ANTs and NTU Silos - Page 5

Warborn · 2003-02-01, 02:34 PM

The decay of resources when a base isn't being used should be removed. The idea of this resources bit is to, I believe, make it impossible to hold off an opponent who has your base totally surrounded for a long period of time. If the defenders are able to mount a strong enough defense of a single choke point within the base, they could hold the enemy off for a long time -- long enough that allies would come and help them. While that may seem like an OK way to work it, it'd be infuriating for the attackers that they can't do anything about it (let's say the defenders are constantly spamming bullets/explosives into the choke point and are constantly drawing ammunition from a nearby ammo dispenser thing). That's what the resource bit is meant to prevent, and that's why I feel that passive decay of resources is not a good idea.

PrivateMonkey · 2003-02-01, 03:28 PM

It almost seems as if folks want to ignore the devs on purpose. Bases will not significantly decay when unused!!!

Dave said this in the dev chat. Please read:

<@SmokeJumper> The NTU balance is still being adjusted, but the concept is to reduce NTU consumption when battles aren't raging around the facility. That can be done by a number of factors...NTU consumption increases with respawns at the facility, or when auto-repair features kick on, etc. We're still adjusting those factors so I can't tell you numbers yet.

Anyway...this means that facilities will stay owned for long periods of time...unless there are fights around them. Thus, they don't "decay" from just sitting there very much.

It doesn't get any clearer then this. The point is, the devs know this is an issue. They are currently balancing it. Also, just to stop further misinformation from making the rounds, lets clarify a basic point:

1) Galaxies will be able to cary ANTs. Nobody in thier right mind will actually drive these vehicles on the ground, unless perhaps there is a warp-gate a couple minutes away.

It seems like their left leg is going north and the right leg is going east. What are they shooting for? Fast or engulfing? Don't say both, because grocery shopping isn't engulfing.

I think people are missing the whole point of resources. They are not there for realism. Sure, the devs can build a fictional reason as to why they are needed, but game-design doesn't put the story before the game.

I see many folks worried about this being a mundane gameplaying role. Good, I say. More work for me. Don't be ignorant and assume that everyone thinks like you do. I'm sure you also think playing medic and engineer is boring. For me, there is no difference between playing medic and deploying resources. The mention of the word "resource gatherer" is almost insulting. It recalls visions of SCV's in StarCraft going back and forth...back and forth.... yes, that is boring. But that is not what the devs have included. They have included a system that requires you to strategically prioritize where the resources are needed. In fact, I'd even make the following arguement: everybody who wanted to play as a pilot is probably jumping for joy. They now have something else to do other then just transport people. Deploying resources is really a pilots job. It's about traveling the world and interacting with outfits. In fact, I'd make a strong arguement that it is one of the most strategic elements in the whole game. You think it's boring? Mundane? I pity you. Indeed, for me the prospect of just sitting there and defending a base seems incredibly dull. If pure combat was the only role PS offered, I doubt half of us would even be here.

To sum up my two points:

1) The devs are addressing the non-combat decay. The point here is to create a fun system that adds to the game, not the realism. If the system didn't make for more exciting gameplay I doubt the devs would have added it.

2) Some folks like playing as engineers. Some folks like playing as medics. Some folks like playing as drivers/pilots. And some folks even like playing as commanders. These are all support roles. They are the roles that win games; that make the difference between victory and defeat. There is no reason why folks won't like playing as a resource deployer. In fact, I'd even argue that deploying resources isn't in itself a whole new role. It is a combination of the commander and pilot roles. For those of us who enjoy the support aspects of PS, the resource system is a dream come true. It is the difference of dimensions. For those of you that enjoy combat, don't trip. You can't win without medics. You can't win without engineers. You probably can't win without good pilots. And ultimately you can't win without commanders. What is so radical with this new role? You can't win without resource deployers. By the same token you couldn't have won before without those other support roles. All it does is add another level of strategy.

Mazelmavin · 2003-02-01, 04:18 PM

Nicely said

Navaron · 2003-02-01, 04:44 PM

PrivateMonkey,

Ease up on the "emphatic" language please,

"stop further misinformation" - Just to clarify, you haven't played the game right? So you don't know anything for a fact then.

"Nobody in thier right mind will actually drive these vehicles on the ground, unless perhaps there is a warp-gate a couple minutes away. "

Unless of course they don't feel like taking a Galaxie from their Sanctuary. Also, don't forget you have to be in control of the air transport station to get galaxies, I'm pretty sure that will be a point of contest, and that galaxies coming out of there will be juicy targets regardless of what they carry.

"I think people are missing the whole point of resources. They are not there for realism. Sure, the devs can build a fictional reason as to why they are needed, but game-design doesn't put the story before the game.

