User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Big 5 discussion 4. DEFCON & Objectives.

  1. #1
    Senior Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Big 5 discussion 4. DEFCON & Objectives.

    As intelligent as intelligence officers may be, even us burrower/IO mains on the dev team can't seem to figure DEFCON out. Not say its broken, but we do think it is, at this moment, obtuse and not that interesting to engage with. We are actively working on approaching objectives, and intend to experiment with tying DEFCON points to map objectives, rather than a mindless egghunt. As well as ties to potential research expansions with xeno corpse retrieval. This Big Five item asks a lot, and probably requires a lot of work, and such, is only in the planning phase, with maintenance directed to the current system in place. It will be updated to a best fit stable position before a full rework is properly considered, if ever deemed totally necessary.
    When you want to discuss this big 5 item. Do it in here!

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Suggestions

    Personally I have three suggestions

    1. Easier Defcon
      Even the longest rounds really grind down when the marines try to get Defcon. Nuke seems to be extremely rare. Maybe more points for dead aliens as that discourages a lot of meta-ish strategies (and insta-gibbing runners with RPGs)
    2. Bigger purchasing pool
      More things to purchase, and points to purchase more. I think if the CO could choose more options for their operation in the begining and as it goes further. Points for marines, TC, PO, RO, new crew members are there but you pretty much get to choose one for each defcon. I think if the marines and reqs starting points were optional, so a CO could go with a big tank gun and grumpy marines for an operation start would add more variety. Or go without any support to try and get a nuke earlier. Basically more points to use, and things to use them for (even if it locks currently 'free' things behind defcon purchases) for round variety and command strategies.
      Also Spec kits would be a nice option, gives a way of replacing specs in longer rounds at reasonable expense.
    3. Corporate liason
      Should get a play in the intel game. As I suggested elsewhere, a 'Prisoners Dilema' mechanic between him and the MPs would be best - benefits for working together, but you can get more if you screw over the other side, and if both are working against each each other, that's a bad time for everyone.
      CL could get order cool guns, PMCs, maybe some killer drones that are good against xenos but also target marines.
    4. Little bit of Fluff
      I don't know where we are with copyright, but some of the intel to have some fluff to what they are, eg: protien polysaccharide exoskeletons, molecular acid bodily fluids, tele-neural linkages. Just a bitta flavor, helps IO and CLs RP

  3. #3
    Dev Team Foolosopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a problem with how DEFCON works around maps

    You see, the maps weren't designed for DEFCON. They're full of flanks and useless buildings that make it impossible for either a small group to roam around to collect intel or the whole force to explore the map without being flanked from behind or giving xenos more area to claim.

    This leads to the issue with IOs: sure, they might be fun, the thrill of exploring the map risking being attacked by xenos; but outside of LV, they won't be able to do shit (and that's because LV has both the fog and 90% of intel in a small area).

    Personally, I think DEFCON would work out better if maps were more linear: as in, marines try to make progress into the colony, and as they reach each room, they can get intel. Kinda like how xenos progress through WO from the gate to the garrison. Also, by linearity I don't mean the maps should be room after room, but rather be structured in a way that makes sure that areas inbetween the LZs and the frontline are safe for collecting intel and building defenses.

  4. #4
    Senior Member WinterClould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I despise any idea by anyone that the CL should be involved in any way that could put them in any potential conflict with the USCM. Only if the CL's role is completely beneficial to the USCM and not even mandatory would I accept any CL/WY involvement in defcon. Last thing we need is the CL becoming some grief role or meta griefed because players think they might be mechanically fucking with the marines. We know people already play CLs who want to fuck the uscm and we know our MPs are lore then happy to grief someone so let's just not fuck over the CL role by adding actual mechanical ways for them to fuck each other over.

    Luckly I know the devs are smart enough cookies to see the problems like I do so they won't do that.


    Also not a fan of total easier defcon after they've made is easier and easier every other update. Defcon 1 should stay rare for those really hellish rounds. But maybe it would actually be a good idea to have earlier states of defcon come fairly quickly. Defcon 2 should still take effort but we should probably get it every round the IOs actually do their job.

    Would like defcon to give rewards that you actually might have to think about which you choose tho. Right now it's easy smart shit to get req points first thing in the morning, then respawns for dchat half way in. Ez obvious choices youd be dumb not to go with. More points would prolly help with this so people can afford to actually sperg on things like the tank or whatever.
    Chen "Disco" West, Proud recipient of the "Realest Nigga on the Bloc" Award.
    My Dossier, it's good. Trust me. Read it.
    Secondary Objective: Stay Safe, Stick Together, Kick the ass of anything that might need an ass kicking. If you find any booze bring it up to CIC for me please.
    Not everyone who lost their life on Space Nam' died there. Not everyone who came home from Space Nam' ever left there.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterClould View Post
    I despise any idea by anyone that the CL should be involved in any way that could put them in any potential conflict with the USCM. Only if the CL's role is completely beneficial to the USCM and not even mandatory would I accept any CL/WY involvement in defcon. Last thing we need is the CL becoming some grief role or meta griefed because players think they might be mechanically fucking with the marines. We know people already play CLs who want to fuck the uscm and we know our MPs are lore then happy to grief someone so let's just not fuck over the CL role by adding actual mechanical ways for them to fuck each other over.

