All of these options, to have marines be able to build or not etc... make them variables, accessible for the server admin to switch on and off as they choose on their servers... like the Friendly Fire option.
<!--quoteo(post=1795438:date=Aug 20 2010, 10:34 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 20 2010, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like that every person's argument to "I find building boring" is "NS1 must have really sucked for you". Very classy. Try to consider that this is an opportunity to improve on an already excellent game.
It looks like most people didn't get what I was implying when I said "So instead of "Go here and shoot" you would prefer "Go here and shoot, or go here and hold E".". The "addition" of that "choice" is less than trivial. I'm sorry if you actually DO think this, but you have to be retarded to think that holding E was the most important feature of the game - or even that it was important in any way. It wasn't. It was pretty much a gimmick, and for many it became a boring gimmick after the first three times you did it.
puzl: Essentially your post (and others') is just an <b>overanalysis</b> of the concept of human players building - no one really gets that excited about it. Please. It could be said that my post (and others') is an <i>underplaying</i> of that same concept, but at least I'm sincere about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, then UWE must be retarded right? Since Cory told you guys they got to the decision of marines building as an internal UWE decision. Thought he was pretty clear.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry if you actually DO think this, but you have to be retarded to think that holding E was <b>the most important</b> feature of the game - or even that it was important in any way. It wasn't. It was pretty much a gimmick, and for many it became a boring gimmick after the first three times you did it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1795444:date=Aug 20 2010, 11:31 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 20 2010, 11:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hookuy: no points for reading comprehension.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course is not the <b>most</b> important feature, but it's one of its <b>key feature </b> of the game. So if even the UWE team have had meetings regarding this, then it's clear that it's something important for the game. Remember, NS was about marines being able to build base, that means, a key feature.
<!--quoteo(post=1795446:date=Aug 20 2010, 03:46 PM:name=hookuy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hookuy @ Aug 20 2010, 03:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795446"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course is not the <b>most</b> important feature, but it's one of its <b>key feature </b> of the game. So if even the UWE team have had meetings regarding this, then it's clear that it's something important for the game. Remember, NS was about marines being able to build base, that means, a key feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give it up mate. Harimau's memory is clearly a little fuzzy. He's apparently got it into his head that NS1 was actually Counter Strike.
<!--quoteo(post=1795199:date=Aug 19 2010, 03:37 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Aug 19 2010, 03:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795199"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the bigger question than whether or not marines should be able to build is whether or not MACs should be required to initially drop the structure. There are a lot of potential pitfalls to requiring the commander to skillfully manage his NPC minions to be able to build anything at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In your version of an RTS/FPS I wonder what kind of "RTS" the commander would be playing. Without actual responsibility and a meaningful or critical role to the team what's the point of having a commander? I think building a RTS/FPS is one of the single hardest things to do in video game design because the two styles inherently clash with each other. Maybe this is why I have yet to see a RTS/FPS hybrid that required even average RTS skills (NS1 included). Eventually in a RTS/FPS's design one side will have to concede gameplay to the other. In the past it's always been the RTS side that has given up ground. I'm not saying this is wrong, as there is usually only one RTS player and many FPS players, but it's something to keep in mind.
Losing control of units (ie; the player marines/aliens) is a huge blow to the RTS side. Giving the commander a unit, controlled by himself, essential to the team's victory right from the start is a great way to add back some of that 'RTS' feel into NS2. The intensity, teamwork, and gameplay that most people want will likely result from the RTS side and the FPS side communicating and playing together.
Is NS2 going to be an RTS/FPS or is it going to be an FPS with a guy who has an overhead view and drops medpacks and clicks on DC's so they can spore?
I've made so many posts about this topic (MAC buildling vs Marine building), but I summarized most of the points in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110803&st=40&p=1792493&#entry1792493" target="_blank">this post.</a> The very last paragraph describes why 'ghost structures' are a bad idea, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1795448:date=Aug 20 2010, 11:56 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 20 2010, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give it up mate. Harimau's memory is clearly a little fuzzy. He's apparently got it into his head that NS1 was actually Counter Strike.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think his memory is fine. What he is doing is looking at NS1's weaknesses. The RTS side was a major weakness and, for some of the reasons I described above and link to, MAC construction is a huge boost to the RTS side and, in my opinion, and relatively minimal removal to the FPS side.
