Alternate marine building method
Chris0132
Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
<div class="IPBDescription">As opposed to the THRILLING GAMEPLAY of holding E on things.</div>Ok I hate NS1's building mechanic, I don't like staring at things waiting for them to build, but I do like protecting dangerous locations and appreciate what the mechanic tries to do.
So hows about this, marines can build structures, but rather than doing it by holding E, they get some sort of little tool thingy they can attach to the building, and that builds it for them as long as they stay within range.
So to build a structure, rather than staring at it and holding E, you get your build tool and clamp it onto the building, then protect the building until it's built. It has all the functionality of NS1 building, allowing the same freedom of movement, but is less boring for the user.
After the building is done you get the build tool back and can place it on another one, same goes for if you leave the area.
Area can be about 30 feet in any direction around the building let's say.
You can rationalise it by saying the marines carry nanites or something and the tool draws them out and uses them to build the building, or use whatever logic allows the high temperature plasma welder to heal marine armor, or whatever. Rationalisation wasn't exactly the first thing I thought of, I'm more interested in the gameplay.
So, y/n.
So hows about this, marines can build structures, but rather than doing it by holding E, they get some sort of little tool thingy they can attach to the building, and that builds it for them as long as they stay within range.
So to build a structure, rather than staring at it and holding E, you get your build tool and clamp it onto the building, then protect the building until it's built. It has all the functionality of NS1 building, allowing the same freedom of movement, but is less boring for the user.
After the building is done you get the build tool back and can place it on another one, same goes for if you leave the area.
Area can be about 30 feet in any direction around the building let's say.
You can rationalise it by saying the marines carry nanites or something and the tool draws them out and uses them to build the building, or use whatever logic allows the high temperature plasma welder to heal marine armor, or whatever. Rationalisation wasn't exactly the first thing I thought of, I'm more interested in the gameplay.
So, y/n.
Comments
-Your idea requires another weapon/tool to be designed and created by the devs
-Your tool accomplishes the same thing as a MAC does, building something while you guard it
-Your idea requires another weapon/tool to be designed and created by the devs
-Your tool accomplishes the same thing as a MAC does, building something while you guard it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't miss the point I just don't agree with it. This is supposed to be a compromise between the two, I would much rather not have any marine building, but this is supposed to offer the freedom of marine building that a lot of people were wanting, without the stupid mechanic that I don't like which is E building. The freedom of movement is a legitimate concern, even though I don't think it's important I can certainly not contest that having to escort MACs will impose limitations on where you can build and that you can't give that freedom back without involving players. E building on the other hand is simply one way to achieve the same goal.
It doesn't even need a model or anything, you could just have marines press E on the building once, play a sound, and then have a subtle particle effect linking the marine and building, and status bar on the hud. The tool model is just for if you want to get fancy.
You don't need to hold E to be vulnerable, simply standing next to a resource point making a lot of noise is vulnerability because it's liable to attract aliens. You are compelled to defend the resource node which imposes plenty of limtations on you, a resource node will probably not be the most safe location in the room, so it amounts to standing in the open next to an alien magnet, pretty vulnerable in other words. You can achieve vulnerability with level design, very creative vulnerability in fact because level design can make each node unique and dangerous in its own way, so I don't see the need for E building.
This brings some excitement into the game.
This brings some excitement into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
This brings some excitement into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
Adds positive teamwork to the game.
Sticking to E building is silly when you can replicate the same effects it has in a much better way. I went to some length and repetition in explaining what the effects of it are and how you can replicate them and expand on them without having E building.
E building is not about attracting aliens, its about not being able to defend yourself
<!--quoteo(post=1791282:date=Aug 4 2010, 07:45 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 4 2010, 07:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sticking to E building is silly when you can replicate the same effects it has in a much better way. I went to some length and repetition in explaining what the effects of it are and how you can replicate them and expand on them without having E building.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your idea does not replicate the effects at all because once you place the build thing on the structure, you are free to move around (within a given area) and defend yourself. E building doesnt allow that
From my experience playing, when building a res tower you spend most of your focus on listening for aliens, you are defending the point, you are simply not able to use your sight as much, thus making the defense more dangerous and challenging.