I see many folks worried about this being a mundane gameplaying role. Good, I say. More work for me. Don't be ignorant and assume that everyone thinks like you do."

I'm not ignorant at all, I do however doubt that you will be able to amass 30 people like yourself on every server, on every needed continent, at every needed time. For the people not like you, it's going to be a pain in the ass to do, especially since they DO look at it as menial.

"everybody who wanted to play as a pilot is probably jumping for joy."

Assuming they can get galaxies. Point is, I bet they'd rather be taking troops into the heat of battle somewhere than going on a milkrun ever few hours on a continent they already have locked down.

"I pity you." - Thanks

"If pure combat was the only role PS offered, I doubt half of us would even be here."

I agree.

"commander and pilot roles" - that commander's not going to have a lot of followers.

"Nothing. What's your point?"

Just that if it is a problem, there's already a nice fat easy solution.

Like I said before, I don't know what to think about this because I haven't played the game yet. I can't understand their motives for doing things like taking out prone (to keep the game fast paced), then implementing things that require you to tend house on a continent you already own.

I like the idea for combat though, but it will create a lot of hard feelings when you're under siege and some retard keeps spawning as a max, running out the door dying, spawning as a max and so on and so on. I know that clanners who have dedicated max guys aren't too happy about that, but it will HOPEFULLY keep out the spam deaths.

I think that it all falls back to the class of players we get. Hopefully the fee and high system requirements keep out the players who aren't serious. I wouldn't mind making a nano run once a day if I had company, (which I would), but not everyone is as lucky as those who have actual clans. These guys are the ones I'm worried about, because the game needs them, but if I'm in a haphazzard squad with a leader I don't know and he tells me and 5 other guys to go get juice, I'm not gonna be happy.

I'd like to repeat that I am not for or against it though, I just think that it's going to take very careful implementation. I like the idea of having something else to do though.

k24q · 2003-02-01, 08:05 PM

Im personally looking forward to leading my outfit on a ANT hunt. Where does it say you can't take any enemy ANT? Adding this simple supply problem to the game opens up many more roles and combat decisions, such as enemy ANT with escort ahead, what do we do? We could ambush them and concentrate all firepower on the ANT and pull out. Or we could kill the escort and claim the ANT for ourselves and take it to the nearest Friendly installation. Your defending the base and have been now for a good hour NTU's are running abit low, you will be glad to see an ANT and an armed escort coming.
With the right amount of balancing and of course a good community mentality then these can be a fine addition to the game. If they prove to be to difficult to implement I would expect they would be removed.

rockarfett · 2003-02-01, 09:14 PM

I think this whole ANT thing is a GREAT idea. It adds a whole new dimension to the game. I see lots of people here are worried that it will be boring. I have only one thing to say to you. Don't do it. This is an MMO we are talking about. There will be people that actually enjoy this kind of task. Be sure about that. Anyway, I don't see how it would be much different from driving a tank or an APC or a Galaxy or what not. Usually, the driver can't fire anything anyway. It could also be a whole bunch of fun. Those ANTs will be enemy magnets. There will probably be lots of scouts hanging around bases under attack just looking for trucks to mess up. This would mean that they have to have escorts. This is another thing to do in the game.
I also like the idea that unused bases decay and turn neutral if the silo goes empty. This means that you could insert drop pod troops behind enemy lines on a locked-down continent and disrupt supply lines in order for a base to go neutral and open the warp-gate. This is also a whole new set of tactics and would mean that not even on a locked-down continent would it be completley safe to do nanite runs. What if that ANT that is moving on the base about to run out of supplys is intercepted by drop pod inserted saboteurs. This sounds like lots of fun and makes up for things to do on continents that are completely owned by one faction. I imagine that there could be entire outfits specializing on such operations once continents get owned by one faction.
I agree that you shouldn't have to refill the silos too often on unused bases but I really like that fact that they decay. It adds so much depth to the game. I am really happy to hear about this.

GhostSniper · 2003-02-01, 09:18 PM

If the ANT wasnt able to be picked up by transport I wouldnt mind doing a "Escort the ANT" mission.

Nohimn · 2003-02-01, 09:28 PM

let's just chill. We'll see how it turns out in beta. If it isn't good, then it will be removed asap, but we should trust the devs know what they are doing. let's just hope everything works out as planned. ANTs obviously MUST have an important role that can assist players in some way. if it doesn't, like I said, it will simply be deleted. let's just hope for the best.

Moloch · 2003-02-01, 09:36 PM

SJ said that if you set your veh permissions to only yourself, and you don't log off, and it isn't destroyed, you veh stays there. couldn't a peacetime base just have a stock of full ANTs sitting inside the walls somewhere, so you only have to drive 6 feet to the silo, and you still have 3 more full trucks to fill it with?
If they made the load inside an ANT decay whilst it sat, that would eliminate the loophole, but it would suck for the driver, cuz you'd be half empty when ya got home.