<!--quoteo(post=1795450:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:00 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The RTS side was a major weakness and, for some of the reasons I described above and link to, MAC construction is a huge boost to the RTS side and, in my opinion, and relatively minimal removal to the FPS side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In what way was one the most unique things about NS1 a major weakness?
<!--quoteo(post=1795438:date=Aug 20 2010, 05:34 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Aug 20 2010, 05:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->puzl: Essentially your post (and others') is just an <b>overanalysis</b> of the concept of human players building - no one really gets that excited about it. Please. It could be said that my post (and others') is an <i>underplaying</i> of that same concept, but at least I'm sincere about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is very sad that many players never bothered to found out what certain functions (including building) really were and how they affected the big picture called NS1.
You are over simplifying building, if we go this route NS1 is all about pressing mouse1 which it really isnt, is it?
<!--quoteo(post=1795457:date=Aug 20 2010, 12:12 PM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 20 2010, 12:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795457"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, I dont see how that is/was a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you don't value the RTS side of the game, which is actually the standard for RTS/FPS games, so I don't mean to say that as some kind of insult. Instead of trying to come up for arguments why you want marine building you should just say "I think the 8 players playing FPS are more important and therefor any RTS elements that interfere should be diminished or removed." Like I said that's a valid argument as every RTS/FPS made today has taken the same approach.
Some people, myself included, want a true RTS and FPS mixed together. Playing NS1 resembles an RTS in very few ways. I outline some of the reasons why in this post:
<!--QuoteBegin-Myself+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Myself)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->building a RTS/FPS is one of the single hardest things to do in video game design<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 12:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of trying to come up for arguments why you want marine building you should just say "I think the 8 players playing FPS are more important and therefor any RTS elements that interfere should be diminished or removed." Like I said that's a valid argument as every RTS/FPS made today has taken the same approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is not what he is saying at all since marine building is not taking out an RTS element. How does taking building away from a real player and giving it to an AI make it any more of an RTS? It doesn't.
You wanna complain about removing an RTS element? How about marines purchasing their own stuff? I don't mind this at all but surely taking away the commander's ability to assign weapons to different troops removes an RTS element from this game much more so than allowing real players to participate in building.
<!--quoteo(post=1795471:date=Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795471"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is not what he is saying at all since marine building is not taking out an RTS element. How does taking building away from a real player and giving it to an AI make it any more of an RTS? It doesn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just use some sense, read over the arguments, and the answer is obvious.
I even link to it in my first post because I'm trying to avoid big walls of text but I guess I'll summarize again. MAC / Marine construction, depending on how it's done (I'm debating based off Flayra's purposed method), has the potential to severely diminish the role of the MAC or make it outright redundant. This will, in turn, remove the RTS element of MACs since they would no longer be critical or useful on competent teams. I say "competent team" because that's what the game should be balanced for and not random pubs where there is no communication or teamwork.
People who support marine building are either holding on to the nostalgia of NS1, can't objectively look at the pros/cons attached to both RTS and FPS sides, or just don't care about the RTS side and want concessions made on behalf of the FPS side.
Think of NS2 as NS2 and not NS1. The powergrid system is going to severely where things are dropped. You won't be next to the hive building a PG and you won't be in PSJ alone building a RT. You're only allowed to build on territory that's already your own or when you're expanding out. When you're expanding on these smaller more streamlined maps chances are you will not be doing it by yourself, or even with just one buddy, but rather with a handful of teammates. The "alone, building, so intense" that a lot of players don't want gone in NS2 already seems gone to me. Let's not destroy what could be a big boost to the RTS side in some attempt to save it.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
SentrySteve, the MAC and Drifters are still the only building dropping units in the game (Gorge and Hydra is an exception <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />)
So how does adding building for marines as an option make the MAC any less important. Without MAC's there will be no "building buildings" at all. Seems to me it is still the most important unit on the BF for building...
<!--quoteo(post=1795482:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:22 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 20 2010, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SentrySteve, the MAC and Drifters are still the only building dropping units in the game (Gorge and Hydra is an exception <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />)
So how does adding building for marines as an option make the MAC any less important. Without MAC's there will be no "building buildings" at all. Seems to me it is still the most important unit on the BF for building...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the method I prefer and this would not make the MAC any less important. It would, however, still be an "escort" mission which was one of the major disadvantages that the "anti-MAC" camp created. Granted, I don't believe that line of argument has any merit but I expect people to eventually push for ghost structures especially since Flayra suggested it originally.
