ARC mechanics vs NS1 siege mechanics
weezl
Join Date: 2008-07-04 Member: 64557Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2008-07-04 Member: 64557Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">analysis + fix suggestion</div>(dictionary at end)
The thing that people have been complaining about is that ARCs are too easy to deploy and then move to the next location and deploy.
And also ARC-trains. Whereas when you a "critical amount" of ARCs you can just brute-force kill a hive, then go on to next one.
The reason is that 1) there's less marine time involved in the NS2 mechanic and 2) <u>it is spent in the safety of the base</u>.
So most of the "siegeing process" (getting siege-tech to start siegeing) is spent in base. And, "occupied time" is only spent in base.
However, <u>ARCs need to travel escorted to the siege location</u>, but this doesn't seem to be limiting enough.
Imo there needs to be some on-location set-up for marines to do before they can siege! But it has to be less than in NS1 because the escort element already contributes.
Deeper analysis:
In NS1 you:
first needed a turret factory in the siege location - hostile territory (time + res + manpower + enemies),
then def it until it's advanced (time + res + enemies),
then build the individual sieges (time + res + manpower + enemies), whose increase could be slowed by limiting manpower (attacking/killing marines).
Whereas in NS2 it's somewhat different.
You make a robo factory (assume/usually in base) (time + res + manpower),
wait for upg (time + res),
then produce the ARCs (time + res), whose increase <u>cannot</u> be slowed by limiting manpower!
then they need to transport/escort to siege location (time + enemies)
once in place, they diploy instantly (enemies)
Suggestion:
ARCs need "special" power to fire when deployed! That means power-packs (PP) need to be dropped in range of the arcs and <u>constructed by marines</u> (and/or MAC).
My own version:
1PP powers all arcs within its range.
The more PP that are in range of an ARC, the faster it can fire! It starts out pretty slow, and fires faster, <u>with diminishing returns</u>, for each PP that is built. So the formula can be simple like [fire delay] / [amount of PP]
This will make it so marines have to be present and occupied to siege.
It removes the possibility of the ARC-trains.
Marines have to make a stationary commitment (PP) at the siege location that can be recycled/killed resulting in a loss of res.
Dictionary:
time = anything that doesn't happen instantly
res = cost res
manpower = something that occupies a marine from his regular task (enemies)
enemies = need to be fended off
PP = power-pack
quick forum check, i found these related threads:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118170" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118170</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118119" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118119</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118162" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118162</a>
The thing that people have been complaining about is that ARCs are too easy to deploy and then move to the next location and deploy.
And also ARC-trains. Whereas when you a "critical amount" of ARCs you can just brute-force kill a hive, then go on to next one.
The reason is that 1) there's less marine time involved in the NS2 mechanic and 2) <u>it is spent in the safety of the base</u>.
So most of the "siegeing process" (getting siege-tech to start siegeing) is spent in base. And, "occupied time" is only spent in base.
However, <u>ARCs need to travel escorted to the siege location</u>, but this doesn't seem to be limiting enough.
Imo there needs to be some on-location set-up for marines to do before they can siege! But it has to be less than in NS1 because the escort element already contributes.
Deeper analysis:
In NS1 you:
first needed a turret factory in the siege location - hostile territory (time + res + manpower + enemies),
then def it until it's advanced (time + res + enemies),
then build the individual sieges (time + res + manpower + enemies), whose increase could be slowed by limiting manpower (attacking/killing marines).
Whereas in NS2 it's somewhat different.
You make a robo factory (assume/usually in base) (time + res + manpower),
wait for upg (time + res),
then produce the ARCs (time + res), whose increase <u>cannot</u> be slowed by limiting manpower!
then they need to transport/escort to siege location (time + enemies)
once in place, they diploy instantly (enemies)
Suggestion:
ARCs need "special" power to fire when deployed! That means power-packs (PP) need to be dropped in range of the arcs and <u>constructed by marines</u> (and/or MAC).
My own version:
1PP powers all arcs within its range.
The more PP that are in range of an ARC, the faster it can fire! It starts out pretty slow, and fires faster, <u>with diminishing returns</u>, for each PP that is built. So the formula can be simple like [fire delay] / [amount of PP]
This will make it so marines have to be present and occupied to siege.
It removes the possibility of the ARC-trains.
Marines have to make a stationary commitment (PP) at the siege location that can be recycled/killed resulting in a loss of res.
Dictionary:
time = anything that doesn't happen instantly
res = cost res
manpower = something that occupies a marine from his regular task (enemies)
enemies = need to be fended off
PP = power-pack
quick forum check, i found these related threads:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118170" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118170</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118119" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118119</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118162" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118162</a>
Comments
It's simple, intuitive, makes marine presence necessary, makes it scale better with more marines, stops arc trains, adds vulnerability to marines etc etc. and it keeps the core 'mobile siege' design.
