Anti-Rambo system
Killer Ricochet
Join Date: 2008-12-03 Member: 65639Members
Join Date: 2008-12-03 Member: 65639Members
Well, I'm very new in forums here, and I stopped playing a long time because I used to lag (and I think I still lagging) any server I tried to enter, so... But, after I got back to this site and I saw the development of NS2 I start reading some threads of the forum. So I noticed these "rambo noobs". Well, I planned a anti-rambo system:
When a commander bores from that stupid beeing that simply do not obey and go out to try kill some skulks by itself, the commander could, somehow, mark him with an (X) so he couldn't score by fragging (while he could still scoring by other tasks such buildind, repairing, etc...). This would probably stop him, since what rambos like is scoring, and you would know who to NOT heal/reammo (he would be marked with a (X). Welders would see a X in front of him when pointing to them (but, if necessary, they could fix their armor anyway). If you note that he has started to play right, you can restore he capability of scoring by frag <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> .
But if he keeps making more problems, then... Maybe via votation (to prevent abuses from commander), you could mark him with a (!!). A player marked with it couldn't use the armoury, grab weapons/armors from ground (unless someone has been killed and dropped it), would always be the last to respawn, use medpacks/ammo/catalysts...
Please dicuss this. I, at least, think is a good idea. And you?...
edit : little corrections
When a commander bores from that stupid beeing that simply do not obey and go out to try kill some skulks by itself, the commander could, somehow, mark him with an (X) so he couldn't score by fragging (while he could still scoring by other tasks such buildind, repairing, etc...). This would probably stop him, since what rambos like is scoring, and you would know who to NOT heal/reammo (he would be marked with a (X). Welders would see a X in front of him when pointing to them (but, if necessary, they could fix their armor anyway). If you note that he has started to play right, you can restore he capability of scoring by frag <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> .
But if he keeps making more problems, then... Maybe via votation (to prevent abuses from commander), you could mark him with a (!!). A player marked with it couldn't use the armoury, grab weapons/armors from ground (unless someone has been killed and dropped it), would always be the last to respawn, use medpacks/ammo/catalysts...
Please dicuss this. I, at least, think is a good idea. And you?...
edit : little corrections
Comments
edit: some changes
Marines in NS2 will be a lot more autonomous from the commander, they will be able to buy weapons etc... The "rambo" problem is a perceived problem because a commander wants pressure put on the hive or get ready for a sweet mother of prevert base flanks. The luck factor in NS is getting a competent player/not getting a competent skulk to go to the far hive at the start of the game and cap all nodes along the way. (or kill all nodes along the way)
In other words and contrary to popular belief, going towards the primary hive and killing the associated nodes should take 75% of the marine effort. What good is a cap team that dies every time they reach their destination anyway? Have a couple of good players camp outside of the hive and tie up the majority of the other team and PROFIT.
A fear meter maybe is not as a good idea. I kind of liked it when on small servers of 8 vs 8 when I was sent as a lone marine to capture a res point in stealth.
I disagree with your point entirely. In NS Rambos (that can actually play) are just as valuable as the players that huddle around each other and call it "teamwork" I don't understand why anyone would want to take away the solo game of the marines.
If you had to move in pairs all the time, how the hell would the team be able to cap resource nodes effectively, or Ninja a hive. Why is the solo player not considered a team player? Why does the common definition of teamwork on this forum consistently maladaptive with the way NS is played right now and how it will be played in the future?
Forcing ANY time of gameplay is detrimental to the game and will cause frustration amongst a good portion of the players. However, if the there were perhaps small bonuses for squads, I would not be opposed to that.
Although overall I don't think it's a good idea. In a public it would be used more as a grief tool than anything else and even if it worked, I would be more inclined to give rewards than to hand out punishments. <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104779" target="_blank">We've beem down this road before</a> and really any "free" reward is like a punishment to anyone that doesn't receive it so it's a very hard thing to create effectively.
edit: added link
If you had to move in pairs all the time, how the hell would the team be able to cap resource nodes effectively, or Ninja a hive. Why is the solo player not considered a team player? Why does the common definition of teamwork on this forum consistently maladaptive with the way NS is played right now and how it will be played in the future?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing my point, ramboing was certainly very effective in NS, moreso than it should have been according to the intended marine aesthetic IMHO. It's practically common sense that space marines are supposed to move around in squads. The team would cap resource nodes by using two players instead of one, how is that not effective? This is a new game and balance can easily be changed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Forcing ANY time of gameplay is detrimental to the game and will cause frustration amongst a good portion of the players. However, if the there were perhaps small bonuses for squads, I would not be opposed to that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Game design is 100% about forcing certain types of gameplay. You really think nothing is "forced" in NS? Marines are forced to have a commander, forced to upgrade tech and buy weapons, forced to spread out and build nodes... Competitive players can adapt to anything as long as it has depth, and teamwork and coordination is every bit as challenging as lone heroics if you ask me.