Or maybe they'll be content with the MAC dropping structures and abandon<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110841&st=0&p=1792779&#entry1792779" target="_blank"> all their other points</a>. In that case, it would have really just about pressing "E" all along as people who are intelligent and arguing for marine building (example, TrC, though not him specifically) have most of their points resting on ghost structures or instant building drops as you can tell by the bullet list I linked to.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you don't value the RTS side of the game, which is actually the standard for RTS/FPS games, so I don't mean to say that as some kind of insult.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fail assumption is fail. I played NS1 purely for the Commader side, because I loved it.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of trying to come up for arguments why you want marine building<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont have to, the Devs want it back in. I win by default.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you should just say "I think the 8 players playing FPS are more important and therefor any RTS elements that interfere should be diminished or removed."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that Ive been one of the most vocal about how the *new* RTS elements threaten the interaction between Commander and Marine, and may damage the RTS element precisely because I feel the game is focusing too much on the FPS element.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people, myself included, want a true RTS and FPS mixed together. Playing NS1 resembles an RTS in very few ways.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except Harimau is not one of those people, nor are anyone who thinks that Marines building is a bad idea. For the RTS and FPS elements to be truly mixed together, both parts have to interact with each other. Taking building away from Marines and allowing them to buy their own guns actually reduced their interaction with the Commander - essentially completely dividing the RTS and FPS elements. You cant take away interaction then claim that makes the two elements combine better.
<!--quoteo(post=1795489:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:52 PM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 20 2010, 02:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the RTS and FPS elements to be truly mixed together, both parts have to interact with each other. Taking building away from Marines and allowing them to buy their own guns actually reduced their interaction with the Commander - essentially completely dividing the RTS and FPS elements. You cant take away interaction then claim that makes the two elements combine better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think the pinnacle of RTS/FPS interaction is building structures and dropping weapons then the RTS/FPS genre is a lot more trouble than I thought. There could be a much deeper and greater interaction, through teamwork, but before that can begin you have to convince the RTS and PFS sides that they're both playing their respective genre. Saying "commander drop me a gun!" or building a structure someone else placed isn't the kind strategic interaction I had in mind when I first heard of a RTS/FPS hybrid.
<!--quoteo(post=1795505:date=Aug 20 2010, 03:48 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795505"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you think the pinnacle of RTS/FPS interaction is building structures and dropping weapons then the RTS/FPS genre is a lot more trouble than I thought. There could be a much deeper and greater interaction, through teamwork, but before that can begin you have to convince the RTS and PFS sides that they're both playing their respective genre. Saying "commander drop me a gun!" or building a structure someone else placed isn't the kind strategic interaction I had in mind when I first heard of a RTS/FPS hybrid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand, if you don't want this feature at all, just play Counter Strike.
Having marines being able to buy their own gear looks like a CS, even more if they aren't able to build.
Also, the devs made their decision about marines-building. If they arrived to this decision was because they felt it was important to the game to keep this feature.
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just use some sense, read over the arguments, and the answer is obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did and I even answered it myself:
<!--quoteo(post=1795471:date=Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795471"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does taking building away from a real player and giving it to an AI make it any more of an RTS? It doesn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All that is happening is that the marine role becomes much more of an FPS and the comm gains no extra RTS element from it because the marines were his builders anyway. I like my marine role containing RTS elements too (escort in an FPS is an FPS element).
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This will, in turn, remove the RTS element of MACs since they would no longer be critical or useful on competent teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you think it is more important for the MACs to have an RTS role and not the actual players?
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say "competent team" because that's what the game should be balanced for and not random pubs where there is no communication or teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dev's don't want your average pubs to fail or else the game will too. A competent team will still use MACs as a way to keep bases healthy and help weld players as they move in on the aliens. A dedicated welder and support builder is a great tool to have and allowing marines to build doesn't take away from its use.