However there are many ways of making a defense dangerous and challenging, stopping the player using his gun is one, but it's a rather bad one because it prevents you from adding any other challenges or obstacles. If you have to be touching and looking at the structure and can't use your gun, you can't add multiple entry points for the player to watch, or environmental hazards for them to avoid during any combat they get into, or bring their weapon choice into play much.
Whereas if you allow the player to use their gun, you get more options for challenges as well as defensive strategies to counter them. You can still listen as you would for E building, but you can also think about how to use the limited environment to your advantage, it also introduces teamplay sooner than e building, because a two man building team can split the defence between them, whereas with E building it usually seperates the roles into one player building and the other defending, and there isn't much crossover. Teamplay isn't about lots of people doing singular jobs in proximity to each other, its about how those jobs interact, a two man defence is much more teamplay-ish than a one man defence and one man construction which just happen to occur near each other.
Forcing the player not to use his only method of defence is a really cheap way of gimping the player to make the game seem harder, giving them challenges which test the skills the game emphasises already, team coordination, spatial awareness, and fine control skills, is a much better challenge, and fits very well with the rest of the game.
You assume wrong.
The point of being vulnerable while building is to present a risk vs. reward scenario in which you have to make a decision about what the best course of action is.
I like the idea of having to manually build something or even assisting the MAC, but it'll end up where anybody who doesn't help the MAC build, or doesn't manually build themselves is automatically a bad teammate and should be kicked.
It's a tough call because the Dev's are the ones who have the final say, but they're all looking to the community for their answers and we better make sure we give them the right one. That being said I wouldn't mind if UW would just make a choice, see it through and see where it goes from there.
The point of being vulnerable while building is to present a risk vs. reward scenario in which you have to make a decision about what the best course of action is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i.e a challenge.
That's what a challenge is, you present some obstacle, sometimes dangerous or risky, to a player, and they recieve a reward for overcoming it. The process of doing so usually involves considered decisions as well as some sort of pressure element where you are required to have good reflexes or fast critical thinking skills or something.
Greater challenges are harder and often more risky, but should have greater payoffs. Accepting a challenge causes vulnerability because you are more at risk while performing it, because there is usually a penalty for failure, and failure usually occurs if you don't do anything, whereas when you aren't being challenged inaction is not normally a problem, but you attempt the challenge because of the possibility of a payoff at the end.
And most importantly, challenges can be implemented in a huge number of ways. A good game should have a variety of challenges in it to keep it fresh and stimulate the player in different ways, some should be more thought based, for example some res nodes could have a number of doors which can be sealed but one must always be open, so the player must choose based on the state of the map which one would be easiest to defend and seal the correct doors. Some challenges should be heavily pressure based, for example some nodes should be in very dangerous and exposed areas and require good control skills to be able to fight in. And some challenges should mix the two, teamplay is a good example of this and some nodes can be hard to defend individually, but a good coordinated team should be able to make them impenetrable.
However if you have to stand staring at the ref all the time, that somewhat limits the number of challenges you can put into the nodes, because too exposed nodes will be impossible to cap alone or in small groups, teamplay nodes will have fewer players to coordinate with, and strategy/choice nodes will be less usable because you can't set the ref off building and then seal the doors.
But if you want to add to the building of structures maybe having some sort of mini games like when you hack in Alien Swarm, or when you build in Moon Base alpha where you have to solder points together. There you have to do it on time to speed up the build process. What if you got one of those every time you built.
Then again I have no problem with having both Marine build and the better builder MACs.
Cheers.
It's a first-person shooter with soldiers erecting resource structures; why not have a more involved "first-person building" experience? Besides, players who don't want the "challenge" of doing something involved can just sit there and hold the use key, building it more slowly. I'm for making building a more engaging process that actually benefits from your focus and therefore your vulnerability.
Of course, I also think there should be an actual weld/build tool which you can use to burn skulks if they bother you. Better yet? The light given off from the welding torch blinds or otherwise disorients creatures with sensitive eyes. The trade-off could be that structures left mid-build have a chance to jam up after so long and require some sort of focused repair before construction can continue.
Just make it so you have freedom of movement, similar to welding structures in NS1 but now for building them...
