Suggestion - New Marine Weapon

My shield and zerg carapace was an example, why can't I make en example?

I was more pointing out that it would ack in the same way, if they put a "sack" of water under their armor then when the bullets went through they would be slowed the rest of the way in the "water sack" and not hurt the Unit.

have you seen mythbusters? they had an episode where they were shooting into a pool, and non of the gunz could get their round more then 2 feet under the water before it was riped to pieces, lituraly.

a 2 foot sack of water all the way around the unit might be very unrealistic but this is a video game.
and have you ever done a belly flop on a pool? it hurts and after you hit you more slowly sink to the bottom then you would if you were to sink to the bottom while standing straight up.

 

i like myth busters.. yeah Ive watched that episode you're right after all

 

You're saying you don't realize how silly it is to compare Zerg carapace to Protoss energy shields?

And the water sack wouldn't burst but remain intact because...?

And seriously, you can't justify a bayonet for the Marine by coming up with a weird armor that only applies to one race. The lore modification should be applied to the bayonet instead.

Are you suggesting all Zerg units should carry a pool on their backs? A pool can hold the water through gravity, but Zerg carapace surround a zerg from all directions. It would gush all over.

 

i know it wouldn't work out for all of the Zerg to where giant water pouches on their backs that would get riddled with holes.

plus these are all just similies, (the shields)

and the pounch would not burst because of the outer layer of the carapace, so it would eventually spring leaks from being fired upon and lose the water that helps them but this is a game where everything can ignor phisic's, like Zerg flying in space and the queens nest thats suppost to be the size of mountains but is very small in game.

a lot of things ignors phisic's so loseing water can be ignored in this case and the carapace can hold the water in and ignor phisic's too.

 

What? How does that justify comparing them? I don't get it.

If the bullet is stopped already at the outer carapace there's no need for the liquid sack. But I guess that's not what you meant, so please explain.

You couldn't be more wrong. The instances of physics being "ignored" are nothing compared to when physics are followed.

 

not all bullets are stopped by carapace-that's why they take damge-so the water sac would slow down the rest decreasing the damge taken even further.

Yes we should stick to physics but you can still ignor it.

 

Going back to the actual bayonet...

It doesn't have to be something powered exclusively by an arm thrust, though that's how they're traditionally used. My idea is to use the Marine's gun's Gauss coil system to accelerate the bayonet.

Instead of firing a burst of relatively lightweight spikes, it could use the same energy (or more) to accelerate one really big spike. To maintain reusability, it would have to be stopped before it reached the end of the barrel. After the attack, the spike could be retracted for another stab. (Or they could just regenerate with a cooldown, like the Reaper's mines.)

If the bayonet were anchored at the base of the coil, it could be the length of the gun, and not even show up on the model except when it's being used (aesthetically, that would be confusing, however).

If you were willing to expend the energy, you could make it into a rapidfire stabbing machine. Think: giant sewing machine needle.

And if a hypersonic, Gauss-propelled metal spike can do it, an even bigger spike could do it better- especially when you're less interested in velocity, since you can put the mass of the entire suit behind it. Think of the difference between hitting someone with a baseball, and hitting them with the bat. Except everything is pointer.

I personally think a Marine could do Zealot-like damage at close range. A single psi-blade will deal 8 damage. A single burst of bullets does 6. I'm pretty sure the extra energy provided by a powersuit thrust could close that gap. Not meaning to imply that it should- but that it probably could.

 

yeah its cool, cooler along with the marine shield lol

 

It is ironic how a post from 4 months + back is still actively discussed. Bayonet = cool. That's all i can muster at this very minute.

 

do u want sc2 or a new expansion for war40k?

 

I think a good alternative solution would be to attach a small shield to the front of the rifle (see link below) and maybe a large knife holstered across the small of their back (second link for example) for emergencies/out of ammo.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2152789/BST-V1_400x230_1.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2152789/LP2.JPG

 

if you guys are talking about graphics it's 100% okay.

But game play-wise, if marines do not have melee attacks, there's a reason for it. It would be like giving a range weapon to zealots lol.

 

A gun-mounted shield wouldn't protect Marines from the kinds of things they would typically need to be defended from, like claws. A shield like that looks like it is intended to be used while its user is lying prone, protecting the only part of them that is being presented to the enemy.

Gameplay-wise, it doesn't matter. Hydralisks have a melee attack animation that does not affect gameplay. There is no reason Marines couldn't as well. It wouldn't be like giving a ranged attack to Zealots, because Marines can shoot things at point blank, while Zealots cannot stab things that are ten feet away.