    Luckly I know the devs are smart enough cookies to see the problems like I do so they won't do that.


    Also not a fan of total easier defcon after they've made is easier and easier every other update. Defcon 1 should stay rare for those really hellish rounds. But maybe it would actually be a good idea to have earlier states of defcon come fairly quickly. Defcon 2 should still take effort but we should probably get it every round the IOs actually do their job.

    Would like defcon to give rewards that you actually might have to think about which you choose tho. Right now it's easy smart shit to get req points first thing in the morning, then respawns for dchat half way in. Ez obvious choices youd be dumb not to go with. More points would prolly help with this so people can afford to actually sperg on things like the tank or whatever.
    The way I'd do it with the Prisoner Dilemma angle is probably give the CL some intel straight up. If he shares it with the IOs, they both get some benefit, but the CL would also be getting some graces. A CO wouldn't want the MPs arresting a potential source of intel. Then the CL can either help the marines win the op, or maybe go his own and screw the USMC (or rather command, cause marines mostly like just winning) if things go south.

    Basically they have a choice, and working together with the corp and actually physically helping the IOs would buy them many good graces with command and MPs - but I don't think we should remove the slimey path for them either.

    Ideally maximum co-operation has maximum benefit to the operation, but the CL could feel free to get more for their-self if command is eating crayons cause why give them more points to buy FF OBs

  6. #6
    Senior Member Steelpoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe I'm dumb, but what is the objective of the DEFCON system?

    I've heard some devs/people claim its to end stalemates (then people started arguing over what kind of stalemate), but I've rarely seen DEFCON put a end to a stalemate as usually what occurs is the IO's (assuming competence) scour the Marine held territory for all the intel they can find, get stuck around DEFCON 3 to 2, and never reach DEFCON 1.

    The only time I've seen a Nuke deployed, not even detonated, was from admin intervention to put a end to an extreme stalemate. The round in question ended prior to the detonation since the threat of the nuke finally forced the xenos to commit to an assault, which they died in trying to accomplish.

    So, my question stands, what is the full objective of the DEFCON system?
    This is war, survival is your responsibility
    Captain Alan Bentway
    Synthetic: Nicholas
    Hunter Kwei Ikthya-de

  7. #7
    Senior Member Madventurer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    268
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMO DEFCON should have a ticker that slowly but surely gives marines extra points. Perhaps enough to get 10-20% total in one hour. That number should probably not be final.

    This would allow marines to make a stand when DEFCON is getting higher, but would not allow marines to just sit it out, since nobody wants to wait 5h purely to nuke the place.
    Meanwhile xenos would be under some pressure to finish off the marines so they can't just delay all day in the caves.
    Tyson 'Bunny' Sphere

  8. #8
    Senior Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that you are getting something wrong in this topic.
    Imo/afaik Defcon was put in to prevent xeno delaying.
    Now here is the thing. It should not be a system to encourage marine delaying.
    There is a huge difference between the 2. The nuke is not intended to end a marine fob stalemate.
    It is there to stop xeno's who delay. So if the Marines are playing well and the aliens are just delaying it is an alternative to get them out.
    But if you are at the fob stuck it should not be a system giving you a win.
    Because then you start to encourage marine delaying. And that is something I at least do not want.


    How to become senior dev.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Steelpoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Even in that case I've seen many rounds where the Xenos are down to single digits and they succeed in delaying the round for 30 mins to over a hour and the DEFCON system never even reaches DEFCON 2 let alone 1.

    Furthermore I was in reference to stalemates. The fact stalemates involve Marines hunkering inside FoBs is a consequence of the game forcing Marines to stay inside FoBs.

    The only time I've seen Marines reach DEFCON 1 was when the Marines intentionally delayed the round so they could reach DEFCON 1, I've yet to see Marines naturally reach DEFCON 1 in normal gameplay conditions, even in rare hyper-extended rounds lasting 5 hours, winning or losing aside.

    If the objective of the DEFCON system was to stop xeno delaying, it has failed to do that in my opinion. Trijent has done more to stop delaying with its Xeno Sensor Tower than DEFCON ever has, and Trijent is a Xeno's paradise.
    This is war, survival is your responsibility
    Captain Alan Bentway
    Synthetic: Nicholas
    Hunter Kwei Ikthya-de

  10. #10
    Senior Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Steelpoint View Post
    Even in that case I've seen many rounds where the Xenos are down to single digits and they succeed in delaying the round for 30 mins to over a hour and the DEFCON system never even reaches DEFCON 2 let alone 1.

    Furthermore I was in reference to stalemates. The fact stalemates involve Marines hunkering inside FoBs is a consequence of the game forcing Marines to stay inside FoBs.

    The only time I've seen Marines reach DEFCON 1 was when the Marines intentionally delayed the round so they could reach DEFCON 1, I've yet to see Marines naturally reach DEFCON 1 in normal gameplay conditions, even in rare hyper-extended rounds lasting 5 hours, winning or losing aside.

    If the objective of the DEFCON system was to stop xeno delaying, it has failed to do that in my opinion. Trijent has done more to stop delaying with its Xeno Sensor Tower than DEFCON ever has, and Trijent is a Xeno's paradise.
    I can agree that at this time it is not working like how I want it to work. But in general its a wip hence its part of the big 5. And we are adjusting stuff for defcon. We just wanna make sure we do it the right way.


    How to become senior dev.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •