Pros and cons of Tier 3 tech on 1 CC
IronHorse
Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Ah, the age old topic..
I still recall may 2011 when Charlie "Flayra" first decided to scrap the requirement in the alpha.. No more did marines need to maintain map control (the winning condition) to reach the highest level of tech. Turtles were how every match ended (though the performance didn't help marines)
Then after the community asked for it back, it returned sometime later in the beta..
The game launched, and for a time things were "good".. But then build 250 was birthed and brought with it this odd, seemingly un requested change back into the picture.
So, instead of having the discussion of whether we should have it or not, which can be had in sewlek 's beta test thread, i thought we'd try to analyze by collecting data. Admittedly, I am incredibly biased and dislike the recent change, so i thought we could collectively compile a list of pros and cons to further evaluate the change from a slightly more objective and collected viewpoint.
The Pros (benefits) and Cons (negatives) of having the highest tech (Tier 3) achievable only on 1 Command Chair:
Pros :
Cons
Feel free to add to the list, I will maintain it as long as you format it correctly, with "pro: X reason" categorizing etc.
Let the analyzing begin! ;-)
I still recall may 2011 when Charlie "Flayra" first decided to scrap the requirement in the alpha.. No more did marines need to maintain map control (the winning condition) to reach the highest level of tech. Turtles were how every match ended (though the performance didn't help marines)
Then after the community asked for it back, it returned sometime later in the beta..
The game launched, and for a time things were "good".. But then build 250 was birthed and brought with it this odd, seemingly un requested change back into the picture.
So, instead of having the discussion of whether we should have it or not, which can be had in sewlek 's beta test thread, i thought we'd try to analyze by collecting data. Admittedly, I am incredibly biased and dislike the recent change, so i thought we could collectively compile a list of pros and cons to further evaluate the change from a slightly more objective and collected viewpoint.
The Pros (benefits) and Cons (negatives) of having the highest tech (Tier 3) achievable only on 1 Command Chair:
Pros :
- Allows marines to tech up without having to hold ground / forward positions
- Potentially allows for faster exos and jet packs and W3/A3 for greater strat variety (does this actually happen? A link to a stream would be helpful confirming)
- asymmetrical winning conditions
- Allows for more marine comebacks
- Marines can get jeptacks and exos on one CC!!
- Marines have a better chance (not much of one) of winning after losing most of their map control.
- Allowing JPs on one CC might encourage/allow marines to leave base, better mobility, survivability and with the option for beaconing if it hits the fan
- Game isn't perceived to be over when you lost your 2nd CC
- Feels like a clearer progression of tech
- Exos are much more frequent
- More consistent with traditional RTS design
- More logical/realistic: Why do marines need multiple command stations when they only have one commander?
- Allows marines to play more aggressive. Less bases > less marines required to defend> more aggression.
Cons
- Largest contributor to marine turtles in public games, largely impacting quality of the rounds.
- Unintuitive. Maintaining and holding map control is encouraged through every facet of this game. So why not one extra structure if you're already in that room??
- Unfair advantage. Aliens have to secure areas of the map just like marines but have to hold them as well to advance and keep their tech.
- Turtles aside, it becomes difficult to push marines back once they have tier 3 tech, even if they own no portion of the map.
- Game becomes "beat the clock" with marines inevitably getting fully teched.
- Not requiring map control leads to naturally less aggressive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
- Tres costs increase
- Further isolates marine "island" starting areas. (i.e. Control in Veil, Terminal in Docking)
- Promotes a "status quo" attitude regarding TSF team playstyles. ("Just keep 4-5 RT's up at all times, and we'll be golden.")
- Marines can get jeptacks and exos on one CC??
- Even with the pro of having proto items on 1 cc, comebacks are still very very rare (in some cases not logical).
- No point of even getting 2nd cc especially in competitive matches. AKA phase gates are the marines most valuable structure.
- Gives aliens less bases to destroy, which are more satisfying /exciting than RTs.
- With Exos being to powerful in defense, this mechanic seems broken
Feel free to add to the list, I will maintain it as long as you format it correctly, with "pro: X reason" categorizing etc.
Let the analyzing begin! ;-)
Comments
Assymetry of winning conditions and playstyles.
- I like the feeling of needing to destroy the marine "beach head" or completely exterminate the Alien infestation
Cons:
Not requireing map control leads to naturally less aggresive play from marines (aggression is needed to win)
pro/con: there's less chance of marines dying from a base rush if they are more likely to have 2 bases (I think this is good for beginners, but has worse risk/reward equations for veterans)
con: TRES cost. marines are hurting enough (this is balance-able)
con: tricks marines into defending their bases instead of attacking
con: tricks aliens into suicide rushing into a base that's usually defended because they think they need to eliminate it
I guess some players might view the bottom two cons as two wrongs making a right...
It was part of the reason why some games used to be kind of balanced
i haven't played much since Unbalanced Test went live, but turtling was a huge problem even when 2 CC was required for proto stuff
maybe moving a3/w3 to the 2nd CC would help solve that a little, but I'd rather just see aliens get something OP to end it than even more marine nerfs
might just be better to just let a CC be built anywhere and allow only 1 IP per CC
then it could solve turtling without turning the tech tree into a tech line
Sorry but I really tried, but I can't think of many pros towards having a full tech tree (minus dualies) able to be obtained from one Commander Chair. I think it just promotes hardcore turtles. If the base game was more like Last Stand, with one side attacking and one defending, then it would make more sense, however, I fail to see much purpose to the fact as it is.
Con: Further isolates marine "island" starting areas. (i.e. Control in Veil, Terminal in Docking)
Con: Promotes a "status quo" attitude regarding TSF team playstyles. ("Just keep 4-5 RT's up at all times, and we'll be golden.")
Marine turtle would be worse if anything with 2cc, I'm would be surprised if you don't remember the endless 2 cc camping that marines had before the 1 cc. It was exactly the same, the turtle issue has nothing to do with marines taking tech points. Marines need map control to hold resources, they need resources to win. Without resources they will lose the game. By not forcing marines to hold 2 tech points (remember marines have much less mobility than aliens) you give marines much more opportunity for aggression. Marines are already to turtle heavy as it is and the last thing we want to do is add 2cc again to make them even more turtle heavy.
The reason why games don't end on public is because the impact of the higher tire alien tech is not good enough. Public generally just does not have the combat coordination required to end the games, the way to fix that is simply to make the tier 3 abilities stronger. Stronger tier 3 abilities = dead marines in the end game = less turtle. You say its Unintuitive but if anything it makes it simpler for a beginner to realize that he does not have to find a second tech point to get his advance tech. single cc and 2x cc are just as intuitive. If anything that con you add there is there just to be there. Considering how long you have been playing ns2 I'm sure you have realized that the game is about mobility vs power. Aliens have the mobility advantage and try their hardest to gain map control while marines try their hardest to deny them map control. To do this marines take over key locations and hold them. This are not nessary tech points, this can be routes that block both the tech points and defend the marine resource towers. By forcing marines to always have a phasegate at tech point you limit their ability to take hold of these key areas limiting their aggressive capabilities. Both teams play differently and there is no reason to force marines to get a second cc when it only limits the gameplay. The clock you talk about is for both teams, both teams are on a clock til the opposing team gets to the full tech or get to many advance lifeforms. The only difference is that aliens rely on mobility and numbers to win while marines are much stronger on their own. This won't change by adding a 2nd cc requirement, it will stay just the same just like it was before. If you really think marines don't require map control then you are so dead wrong. If anything marines have to fight with all their might to keep map control if teams are even.
Since I'm pretty sure how this thread will develop from now I will probably not post more in it.
The majority of marine rounds aren't even worth turtling, the stigma of recycling IPs is strong and teams that can't concede properly had no chance of performing any amount of team work towards a win anyway.
It seems like the only time the alien team requires team work since patch 250 is breaking down a marine base and low and behold turtling is now this evil concept that must be abolished as it's diminishing the gameplay experience of aliens everywhere, please fuck off, pre exo turtling requires 2-3 gorges biling under the cover of fades/lerks/skulks engaging the marines for barely 5 seconds, post exo turtling requires 2-3 smart gorges biling under the cover of onii/fades/lerks for barely 5 seconds.
The only marine base location that doesn't apply to is flight control on summit as you can only realistically bile the power over and over again.
Its lame and unfun. Thats why.
Cons: Marines can get jeptacks and exos on one CC
Pro: Marines have a better chance (not much of one) of winning after losing most of their map control.
Con: Terrible turtles that last twice as long as the actual game lasted.
Con: Even with the pro of having proto items on 1 cc, comebacks are still very very rare (in some cases not logical).
Con: No point of even getting 2nd cc especially in competitive matches. AKA phase gates are the marines most valuable structure.
ability to come back
Cons:
ability to turtle
There's other stuff to consider too like tech path flexibility (i.e. can opt out of building second cc until dual exo unless you really want a forward IP or another beaconable location). However, those are the two big pro/cons. And frankly, I think the pros outweigh the cons here. Sure, an exo turtle is annoying, but marines always have the ability to concede if it's really over.