 

now that zealots can dash/blink, yes they can "stab" at a distance

 

That doesn't count as stabbing at a distance. That count as moving fast. There's already an animation for that.

 

Aside from a small handful, the vast majority of units in the game is a ranged attacker. But even then it would provide more protection than NOT having one. Secondly since they would likely be looking down the rifle the shield would at the very least provide a little more protection for their head area. And as I've said before, even an extra half inch of metal can make all the difference.

BTW that gun in the example is from army of two and really does come in handy.

 

Well I guess its time for whatever round this debate is in to be active again. So getting back to the issue. To have the shield or not have the shield: that is the question. Now from what I remember the discussion was brought to a simple point: why have a shield on a ranged unit. Now we can accurately assess the topic from two points. Lore and Gameplay.

From the gameplay stance we can see it with several underlying points. The first being a researchable upgrade to enhance a basic unit to give further incentive for using it in late game. Now this gives way to optimizing the unit in coordination with others in end game. The second point is to apply a stronger front end tank for the previously stated end game strategies involving infantry (Ghost, Marauder, Reaper, Marine) combinations. My final point from gameplay is the idea of counters. In the original Starcraft when units were upgraded no visual indicator allowed an opponent to analyze them and provide a proper counter. With the visualization of certain upgrades we can at least conclude where a strategy may be going and promptly prepare a counter. These points in coordination with strategic reasoning provide ample reason for this to be an addition in gameplay.

From the lore perspective we can assemble two strong points out of the information given. The first being that a shield is at a basic level for defense and the Marine is the only basic unit that requires Melee defense. In Starcraft the enhanced defense is represented by the addition of more health onto a Marine( Not armor). Now such an upgrade would seem absurd in except that the Marine is unique among the three standard units (Marine, Zergling, Zealot) in that it is the only ranged unit. This means that it would be the only unit susceptible to direct melee combat and not being able to retaliate. Thus a shield becomes a useful tool in becoming a barrier between the attacker and defender. The second point that stands out is that the Marine is a unit that has gone through a change between Starcraft and Starcraft 2. No more are they ,the Marines, dispensable soldiers (and prisoners in most cases) of fortune. Instead they are Soldiers defending their people, beliefs, and homes. They have become defenders, much akin to the Crusaders during the times of the Holy Crusades in the Middle East. A shield is but a metaphorical representation of what they defend. Instead of crosses or heraldry on a shield we instead see factions and battalions. Not only are shields now a defense against the dark denizens of the universe but have now become a symbol to what they bring.

Now I've brought up the aspect of the shield from two perspectives. Gameplay and Lore. Now in my opinion the shield is something worth of the Marines. It also brings a distinction to them that did not exist in the expansion. It changes the way the Marine acts. If for instance we did not have the shield then we would see the same exact Marines as in the Original. To me this wouldn't be a large deal, except, they would go the exact same way. Instead now we have to reassess the use of them in SC2.

There is however one argument that I have left out. Aesthetics. The shield has gone through many, many iterations graphically from the time it has first been seen/announced. It has only increased in detail and overall has added to the quality of the Marine (in my opinion) as to distinguish it from its predecessor. Yes, fond memories of the Marines remain in SC2, but as with all things there must be a change. A shield is what we found in SC2.

In summary Blizzard has done a superb job of introducing a new aspect to the Marine. As instead of just adding more hit points to the Marine they have made a visual representation, a viable change in end game strategy and brought a fresh change to an old concept. I stand fully on the side that the shield itself is a suitable addition to the Marine and that I could see no other replacement for it. And remember folks this is my opinion. Feel free to debate it, not just say I'm wrong.

 

Blizzard really did do something good giving the foundation of the terran army something sturdy to be behind. It makes perfect sense. But giving them a bayonette just doesn't seem very...future-ish. Which this game is. It's just the practicality of a spike on the tip of a weapon that already does infinite more damage than it just...well...doesn't really make much sense.

 

Well now, flesh-eating swarming beasts and advanced berserking aliens don't make sense either, but they're there, so Terran have to adapt. Adding to templar's previous post I'd like to think that the shield represents lore in more ways than it might seem. Take for example the supply depot. What used to be a make-shift structure from left-over scrap metal welded together is now a well-designed, multipurpose, proper building. Over the course of the battles Terran learnt that these supply depots make excellent defensive lines so they reinforced the structure and made it submergeable. The same goes for the shield. They didn't know what they were up against in space and marines were all-purpose infantry units, but since they encountered melee hostile creatures they saw the need for protection against them, and they only had the time to develop the addition in the four-year interval. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the increased hitpoints instead of armour. Nor the 100hp ghost. I'm hoping these things change in beta.