort of device that a member of the squad has that links up with the squads MAC so say if their was vent he wanted to scope out or a scaffolding above him he wanted to check out he could bring up the MAC hud and then fly up their and scope it out, while his squad protects him of course.
Not saying it has to be this way just something I thought up to make it engaging and worth while for both parties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually quite like this idea. Runs parallel with today's millilary use of robots too. Although can't see many people using it ingame, it would be too slow/pace changing for scouting.
i think having the commander do the same stuff he's been doing in NS1 is a good idea, and then give the marine soldiers the ability to control the macs as the commander is busy with other things. The downside to having the mac is that you'd have to follow it to the build point, and it takes some of your own player resources. including the mac building menu into one of the "zxc" menus while in the same room with the mac would be a good idea, instead of running up to it.
oh, and obviously let the marines assist in building as well, or just let the macs place objects only.
So in short: When the commander is busy, have the marines use macs to build stuff out of their own expense.
I've been kind of in favor of seeing how MACs worked out, but I'd never thought about it from the perspective of "What are your tasks as a regular marine?" before. If building is only for MACs, then being a marine literally just means shooting. Going where the commander tells you to go and shooting stuff. It will be almost like the RTS aspect is noninteractive for the average player. I really don't like that.
Having considered it from that perspective, I think players should definitely at least have the option of building.
The best option I can think of is to have some kind of middle ground, allowing both marines and MACs to build in some capacity, but making sure a fusion of the two is most efficient.
<u><b>My suggestion:</b></u>
a player/MAC can only build a structure to half HP, and the other one would need to come along to bring the structure to full HP (if desired). That way, a strategy of only MACs or only marines would both work, but your structures would less vulnerable to attack if you used a mix of both.
Let the bot "drop" and build the structure, and the marines can assist by pressing "E". That way the bots are still needed/useful but marines can build again.
I think I am generally on the side of "let Marines build", but at the same time I do agree that this is too early to think about changing the system as it currently stands. Get the Alpha out of the way, sort out the bugs and the problems and then start the hard refinement of the playing side in the Beta. Not enough people have had a proper game yet because of technical issues, and *no-one* has played the full game (outside of the devs and key playtesters, at least, if at all)...
Balancing now on the basis of a very loyal and very vocal few may seem noble but it's a slippery slope at this stage.
IMO if commanders are going to be able to plop down structures anywhere for marines to build like before, then there's no point in using MACs to create structures at all. In that case dropping a structure should be a base commander ability like in NS1, and if he wants to he can then assign a MAC to help build it. I'm not convinced that this really justifies the existence of MACs though, they would be little more than base helpers. They should at least build much more quickly than marines IMO so comms are incentivized to send them to the front lines, and marines will want to leave it to them when possible.
Comments
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-->
And this is why you guys are great, you actually listen and take part of the community. And giving options is always a great thing because, for those that hate building, will never have to considering MAC's can build for them instead. I also kind of saw the MAC's more as base builders for when your team is pushing forward and no one is left back to repair or rebuild, as well as distract building. Where you push your team one way, send MAC's and a marine or two another to build, while your main force is keeping the aliens occupied.
Of course like you said it gives you more choices resource wise, you have the option of rushing tech, with marines building, or taking it slower and go for map control, this way you have choices and it gives the game more variety/strategies making it a more interesting game every round.
just played ns1 today and it really does addsa lot of suspense...
thanks chuckie
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-->
I don't think anyone minds the time it takes for the MAC to drop a structure, so it really wouldn't matter much about the bot getting there and dropping it. I think most people simply didn't like the idea of a build bot being the only way it can get completed, what with it being up to a comm who could be otherwise engaged too busy to realize his tower isn't quite finished when a skulk took a bite out of crime. A marine with a welder could finish that job otherwise, or the MAC/comm could simply drop and run so the remaining forces can keep moving, leaving most marines to expand and capture and one guy to build. No real change to the current structure of the build menu, and opens up avenues of gameplay.
Why cant the com place structures like he does in ns1, ie from his own menu. and then select a MAC and tell it to go build it. Im not a fan of having to click on the MAC in order to get to the build menu.
I would prefer this as it would allow the team to not have any mac's if they dont want (saving res), but in the pub games if no1 wants to build then the com has an extra option.
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because it's outrageous that the loyal fanbase of about a decade, who are supporting the dev team financially as well, have a say in changes that seem way out of place of NS's essence. Public outcry is powerful if it's justified, just look @ realID on bnet forums. Granted, Blizzard only relented because Cataclysm and SC2 were about to come out but it's still a decent motivator for devs. Yes stick to your guns but don't be rigid that you anger the majority of your fans.
Remember, nearly every extremely popular mod that moved on didn't need to alter so many gameplay mechanics - if any. Most people don't want a brand new game where everything or too much is changed. I just read in another thread how one person can see how the "powergrid" system may be confusing to new players. If you can't figure out the powergrid system within 10 seconds then stick to MW2. Exactly what demographic do you want to cater for now?
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
did you not read? flayra playtested it. He said he felt that the tension from building in NS1 was missing. The thread was made by none other than a playtester. Why do you assert that no playtesting has been done with this, when the entirety of NS1 was essentially a playtest pool from which to draw experience for NS2's mechanics?
UWE has stated it wants to 'Unite the world through play', it can hardly do that it's games are unintuitive, that's not the same as simple or easy, you can have extreme levels of complexity that able to be understood at various levels the first of which is a easy jump for the average person.
5EuroSchein has a valid concern, but perhaps he didn't state it in a very helpful manner. I don't think there's a danger of UWE making anything but the game they want to make.
But judging from the recent podcast I guess there's a lot of abilities we don't know of yet.