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People who support marine building are either holding on to the nostalgia of NS1, can't objectively look at the pros/cons attached to both RTS and FPS sides, or just don't care about the RTS side and want concessions made on behalf of the FPS side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I support marine building and have not had a single complaint about the other changes. The whole reason I think MAC dependency is a bad thing is because I DID weigh the pros and cons and want RTS elements to still be part of the marines, not just observed by them.
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think of NS2 as NS2 and not NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am and many others are too. Diminishing certain key aspects just to be different would be a very bad decision however.
Reading this thread is like watching cats fight. It’s Just a whole lot of screeching and yowling going back and forth. The game isn’t playable enough yet to really test out the features. So most of the stuff posted is just speculation. It’s work in progress. Try to be supportive of the devs and give them a chance to get the game off the ground. If you can’t, go play NS until it’s done.
<!--quoteo(post=1795529:date=Aug 20 2010, 05:43 PM:name=1stToast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1stToast @ Aug 20 2010, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795529"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reading this thread is like watching cats fight. It’s Just a whole lot of screeching and yowling going back and forth. The game isn’t playable enough yet to really test out the features. So most of the stuff posted is just speculation. It’s work in progress. Try to be supportive of the devs and give them a chance to get the game off the ground. If you can’t, go play NS until it’s done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read Cory's post and then tell me if you still think the same. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1795458:date=Aug 21 2010, 12:12 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Aug 21 2010, 12:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are over simplifying building, if we go this route NS1 is all about pressing mouse1 which it really isnt, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But see, that's the difference. My oversimplification of it is actually sincere. As someone who doesn't particularly care about the gimmick called marine building, that aspect of the game *does* digress to "hold E to build". Overanalysing marine building on the other hand, isn't sincere - no one thinks that much about it when they build and no one gets that excited about it. The overanalysis comes post-experience. You're giving it more weight than it deserves.
Having said that, my biggest problem with marines being able to build again is that it has taken away the concept of "supply lines" and the strategical elements that accompanies MAC-only building.
I have played in some pretty intense games with some very skillful players and them alternating between "building" and "defending" did not take away from the "supply lines". It probably made it more intense for those players that they had to "help the team" by building the structure but also defend off aliens in the process.
I mean I understand that UWE are trying to make NS2 different but some of the new ideas I think are more restrictive such as this new building system.
My Views of the new system:
<b>Things I like:</b> MAC's allow the commander to play more RTS if he wants. This eliminates having to deal with players that _don't_ want to build or just plain fail at it.
Having to hold say 2-3 commander stations in order to get the advanced upgrades is a cool concept and will make holding these points more strategic for both teams unlike before where only Aliens needed the 3 locations to get their advancements and marines were just trying to stop them.
<b>Things I dislike:</b> MAC's being the only unit able to place buildings. Have we gone backwards in technology from NS1? Buildings and items used to phase in and now we have some Loud, slow-moving MAC running around trying to place structures. Maybe make "Phasing" buildings in more expensive than "placing" them? Or better yet, maybe make a advanced upgrade that allows for phasing in all structures.
Lack of "command chairs" which was a great aspect of NS1 IMO they allowed a last-ditch effort of building in a somewhat hidden location to try and re-establish a base. Those situations were always intense when you do not have a base at all and there are 1-2 marines frantically trying to build a base and get some IP's up so the rest of the team can spawn and help. If this was removed because of a "balance" issue, then they could simply add something for the aliens that is similar and maybe even add the dynamic infestation to it so it becomes easier to find as time goes on.
Lack of being able to build phase-gates at the front-lines to push forward an attack on the enemy base? Again if this was a balance issue then just give the aliens a similar technology.
It feels to me while they are adding more of an RTS element (which is good for people who want to play RTS) making it so the commander has to "do more" they are removing more of the bind and teamwork between commander and players. As there probably will be periods of time where the commander is doing his thing and the players are not getting orders.
People ###### that NS2 should not be NS1 but NS1 had a lot of aspects that were awesome and to see that NS2 is now changing a lot of the aspects of a fun working system it will be interesting to see if it has the same impact to it that NS1 had.