People who call this building "boring" are not forced to build when implementing it this way, but they could do it by sacrificing one of their weapon slots...
Something that has already a few good solutions on it has no need for a continuation of more threads on the same subject...
If that is so then I would suggest that the game is in desperate need of more ways for you to contribute, which is sort of the idea of freeing people from pressing E when building things.
Adds positive teamwork to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or so goes the theory. After years of experience, I'd say the typical reality is that the building mechanic works to the detriment of the marine team and detracts from good public gameplay. You move very slowly and take time to bring your weapon up when you're building, so the effect is an increased reliance on your teammates. Through a combination of people who consider themselves 2gud2build and those who simply don't trust their teammates to cover for them, there are very few people on a team who are willing to put themselves on the line, so the result is usually four marines standing around an unbuilt PG, doing nothing, then getting wiped out after a period of time that would have been enough to get the PG up if they had cooperated. I think NS2 might be better off with a TF2 control point type thing, where marines need to stay within a certain area to build. This still introduces clustering and provides aliens an advantage when attacking, especially if you combine it with good map design where aliens have ambush spots nearby to pop out of.
But if you do have teamplay I don't consider one person building and one person defending to be teamplay, you don't work together, you do two entirely separate tasks next to each other, which isn't the same thing, two people defending on the other hand is teamplay, because there is a lot of interplay between your actions, you can coordinate and divide your efforts, and change them depending on the situation, with E building there isn't any of that, one person builds and the other defends, you don't ever really need to change that.
This entire paragraph is false. Disregard.
<i>team·work
–noun
1.
cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of a group of persons acting <b>together as a team</b> or in the interests of a common cause.</i>
What part of utter reliance do you think is not teamwork? A good team is not made up of everyone doing the same thing, but each person doing their specified role.
This brings some excitement into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
–noun
1.
cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of a group of persons acting <b>together as a team</b> or in the interests of a common cause.</i>
What part of utter reliance do you think is not teamwork? A good team is not made up of everyone doing the same thing, but each person doing their specified role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The part where the experience doesn't change at all if you increase playercount.
If I'm building, I build the same regardless of whether there are other people nearby because the mechanic doesn't change. Similarly if I am defending a structure, I defend it the same whether or not someone is building it.
However if I have two people defending something I divide areas of coverage between me and them and we work together, whereas when I'm on my own I have to check everywhere myself.
If teamwork doesn't change the way the game plays at all, then it is hardly worth the name is it?
Like I said, I consider teamwork to be working together and having your way of working change as a result, if you just do activities exactly the same as you would when alone, except you do them in proximity to each other, that isn't teamwork.
Any combat action is generally teamwork, welding teammates is teamplay for obvious reasons, welding doors with a couple of other people is teamplay because you each take a door and coordinate your efforts, using different weapons is teamplay because while normally you would need to use your gun on the most dangerous thing, with lots of different guns you can use them on the thing they are most effective against, which may not be the same thing.
Basically teamplay should change what you do, building things is an instance where it really doesn't, you behave exactly the same building under guard as you do building by yourself, and you guard exactly the same way when someone's building as you do when it's just a structure.
<img src="http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5214/masochists.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Must be something else in play.
I was trying to humiliate them. But then you know, perhaps that's what they want?
Maybe I took the wrong approach. Maybe I should have gone for offensive.
If we keep it around, why not integrate it with a simple, highly replayable minigame a-la hacking in Bioshock or Alien Swarm?
I was trying to humiliate them. But then you know, perhaps that's what they want?
Maybe I took the wrong approach. Maybe I should have gone for offensive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah but I'm a masochist and I hate e-building. I got what you're saying.
Hence, the image is appealing, e building is not.
Must be something else going on.
<!--quoteo(post=1794798:date=Aug 17 2010, 09:58 PM:name=teh_fatts)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (teh_fatts @ Aug 17 2010, 09:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1794798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd have to agree that the OP clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the game, but it *is* true that use-key-building, while delightfully tense, utterly lacks gameplay.
If we keep it around, why not integrate it with a simple, highly replayable minigame a-la hacking in Bioshock or Alien Swarm?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand the game perfectly, I just don't <i>like</i> all of it.