NS2 is already lacking in terms of come-from-behind victories. You get it with aliens every now and then with base-rushes, and sometimes with marines in pubs when there's a rookie team that doesn't know how to deal with exos and losing onoses left right and center.
Denying the opportunity to at least have a shot in the late game if you lose your second tech point just because turtles are annoying is dumb. The problem isn't the turtle itself, it's the fact the marines won't concede cause they either don't know it's over or want to draw the game out. And that's their right. It's difficult, but certainly possible to break a turtle with a little bit patience and teamwork, so do just that and end the game. If we don't allow protolab on 1 command station all that'll happen is 90% of marine games will concede after a second base is lost. Seems like a pretty big blow to cast on the marines when the aliens are already dominating in terms of balance. Aliens have fades with the new blink on one hive without any research, so it seems only fair that marines should have something too.
I actually agree with this. Single exos can easily fend off a couple onos and gorges and other life forms. Jet packs help but aren't the turtle tool like exos.
I meant the pros and cons of having T3 tech on only 1 CC, so for example, saying tres costs are higher as a con doesn't make sense, because that's not currently happening? Though i get what you mean. So would you like me to interpret the list? i.e. "Pro: less Tres expenditure" ?
I guess i didnt expect that confusion.. i added a title just before the list to help clear it up.
@CD121 : Added.
@Xen32 : Added
@Side1Bu2Rnz9 : Added.
@d0ped0g : Someone just beat you to the first one, and the 2nd one is covered.
@Xao : Just collecting data, friend. But i agree, in that marines do not need any nerfs, regardless of their impacts, if balance isn't capable of being resolved. But seeing as how often NS2 is updated..
*waves*
Too bad you didn't contribute to the topic, i was honestly curious what you had to weigh in.
Like i said though, I won't be discussing in this thread, personally, but thanks for taking the time to reply, none the less.
edit: although benson's addition: asymmetrical winning conditions ... is close to being a true pro if you don't weigh in the confusion / downside of how unexplained that is.
yes
So marines should be entitled to being able to comeback after losing 2nd chair but aliens not after losing 2nd hive?
Why should alien victory require marines to concede?
Turltes have been an issue for a long time in this game, the requirement for a 2nd Chair for exo's and jp's in the past made life easier for aliens to finish things off...but the fact w3a3 was still available still made it hard for aliens.
Comparatively marines find it easier to take down aliens as more hives go down.
Marines get access to FT, GL's, SG's Arcs etc all off 1 CC, plus they get full weapons and armour upgrades.
Throwing in Exo's and JP's just simply led to more turtles.
The biggest con is that 1 side enjoys the turtle situation...and its not the side thats winnign map control.
Marines should need to push the kharaa back...not sit and simply wait to get all their toys before bothering to worry about map control.
I have often see games where aliens have had game won but due to W3 A3 and a pub server with newer players, marines could easily turtle for over 10 minutes.
Con: The game suddenly becomes boring when a turtle lasts to long
Con: With Exos being to powerful in defense, this mechanic seems broken
Pro: Is needed to hold the win percentage of marines above a ridiculous level.
Pro: Is not as unintuitive as needing a second CC for tech.
I want to go into more detail on the last point. I remember from old builds the frequent demand of jps / exos without holding a second tech point (mostly from newbs). It simply wasn't intuitive. One does not easily see the correlation of researching tech and the Command Center.
I don't believe I said that. But people shouldn't complain about turtles if they're not willing to concede after there's absolutely no hope. This applies for both marine and alien game if either are struggling to land the finishing blow.
Full weapon and armour upgrades contribute a lot to the turtle situation, but not FT GL's, SG's cause you want to have an LMG anyway for onoses (if you don't have exo). Arcs are just a nuisance and barely relevant. I never denied that exos and jps help turtles - they do, and turtling is a significant problem. But removing what little ability you have to stage a come-from-behind victory from the marines is not a good solution when concede already exists.
Because having to take care of an additional base makes getting mapcontrol and putting the aliens under pressure much harder. The 2 CC requirement acutally means less aggressive marines since you need more people on guard duty.
I hardly ever see aliens secure multiple areas of a map. Think of veil, usually nano is gorged up and you dont see a clog/hydra anywhere else. It is the marines who have to get up phasegates in key locations and secure those.
Same as point 1.
The game has always been beat the clock. There are timings for certain techs/lifeforms you want to rush/delay as much as possible.
Same as point 2.
Huh? Did the 250 upgrade increase costs, I dont like number crunching? That is hardly a con to the 1 cc requirement.