You missed the point of NS by a trillion miles. NS isn't about humping your teammates, NS is about strategy.
Also, WHAT?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's practically common sense that space marines are supposed to move around in squads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The marines do move in squads, they enter the map as a squad. Everything else is distribution of manpower and tactics. You know, you don't always have a marine to spare to send with John to do something which won't involve killing skulks.
What happens if half the team is dead, and the commander still needs resources? "Well according to the new NS2 gameplay design I have send two players to go re-cap". Requiring two players to do the job of one is less effective then sending just one person to do the job. If the marines pressure the hive enough, that solo player will not have much to worry about. If the aliens collapse on him, then they did a good job of stopping the capper from getting another node. There are risks to using solo players, just as there are risks of sending two people instead of one. Requiring two players for some diluted definition of teamwork is stupid, and will be detrimental to gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Game design is 100% about forcing certain types of gameplay. You really think nothing is "forced" in NS? Marines are forced to have a commander, forced to upgrade tech and buy weapons, forced to spread out and build nodes... Competitive players can adapt to anything as long as it has depth, and teamwork and coordination is every bit as challenging as lone heroics if you ask me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The tools are there, true. Yes every team has a commander and will have to tech. But imposing a gameplay outside of providing tools (for example forcing marines to move together) will be detrimental to gameplay. I'm not concerned will competitive adaptation because as history has shown in this game that you can't patch skill out of the game. I'm just saying that it will be less fun for people overall if "teamwork" (or the crooked definition of it) is forced on to the marines. This will be maladaptive and kill the gameplay with regards to the marines, especially if there are a bunch of marines waiting in the spawn queue.
I do agree with Zek that we should not be using NS1 as gospel and at least try out different mechanics.
I'll skip whether or not it has it's merit as I usually find things to be fairly double sided, so instead I'll come at this from the angle of just being asked by my boss "to make it work" (and perhaps my future employment depended on a good proposal/presentation).
A modified "fear" system may be plausible.
Game starts and a marine goes off by himself (perhaps he tells the commander his intention for support or perhaps not). From the moment that the marine is "x" number of visual feet/meters away from another marine, the fear counter/meter begins and conversely begins to reduce when proximity is achieved. The fear counter should give a lone marine enough time to complete an objective, ie cap a res node. If the marine completes a pre-coded objective for the map, then some time is subtracted from the counter, thus with each new completed objective the marine gains confidence. I guess it would be a sort of confidence/fear counter.
I'm not going to go into details as to what counter effects killing an alien as opposed to, say capping a node would have on the counter, only that it would benefit the marine since he wouldn't have/want to seek out his teammates as soon (if ever, as long as he countinued building up his confidence). Perhaps another method for the counter to be positively affected is if the Commander dropped you some supplies (thus the Commander approves your Rambo-ing).
Gameplay effects from the counter may include, irregular breathing, hearing your heartbeat, seeing your hands trembling as you hold your weapon. This could translate into a negative modification for aim, perhaps throw some random skulk noises at the marine now and then. Also perhaps consider raising the marines speed by 10% or enough to keep ahead of the skulk.
Finally, there should be some system by which, if a marine manages to be by himself long enough (without it being necessarily all in one go), the counter no longer applies and there's an annoucement of Elite-Marine status assigned... thus the marine is no longer affected from fear.
I'm not sure how to deal with death/respawing in consideration of the counter, but perhaps we can just say the marines are just clones (and thus experience is carried)... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />.
Personally, I have no problem with Rambo-ing as long as the Rambo in question is being useful instead of drawing away from needed manpower. This proposed system helps with that, without prohibiting "useful" rambo-ing). Of course, I won't pretend that I've covered all the angles and that this idea, also, isn't without disadvantages, it's just another form of control without being too restrictive.
I never suggested some hard requirement that you have to have 2 or more people to leave your base. I'm saying going solo should entail risks more severe than in NS, where a lone LMG marine can easily fend off multiple skulks trying to stop him from capping. The concept behind NS is that the whole map is alien territory, it shouldn't be safe to send a lone guy running around doing errands by himself. If you're confident that the aliens have no one to spare to kill your capper then by all means send him alone, but it should be a risky gamble. There are plenty of competitive shooters that are less friendly to lone rambo players than NS is.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The tools are there, true. Yes every team has a commander and will have to tech. But imposing a gameplay outside of providing tools (for example forcing marines to move together) will be detrimental to gameplay. I'm not concerned will competitive adaptation because as history has shown in this game that you can't patch skill out of the game. I'm just saying that it will be less fun for people overall if "teamwork" (or the crooked definition of it) is forced on to the marines. This will be maladaptive and kill the gameplay with regards to the marines, especially if there are a bunch of marines waiting in the spawn queue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not just talking about tools. Marines are forced to look towards common ambush spots as they turn corners, they're forced to cover as people build, they're forced to keep their backs to a wall. The reason being if they don't do this they will die. What you don't seem to be grasping is that there are always a near infinite number of possible strategies and only a small handful of them are actually a good idea, and this is a result of "forced" game design. All I'm suggesting is a change in what strategies those are. The strategy of pulling a lone player to send node capping may be less viable than before, but in exchange it's more viable to pull two of them. If spawn queues become a problem they can be tweaked. You're arguing under the assumption that everything has to be exactly the same as before, but we're operating with a whole new set of rules.