This is Natural Selection _2_ after all which should be an advancement on Natural Selection _1_, otherwise maybe it should have been called a new name ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1795699:date=Aug 22 2010, 11:01 AM:name=Rothgar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rothgar @ Aug 22 2010, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have played in some pretty intense games with some very skillful players and them alternating between "building" and "defending" did not take away from the "supply lines".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What has that got to do with supply lines? I'm using "supply lines" in the classic military sense. *
* It should be noted that, the proposed power grid system was a "direct" attempt at creating the concept of supply lines in NS2. But now that's up in the air.
Comments
It looks like most people didn't get what I was implying when I said "So instead of "Go here and shoot" you would prefer "Go here and shoot, or go here and hold E".". The "addition" of that "choice" is less than trivial.
I'm sorry if you actually DO think this, but you have to be retarded to think that holding E was the most important feature of the game - or even that it was important in any way. It wasn't. It was pretty much a gimmick, and for many it became a boring gimmick after the first three times you did it.
puzl: Essentially your post (and others') is just an <b>overanalysis</b> of the concept of human players building - no one really gets that excited about it. Please.
It could be said that my post (and others') is an <i>underplaying</i> of that same concept, but at least I'm sincere about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, then UWE must be retarded right? Since Cory told you guys they got to the decision of marines building as an internal UWE decision. Thought he was pretty clear.
hookuy: no points for reading comprehension.
Of course is not the <b>most</b> important feature, but it's one of its <b>key feature </b> of the game. So if even the UWE team have had meetings regarding this, then it's clear that it's something important for the game. Remember, NS was about marines being able to build base, that means, a key feature.
Give it up mate. Harimau's memory is clearly a little fuzzy. He's apparently got it into his head that NS1 was actually Counter Strike.
In your version of an RTS/FPS I wonder what kind of "RTS" the commander would be playing. Without actual responsibility and a meaningful or critical role to the team what's the point of having a commander? I think building a RTS/FPS is one of the single hardest things to do in video game design because the two styles inherently clash with each other. Maybe this is why I have yet to see a RTS/FPS hybrid that required even average RTS skills (NS1 included). Eventually in a RTS/FPS's design one side will have to concede gameplay to the other. In the past it's always been the RTS side that has given up ground. I'm not saying this is wrong, as there is usually only one RTS player and many FPS players, but it's something to keep in mind.
Losing control of units (ie; the player marines/aliens) is a huge blow to the RTS side. Giving the commander a unit, controlled by himself, essential to the team's victory right from the start is a great way to add back some of that 'RTS' feel into NS2. The intensity, teamwork, and gameplay that most people want will likely result from the RTS side and the FPS side communicating and playing together.
Is NS2 going to be an RTS/FPS or is it going to be an FPS with a guy who has an overhead view and drops medpacks and clicks on DC's so they can spore?
I've made so many posts about this topic (MAC buildling vs Marine building), but I summarized most of the points in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110803&st=40&p=1792493&#entry1792493" target="_blank">this post.</a> The very last paragraph describes why 'ghost structures' are a bad idea, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1795448:date=Aug 20 2010, 11:56 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 20 2010, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give it up mate. Harimau's memory is clearly a little fuzzy. He's apparently got it into his head that NS1 was actually Counter Strike.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think his memory is fine. What he is doing is looking at NS1's weaknesses. The RTS side was a major weakness and, for some of the reasons I described above and link to, MAC construction is a huge boost to the RTS side and, in my opinion, and relatively minimal removal to the FPS side.
In what way was one the most unique things about NS1 a major weakness?
It could be said that my post (and others') is an <i>underplaying</i> of that same concept, but at least I'm sincere about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is very sad that many players never bothered to found out what certain functions (including building) really were and how they affected the big picture called NS1.
You are over simplifying building, if we go this route NS1 is all about pressing mouse1 which it really isnt, is it?
Then you don't value the RTS side of the game, which is actually the standard for RTS/FPS games, so I don't mean to say that as some kind of insult. Instead of trying to come up for arguments why you want marine building you should just say "I think the 8 players playing FPS are more important and therefor any RTS elements that interfere should be diminished or removed." Like I said that's a valid argument as every RTS/FPS made today has taken the same approach.
Some people, myself included, want a true RTS and FPS mixed together. Playing NS1 resembles an RTS in very few ways. I outline some of the reasons why in this post:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=102260&view=findpost&p=1717224" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1717224</a>
This is why I think...