SandTrout · 2003-02-01, 09:43 PM

Not realy a loophole. If you have 6 ANTs sitting in a bases, they are lyable to be blown up by smokejumper and his steath-egineer. ANTs would be prime targets for sealthers and Reaver attack runs.

This is what I love about this game, there are so many ways to approach a situation.

rockarfett · 2003-02-01, 09:44 PM

If you have a vehicle and spawn a new one, the old one de-spawns. You can only have one at a time.

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 09:55 PM

PrivateMonkey, first of all calm down, lets not make this thread into a flame war.

We know about that quote, but he then said something else a little bit later on:

It will eventually, yes, Mike. But we're talking hours. I shouldn't say "hours". The time is being determined, but is intended to be long.

This is very vague, but it gives us a rough estimation of the time. And some people dont like the 'hours' idea. Navaron also brought up the fact that it might be shorter.

k24q, you are wrong about the capture system. It doesnt specifically say anywhere that you cant capture vehicles with people in them, but unless the driver gets out and you hack it there are no garauntees that you can capture ANTs.

rockarfett, I believe that almost everyone agrees with you that combat rusupply runs would be fun and add depth to the gameplay. As for teams taking out ANT's on locked continents it would be very hard if not nearly immpossible. There are only two chokepoints for ANT's, the warpgates, and the bases. You could also try and take them out in transport, but lets look at how hard all of this would be.

In Transport: The roads in between could be used to ambush an ANT, but you would have to be damn lucky to get anything. Most people will also use galaxies so that would make it even harder to take it out in transport.

At Warpgates: This is your best bet becuase an ANT driver might not be working with a galaxy and once he refills you could destroy him. Then you would have to move because they would know where you are. If they were using a galaxy to transport it you probably couldnt take it out because they are protected in the warpgate itself and then they are moving fast and you dont know which side of the gate they are coming out of. There would be a good probability of seeing an ANT though because there are only 3-4 of these as opposed to 7-12 bases.

At Bases: Almost impossible unless you scout out many bases, possibly with many squads and are willing to wait a loooong time. You dont know which base is about to fall until you get there, and without vehicles that is going to take a long time. Even then the bases could have just been resupplied and you would have to wait a couple of hours before you get your chance.

If you want to take out a locked continent then you would probably have the same chances taking a base as you would of making one go neutral.

Moloch, having six people log in 24/7 and using up their one vehicle just so that they can sit in a base and wait for a saboteur is a loophole?

rockarfett · 2003-02-01, 10:16 PM

What I would do to make a base go neutral is this. Send in scouts to every base on the continent. There aren't that many. Find the one with the lowest supply level, preferably one far away from a gate. Then send in a bunch of MAXs to cut the ANTs of close to the base. With some luck, the defenders will not be prepared for such an attack and be slow with the response.
I don't say it's easy, but with a big outfit it should be possible. If it's better or worse than going for a base directly, I can't say. Time will tell

quiet · 2003-02-01, 10:54 PM

Shadowwolf, I am a different quiet.

How about ANT-bots, automated resource gathering like a good RTS would have. Players would only need to worry about supplying NTUs when ANT-bots are destroyed or a base is being heavily used. I think that would keep all the good features of NTUs and ANTs but make it so nobody would have to do the tedious work. CEPs could give some cool ANT-bot manageent controls too.
Just an idea

Originally posted by Ludio
Moloch, having six people log in 24/7 and using up their one vehicle just so that they can sit in a base and wait for a saboteur is a loophole? [/B]

Players with no vehicle certs at all wouldn't be sacrificing anything though. Could become a standard tactic for pure infantry types to always bring a loaded ANT to a base and park it somewhere safe. Can reinforced armor drive an ANT? I am really curious what the ANTs are like, they don't sound like the dedicated ressupply vehichles they should be to me.

I like the idea of SuperAnts, a cert ANT that is either a little more combat worthy, or faster, or can hold enough NTUs to resupply multiple bases.

Does a faction have to control all the gun towers to lockdown a continent?

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 11:15 PM

quiet, no they dont have to control the guntowers.

I will revise my statement:

Do you call having six people log in 24/7 so that they can sit in a base and wait for a saboteur is a loophole?

That better?

The fact that they have to stay logged in is the worts part, just because it would restrict you from doing anything else on your computer.

And the saboteurs would get them.

I do like your idea though quiet, if you are planning on defending a base then bring along an ANT so that when your silo starts to run low it can be refilled without reinforcements coming through enemy lines. They would still be vulnerable to stealth hackers/engineers, but it is definately a possibility.