How are they isolated and how is this bad? Same as point 1.
And here I was thinking the fadeball ends the game once aliens get 3 harvesters. In fact I have seen this status quo mentallity on the alien side quite a lot.
How is this a con? The 1 cc requirement's main intent is not to make comebacks move likely, it is to prevent the easy basetrade comebacks for the aliens where some skulks just jump a base while the marines siege a hive. I've seen it over and over on both sides. Hive push incoming, bait out beacon, swarm the defenseless exos or the pg.
So how is this a con? You want phasegates on 2 CC requirement? There is no point in having 2 ccs because you can only have one commander.
Right... Biting on a CC is more fun than biting on a RT. Maybe it tastes better, could we probably introduce different exciting flavours for marine RTs so the skulks dont get bored of chewing them?
You know what is not satisfying? Constantly phasing from one base to another to kill pesky skulks who try to kill the base even though your team is winning on paper and has total mapcontrol; knowing once you go for a hive push, you lose 1-2 of your bases & tech.
Con: allowing Exo's on one CC tends to encourage them to stay in base i.e. big damage out put and a constant stream of targets combined with wanting to be near team mates with welders.
I'd let them have JPs but not exo at 1 CC.
Also W2/A2 on 1CC, but not A3/W3.
What is really needed is some kind of subtle marine weapon damage scaling on high player servers, at least when multiple marines are shooting at one target.
The comebck-argument is not really justified. Comebacks don't really happen - at least not in public, in my experience.
Sure, there are comebacks, but every comeback comes with 20, maybe even 30 turtles.
The comeback argument is easily outweighted by turtles.
Lets go through them TL;DR style.
Not true at all. If we simply evaluated this statement, we could ask: which change has the larger effect on reducing marine turtle in public games?
a) Tie t3 to 2 cc
b) Remove exo
Obviously option b. I'm not saying to actually remove exo, but that the above assertion is invalid. So i'll try addressing what i think it's trying to say (sorry if i misunderstand again ironhorse).
It might sound intuitive that t3 tech on 1 cc means more turtle, but tying it to 2 cc is just swapping one type of turtle for another. Infact, by increasing the hurdle cost for effective turtling via 2 cc, you will see overall more 2 cc turtle orientated games and less focus on actually being aggressive. We saw this pre 250 if you want empirical evidence, and i don't see a reason why we wouldn't see it again.
Trying to be super aggressive while chucking res out for a 2nd cc base is really dumb, bad for gameflow, and limits comeback pressure.
Not true at all.
There is only allowed one commander per team. Intuition tells you that you should only need 1 command station, since its function is to house the commander. Map control is not held through CC's. Try holding map control with just CC's and no phasegates - pretty dumb.
That also answers why not one extra structure. Because it's fundamentally useless and adds an unnecessary tres sink. The question to ask is really why would you want to? Are you playing to win, or playing to not lose?
Not necessarily true at all. Assymetrical balance and symmetrical balance are both possible design routes. Assymetrical balance happens to be more interesting. If you find this hard to believe, there is evidence from games past and current that this can work fine.
This observation is based on mistaking the current marine biased late game as untouchable, when it can be fixed with some very simple number tweaking. The issue is not related to 2nd cc at all. You address turtle by directly addressing turtle related mechanics such as exo dmg, gl reload rate/cost, as well as alien turtle breaking power i.e. onos, xenocide, proper fade t3 ability.
Further, map control should not be the sole determinating factor in whether or not you can push aliens back. Comeback should always be possible, just not as marine biased as it is currently. Hate to say it again for only the millionth time ever since the first beta build they came out, but EXOSUITS OP PLEASE NERF TNX. Exosuits are one of the longest standing imba mechanics consecutively running throughout ns2 development from build to build, almost like a theme. Maybe only second to fades, although fades have received alot more attention.
fixed that for you
Not true at all. Think of it like this - in any given game marines have an x ammount of time effort that they can spend. Holding all else constant, they can either spend all of x being aggressive, or they can use some of that x trying to turtle and secure a random techpoint and thus have less x left over for aggression. What you are suggesting, "2cc and map control requirements", is the exact opposite of the outcome you find desirable, "aggression is needed to win".
Not requiring map control leads naturally to MORE aggressive play from marines. Imagine if RT's were not needed and marines recieved a fixed res income. Do you think we would see more aggressive marine play? or less? If powernodes were removed, do you think we would see more aggressive marine play or less?
I don't see how this is a con. The timings are either balanced or not, and this arguement is based around shifting numbers meaninglessly. This is the point in your list at which the quality of the 'cons' starts deteriorating exponentially.