<!--QuoteBegin-Myself+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Myself)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->building a RTS/FPS is one of the single hardest things to do in video game design<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not what he is saying at all since marine building is not taking out an RTS element. How does taking building away from a real player and giving it to an AI make it any more of an RTS? It doesn't.
You wanna complain about removing an RTS element? How about marines purchasing their own stuff? I don't mind this at all but surely taking away the commander's ability to assign weapons to different troops removes an RTS element from this game much more so than allowing real players to participate in building.
Just use some sense, read over the arguments, and the answer is obvious.
I even link to it in my first post because I'm trying to avoid big walls of text but I guess I'll summarize again. MAC / Marine construction, depending on how it's done (I'm debating based off Flayra's purposed method), has the potential to severely diminish the role of the MAC or make it outright redundant. This will, in turn, remove the RTS element of MACs since they would no longer be critical or useful on competent teams. I say "competent team" because that's what the game should be balanced for and not random pubs where there is no communication or teamwork.
People who support marine building are either holding on to the nostalgia of NS1, can't objectively look at the pros/cons attached to both RTS and FPS sides, or just don't care about the RTS side and want concessions made on behalf of the FPS side.
Think of NS2 as NS2 and not NS1. The powergrid system is going to severely where things are dropped. You won't be next to the hive building a PG and you won't be in PSJ alone building a RT. You're only allowed to build on territory that's already your own or when you're expanding out. When you're expanding on these smaller more streamlined maps chances are you will not be doing it by yourself, or even with just one buddy, but rather with a handful of teammates. The "alone, building, so intense" that a lot of players don't want gone in NS2 already seems gone to me. Let's not destroy what could be a big boost to the RTS side in some attempt to save it.
So how does adding building for marines as an option make the MAC any less important. Without MAC's there will be no "building buildings" at all. Seems to me it is still the most important unit on the BF for building...
So how does adding building for marines as an option make the MAC any less important. Without MAC's there will be no "building buildings" at all. Seems to me it is still the most important unit on the BF for building...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the method I prefer and this would not make the MAC any less important. It would, however, still be an "escort" mission which was one of the major disadvantages that the "anti-MAC" camp created. Granted, I don't believe that line of argument has any merit but I expect people to eventually push for ghost structures especially since Flayra suggested it originally.
Or maybe they'll be content with the MAC dropping structures and abandon<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=110841&st=0&p=1792779&#entry1792779" target="_blank"> all their other points</a>. In that case, it would have really just about pressing "E" all along as people who are intelligent and arguing for marine building (example, TrC, though not him specifically) have most of their points resting on ghost structures or instant building drops as you can tell by the bullet list I linked to.
Fail assumption is fail. I played NS1 purely for the Commader side, because I loved it.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of trying to come up for arguments why you want marine building<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont have to, the Devs want it back in. I win by default.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you should just say "I think the 8 players playing FPS are more important and therefor any RTS elements that interfere should be diminished or removed."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that Ive been one of the most vocal about how the *new* RTS elements threaten the interaction between Commander and Marine, and may damage the RTS element precisely because I feel the game is focusing too much on the FPS element.
<!--quoteo(post=1795459:date=Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people, myself included, want a true RTS and FPS mixed together. Playing NS1 resembles an RTS in very few ways.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except Harimau is not one of those people, nor are anyone who thinks that Marines building is a bad idea. For the RTS and FPS elements to be truly mixed together, both parts have to interact with each other. Taking building away from Marines and allowing them to buy their own guns actually reduced their interaction with the Commander - essentially completely dividing the RTS and FPS elements. You cant take away interaction then claim that makes the two elements combine better.
If you think the pinnacle of RTS/FPS interaction is building structures and dropping weapons then the RTS/FPS genre is a lot more trouble than I thought. There could be a much deeper and greater interaction, through teamwork, but before that can begin you have to convince the RTS and PFS sides that they're both playing their respective genre. Saying "commander drop me a gun!" or building a structure someone else placed isn't the kind strategic interaction I had in mind when I first heard of a RTS/FPS hybrid.
I don't understand, if you don't want this feature at all, just play Counter Strike.
Having marines being able to buy their own gear looks like a CS, even more if they aren't able to build.
Also, the devs made their decision about marines-building. If they arrived to this decision was because they felt it was important to the game to keep this feature.