Also, Flayra stole my Gorge-Hat avatar!
P.S <b>It's yours buddy</b>, just promise that we get Gorge-plushies at some point :p
Impressive !
I have to monitor this development now. If it continues i might have to ask for a refund. If stuff can get changed without any real playtesting just because the community does not like the idea of something it normally is the first step down the bin for a game.
Too many times i have seen this kind of deleopment fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My thoughts exactely..... Â except for the unnecessary threat of asking for a refund, though.
It too surprised me that Flayra, as the lead-game designer, should so readily cave in to public no-hard-facts-based vapourous speculations on hypothetical gameplay. Â
<!--coloro:#ffff00--><span style="color:#ffff00"><!--/coloro-->If you have a vision for gameplay you should stand up to it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> at least until hard evidence proves that you should reconsider your position.
Anyway, i think there are more important points to be adressed at this stage of the game development.
edit: typo
Guys. We're missing the obvious. We need a MACPACK (a portmanteau of MAC and backpack). Give the commander an option to fold up the MAC, players can pick it up, and drop it wherever needed. Screw the escort missions, slink that sucka on your back!
That would be pointless. Why not just let marine players build by default then.
As in, the Commander places the blueprint of the structure a la NS1 from his own build menu, Marines can still build (albeit much slower than a MAC) but the Commander has the option of investing in MACs, which automatically go and build any blueprint he places.
They still represent a gamble - Do you buy a MAC or two to speed up your building, or save the resources and get your Marines to build when they could be doing something else? Do you take 2 or more Marines out of the fight (1 to build, 1 to cover) for several minutes or let get a MAC to do it in half the time?
You could balance this a couple of ways. Structures build at 1 (slower) speed no matter how many Marines are helping, while they build at 1 (faster) speed when a MAC is doing it, perhaps.
The tactical possibilities here are huge - a good Commander could be building stuff in two places at once, one with a Marine team, one with Macs.
Before anyone asks, no, Ive no idea how complicated this would be to code. I just thought it sounded like a good idea. I think it would still work even without the completely automated aspect.
I think having upgrades that allow marines (and MACs) to perform an increasingly wide variety of functions would be a nice way to give marines something to do other than shoot, yet at the same time, make it clear to players that marines are distinct entities with a specific role. By having an explicit upgrade button, you are acknowledging and understanding the fact that you want to modify the role of the entity in question to something else.
This is kind of like how in NS1, Aliens by default have specific roles based on their innate abilities. By upgrading, you can bend these roles one way or another with certain combinations of upgrades.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74B5EeOSjUA&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74B5EeOSjUA...feature=related</a>
It felt like one of those decisions which make the game lean more towards FPS. And that's disappoint for me, because the strength of NS1 was always the team spirit of it all. I even felt adventurous just building things right behind the front line, skulks wheezing past, fades blinking around and you're there pressing 'e'... that was a lot of ACTION (I actually mean this seriously).
So what's the gist of this thread? Will it be implemented back in?
I also really hope the Power Grid/DI system stays in. These changes are what got me excited about NS2 in the first place, since they seemed to unique and opened up endless strategic possibilities. I really don't want to play a graphically updated, slightly gameplay tweaked version of NS1. I played NS1 for years, and while it was one of my favorite games of all time, ever game eventually gets old on you.
It too surprised me that Flayra, as the lead-game designer, should so readily cave in to public no-hard-facts-based vapourous speculations on hypothetical gameplay. Â
<!--coloro:#ffff00--><span style="color:#ffff00"><!--/coloro-->If you have a vision for gameplay you should stand up to it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> at least until hard evidence proves that you should reconsider your position.
Anyway, i think there are more important points to be adressed at this stage of the game development.
edit: typo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly how I feel.
Play test the current system first before 1.0 then if it needs changing do it then. Don't change it before we've had a proper go with it.
Edit : I wouldn't go so far and demand a refund.
This alpha has truckloads of problems, so it may be low priority until the other, technical problems are fixed.
The main balance issue of NS1 regarding building is that as an alien you don't have the build option avaliable for every lifeform. So why not make a "toll" to have an option to build? Like a weapon (welder?). If costs resources to be a Gorge it should be fair enough to cost for marines to have an option to build. That way you give commander an option to delegate building skills to some players if he see the need (that would even allow back ninjas). If he doesn't want marines to waste time building it is up to him not giving the weapon. Plain simple. I don't know why argue so much to have or not to have building if you can easily delegate to commander to chose to have or NOT have marines building something.
My 2 cents
Having played NS1 throughout its stages of development, even though it now seems like a chore to be com due to the lack of input from your team back in the day where games were usually filled with chatter among people and strong communities formed being commander was a really, REALLY fun thing to do and was extremely rewarding / challenging.
Not saying it has to be this way just something I thought up to make it engaging and worth while for both parties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually quite like this idea. Runs parallel with today's millilary use of robots too. Although can't see many people using it ingame, it would be too slow/pace changing for scouting.
oh, and obviously let the marines assist in building as well, or just let the macs place objects only.
So in short: When the commander is busy, have the marines use macs to build stuff out of their own expense.
Having considered it from that perspective, I think players should definitely at least have the option of building.
The best option I can think of is to have some kind of middle ground, allowing both marines and MACs to build in some capacity, but making sure a fusion of the two is most efficient.
<u><b>My suggestion:</b></u>
a player/MAC can only build a structure to half HP, and the other one would need to come along to bring the structure to full HP (if desired). That way, a strategy of only MACs or only marines would both work, but your structures would less vulnerable to attack if you used a mix of both.
Balancing now on the basis of a very loyal and very vocal few may seem noble but it's a slippery slope at this stage.