Phasegates. 2nd CC/ip as pseudo phasegate is stupid.
Phasegates can be placed anywhere, CC's cannot. Keeping this in mind, tell me which mechanic has the greater chance of creating 'island' symptom?
2nd cc only changes this to "just keep 5-6 rt's up at all times, then get a 2nd cc somewhere and we'll be golden". All you are doing is adding an extra requirement to the 'status quo'. 1 cc actually has a beneficial effect here of reducing status quo requirements
Yes they can. The tutorial that explains the tech trees and how to play ns2 is over by the main menu. Oh wait...
This is not even an arguement anymore. Even 1% is a greater effect than 0. The issue is not that comebacks are rare or 'illogical' (what on earth is that even supposed to mean. Killing someone makes you die instead?), but how you balance this comeback % to a healthy zone while keeping the game deterministically skill based throughout all phases of the game. Ideally, if marines are coming back, it should be happening as a result of superior FPS play.
This one is obviously coming from a new player, or someone who hasn't thought about their opinion all the way through to the potential solution properly.
There are always decisions which are less optimal than other decisions. I don't see how this is an arguement anymore than stating some random fact.
So what if 2nd cc is a waste of res in competitive matches? Do we have 2 commanders on the same team?
lol'd at this one to be honest.
2 cc turtles - also known as "balanced game"
A turtle on 2 CCs isn't a turtle. Pre 250 there was no problem for the alien team to crush one of the bases. Simply because the number of marines needed to split up on the two bases.
I understand, that you want to see more aggressive play from marines. And that defending 2 CCs isn't your thing. But don't call it turtle. It completely misses the point.
It's mix between clan and pub play. And only servers that runs the stat mod. To my opinion it should be running on every server and with a distinction between clanplay and public.
You're right; it's all about teamwork. There is a misconception about that for a lot of marine players. Playing NS2 like they want on marine side is wrong all the way long. Most people think they can do whatever they want because it's 'pub'. As a consequence nobody wants to take command on marine side anymore. Then they cry rivers to get a decent commander. Kind of pathetic.
This is a kind of moral value NS2 should teach before making players able to join a server. Don't be dumb, look at your map, try to help where it's needed (or red). This brings the rookie/Level servers etc, debate. Still i do believe that marines with proper TW have a better chance to win than Aliens. I made my mind about that. On pub, as commander on marine side i always know if a team is gonna go wrong or not.
I had a game with marine that was clearly under-skilled compared to alien. We did win because of one essential thing. Most of the team was properly organizing. Teamwork is everything.
i may add:
Here you have a typical example of a clan match that are somehow equal:
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/131487/one-of-the-best-endings-i-ve-casted#latest
The whole team goes several times trying to destroy the PG in "System WP". With proper marines unit working as a team, you have a real hard time doing things.
Which is why I have for all too long now been an advocate of linking w3 a3 to at least 2 CC's.
Even with JP's and Exo's tied to the 2nd CC we still needed to have the concede feature added to help end games that had hit turtle stage (or at least that how it was perceived).
We still have all too many turtles, but only ever marines holed up...I am yet to see a turtle from aliens on 1 hive against a fully tech'd marine squad (atleast one that was actually trying to finish the game.)
What's the vision of how NS2 is supposed to be played? How does this change sit into it? Are we looking at the right thing at all? You can tinker with the tech tree all you want, but it's not going to make much of a difference until there's some kind of clear idea and direction on the basic gameplay mechanics.
For example if the turtles are the main issue:
What is supposed to promote the active play the non-turtling team is doing? What is supposed to punish the turtling team?
Should for example the dominant team be ramping up insane income compared to the other team? Is it getting huge income advantage? Is it able to transfer that advantage into army strength that crushes the opponent? Why isn't it crushing the opponent?
You mean a boring one, right?
Aggressive play should be encouraged, contrary to the OP - 2 CC requirements have the opposite effect.
Exosuit 1 CC turtle trains aren't a problem because they can be purchased on 1 tech point, they're a problem because the damage output is immense almost regardless of skill level. In higher player count server, aliens have little answer for it.
Marines getting locked into defending isn't an interesting way to play the game, and public players asking for instant phase gates to more efficiently sit around and not attack anything makes for very poor quality games. Tech points encourage this type of play.
Aliens not being able to break a turtle again should have little to do with 1 CC 3/3 or proto. Instead of implementing wholly unnecessary gameplay additions or limitations (hello powernodes), fix the actual problem of the alien end game. T3 abilities being useful would be a great start.