It's simple, intuitive, makes marine presence necessary, makes it scale better with more marines, stops arc trains, adds vulnerability to marines etc etc. and it keeps the core 'mobile siege' design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--quoteo(post=1936049:date=May 14 2012, 04:35 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 14 2012, 04:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936049"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that by making marines have to "deploy" a.k.a "build" the sieges, you'd get all the good bits from NS1 and respect the design of the current arc too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you by pure game mechanics, Tweadle!
But it's not very aesthetic and doesn't quite fit the "lore" (of all nerdy things to mention :P).
I definitely had you idea in mind, but I also wanted a techy/hi-tech -ish solution visually.
Also, there is a siege-location-static-investment in my suggestion.
And as an added benefit, the PP work centrally, as the adv. turret factory in NS1, kinda.
The PPs are now expensive, which is good for this purpose.
Some brainstorming:
There is tradeoff in mobility vs local firepower, needs a balance.
Get many arcs and few PP and you're mobile, fast to build PP, who become the weak link, more time waiting to build all ARCs.
Get few arcs and many PP and you're more tied down, slow to build many PP, not as much to escort, more redundant in terms of power.
But both ways increase dps: Have more ARCs, more redundancy + dmg; have more PP, also more redundancy + dmg.
To this I also imagine the PPs are powering one structure like normal, and "passively" powering ARCs within range.
I like this. ARCs would need more range to compensate though.
QFT. However, I can only imagine trying to build siege turrets with lerks bile bombing, lol.
Sounds good and doesn't do away with the work that has gone into the arc up until this point.
How many ARC trains have you seen since the patch?
Of those what percentage of them have failed?
Of the remaining what percentage of those games would you say could not have been won without the ARC train?
If you do the math I think you'll find the isolated "Problem" as you put it to be very, very low. . .
There's too many other issues with Marines right now for me to even think about more ARC nerfs
I'm also willing to bet that people that are for your change either don't use ARCs while comming or only use them when the game has already been won
How many ARC trains have you seen since the patch?
Of those what percentage of them have failed?
Of the remaining what percentage of those games would you say could not have been won without the ARC train?
If you do the math I think you'll find the isolated "Problem" as you put it to be very, very low. . .
There's too many other issues with Marines right now for me to even think about more ARC nerfs
I'm also willing to bet that people that are for your change either don't use ARCs while comming or only use them when the game has already been won<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the NS1 method was easier for marines in that you set them up where they had to fire from. There was more predictability when defending them as you were defending them from a static location covering your front and rear while the commander scanned the hive.
If you are unaware of the NS1 method it is as follows...
In NS1 the order was drop a phase gate, marines came through with mines and covered the phase gate. Next drop a turret factory and upgrade it immediately then drop sieges all the while marines had to defend the PG and TF/sieges. In NS2 you can be attacked from all directions simply trying to move with them from base to their destination without the ability to phase through in waves of reinforcements. The result is an arc train with more arcs than the aliens can possibly kill before they reach their destination. Perhaps if there was a mobile phase gate rolling along side them it would be a different story (plz uwe don't take that as a serious suggestion and implement it).
<!--quoteo(post=1936130:date=May 14 2012, 02:19 PM:name=TimMc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TimMc @ May 14 2012, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936130"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like this. ARCs would need more range to compensate though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1936136:date=May 14 2012, 02:42 PM:name=Mendasp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mendasp @ May 14 2012, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The NS1 mechanic was a lot more fun than what we currently have. So Tweadle's idea of marines deploying the ARCs sounds like a good compromise to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1936160:date=May 14 2012, 03:55 PM:name=Arkanti)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arkanti @ May 14 2012, 03:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936160"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds good and doesn't do away with the work that has gone into the arc up until this point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I too would prefer Tweadle's deploying over the current version.
But this isn't what the thread is about.
I got an idea, so I do an analysis/comparison and back it up with arguments.
If you disagree with me, I think it's only fair you also motivate why.
I can repeat the point I feel has been overlooked:
There is no static resource investment/risk at the siege location. Which also means less time spent building, and no central way for aliens to abort a siege (adv-tf in ns1).
@MaximumSquid
ARC trains are not my main focus, the comparison to ns1 is.
Moreover, I'm FOR buffing ARCs to atleast the level they were before AND make them more expensive again.
At 10TR they were a weak + cheap = spammable unit. Right now they cost more (15TR) but are still equally weak = less viable unit.
I used to like to build forward bases as well that started with a phase gate, turret factory, turrets, an armory, and then finally if the marines hold it down long enough for the turret factory to upgrade, siege turrets.
Though like you said in the post, an Onos would be able to stomp the factory/siege turrets to oblivion. I also felt like the rooms were bigger/models were smaller in NS1 so there was actually *room* to build stuff in an outpost. Nowadays I feel very cramped even if there is a phase gate/armory in a hallway.
hadn't considered this at all, good point!
first actual problem I see..
but
it can be turned into a game mechanic:
(if no uninfested patch exists) marines have to clear cysts in order to siege; will alert aliens
and aliens in turn have to carefully cover area around sensitive map points with infestation
I think it finally gives incentive for using a flame thrower in a squad (if it instantly/rapidly killed off infestation).