I did and I even answered it myself:
<!--quoteo(post=1795471:date=Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Aug 20 2010, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795471"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does taking building away from a real player and giving it to an AI make it any more of an RTS? It doesn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that is happening is that the marine role becomes much more of an FPS and the comm gains no extra RTS element from it because the marines were his builders anyway. I like my marine role containing RTS elements too (escort in an FPS is an FPS element).
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This will, in turn, remove the RTS element of MACs since they would no longer be critical or useful on competent teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think it is more important for the MACs to have an RTS role and not the actual players?
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say "competent team" because that's what the game should be balanced for and not random pubs where there is no communication or teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dev's don't want your average pubs to fail or else the game will too. A competent team will still use MACs as a way to keep bases healthy and help weld players as they move in on the aliens. A dedicated welder and support builder is a great tool to have and allowing marines to build doesn't take away from its use.
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People who support marine building are either holding on to the nostalgia of NS1, can't objectively look at the pros/cons attached to both RTS and FPS sides, or just don't care about the RTS side and want concessions made on behalf of the FPS side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I support marine building and have not had a single complaint about the other changes. The whole reason I think MAC dependency is a bad thing is because I DID weigh the pros and cons and want RTS elements to still be part of the marines, not just observed by them.
<!--quoteo(post=1795476:date=Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 20 2010, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think of NS2 as NS2 and not NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am and many others are too. Diminishing certain key aspects just to be different would be a very bad decision however.
Agree 100%.
Read Cory's post and then tell me if you still think the same. :)
But see, that's the difference. My oversimplification of it is actually sincere. As someone who doesn't particularly care about the gimmick called marine building, that aspect of the game *does* digress to "hold E to build".
Overanalysing marine building on the other hand, isn't sincere - no one thinks that much about it when they build and no one gets that excited about it. The overanalysis comes post-experience. You're giving it more weight than it deserves.
Having said that, my biggest problem with marines being able to build again is that it has taken away the concept of "supply lines" and the strategical elements that accompanies MAC-only building.
I mean I understand that UWE are trying to make NS2 different but some of the new ideas I think are more restrictive such as this new building system.
My Views of the new system:
<b>Things I like:</b>
MAC's allow the commander to play more RTS if he wants. This eliminates having to deal with players that _don't_ want to build or just plain fail at it.
Having to hold say 2-3 commander stations in order to get the advanced upgrades is a cool concept and will make holding these points more strategic for both teams unlike before where only Aliens needed the 3 locations to get their advancements and marines were just trying to stop them.
<b>Things I dislike:</b>
MAC's being the only unit able to place buildings. Have we gone backwards in technology from NS1? Buildings and items used to phase in and now we have some Loud, slow-moving MAC running around trying to place structures. Maybe make "Phasing" buildings in more expensive than "placing" them? Or better yet, maybe make a advanced upgrade that allows for phasing in all structures.
Lack of "command chairs" which was a great aspect of NS1 IMO they allowed a last-ditch effort of building in a somewhat hidden location to try and re-establish a base. Those situations were always intense when you do not have a base at all and there are 1-2 marines frantically trying to build a base and get some IP's up so the rest of the team can spawn and help. If this was removed because of a "balance" issue, then they could simply add something for the aliens that is similar and maybe even add the dynamic infestation to it so it becomes easier to find as time goes on.
Lack of being able to build phase-gates at the front-lines to push forward an attack on the enemy base? Again if this was a balance issue then just give the aliens a similar technology.
It feels to me while they are adding more of an RTS element (which is good for people who want to play RTS) making it so the commander has to "do more" they are removing more of the bind and teamwork between commander and players. As there probably will be periods of time where the commander is doing his thing and the players are not getting orders.
People ###### that NS2 should not be NS1 but NS1 had a lot of aspects that were awesome and to see that NS2 is now changing a lot of the aspects of a fun working system it will be interesting to see if it has the same impact to it that NS1 had.
This is Natural Selection _2_ after all which should be an advancement on Natural Selection _1_, otherwise maybe it should have been called a new name ;)
<img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/trollface.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
What has that got to do with supply lines? I'm using "supply lines" in the classic military sense. *
* It should be noted that, the proposed power grid system was a "direct" attempt at creating the concept of supply lines in NS2. But now that's up in the air.