Since the gameplay is leaning towards more independence, I see no reason to hamper a team because of solo players. The draw back to using solo players is that they can be easily over-run.
I see no reason other than a skewed and outright flawed definition of teamwork to give penalties to solo players.
Since the gameplay is leaning towards more independence, I see no reason to hamper a team because of solo players. The draw back to using solo players is that they can be easily over-run.
I see no reason other than a skewed and outright flawed definition of teamwork to give penalties to solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They removed an element of dependence on the comm, so what? That has nothing to do with the marines' interactions with eachother, and it certainly isn't evidence that the whole game is shifting even further towards solo antics.
The reason is that working directly with other players is more fun and fits better with the theme of the game. Competitive players will work with the ruleset they're given.
Since the gameplay is leaning towards more independence, I see no reason to hamper a team because of solo players. The draw back to using solo players is that they can be easily over-run.
I see no reason other than a skewed and outright flawed definition of teamwork to give penalties to solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am pretty sure the autonomy note was about dependency between the commander and players only. In NS1, having a bad commander as marines was a death sentence and good commanders were greatly restricted if he had bad players. Also, players being able to purchase their weapons simplifies the game for new players tremendously and gives them more interactivity. These change makes NS2 a better game for new players, it does not immediately mean that the game is being shifted to cater to completely self reliant players.
I don't think the penalty for being alone should be something extremely imposing. The marine should not immediately become a liability when he outside out of a group, but cooperation and squads are a theme for the marines as it independence is the theme for the aliens. One thing that should be prevented is a single highly experienced marine being able to wipe out 3 skulks of moderate and below experience level in a single confrontation in the early game and then still being able to capture the RT node. The effectiveness of a single marine is way too high in early game.
I'm curious... How does traveling in a group with a highly skilled marine decrease the chances of said marine eliminating those same three skulks he would normally be able to dismantle on his own?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They removed an element of dependence on the comm, so what? That has nothing to do with the marines' interactions with eachother, and it certainly isn't evidence that the whole game is shifting even further towards solo antics.
The reason is that working directly with other players is more fun and fits better with the theme of the game. Competitive players will work with the ruleset they're given.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Removing dependence from the commander not a shift towards solo play? What is it a shift towards?
More fun? That is your basis for penalizing solo players? Really?
It seems we have a break in logic amongst the people who want to penalize those who took the time to develop the skills to maybe wander off on their own once and a while. I mean when you come up with such arguments as "It is more fun" I mean the ###### must have really hit the fan. Casual players will also work within the ruleset they are given, outside of any hard gameplay changes, nothing is really going to stop players from going off on their own in certain situations. Penalizing them outside the fact that if they mess up they are dead is foolish and by the looks of the premise of this thread (and those who support it), inspired by a hatred of those who are capable of such play.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> It doesn't, but if it's unnecessary of course you're not going to do it as you've already demonstrated.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Removing dependence from the commander not a shift towards solo play? What is it a shift towards?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's irrelevant to the discussion because this isn't about the commander. And arguing "Well, we've already started moving towards solo play, may as well keep going" is nonsense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More fun? That is your basis for penalizing solo players? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems we have a break in logic amongst the people who want to penalize those who took the time to develop the skills to maybe wander off on their own once and a while. I mean when you come up with such arguments as "It is more fun" I mean the ###### must have really hit the fan. Casual players will also work within the ruleset they are given, outside of any hard gameplay changes, nothing is really going to stop players from going off on their own in certain situations. Penalizing them outside the fact that if they mess up they are dead is foolish and by the looks of the premise of this thread (and those who support it), inspired by a hatred of those who are capable of such play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry that I prioritize the fun of the game over pro players winning as easily as they deserve. This is a team game first and foremost and of course a rock star is going to be brought down by unskilled teammates, that's life. Nobody's stopping him from using his skills to cover his teammates. And I never proposed penalizing them outside the fact that if they mess up they're dead - I'm suggesting making it easier for them to mess up. Even newbs learn what does and doesn't work, and the stronger the reinforcement against rambo behavior the less likely they are to do it.
P.S. Believe it or not I'm also capable of playing solo and no, I'm not jealous of you.
Here is the crunch behind why I support the anti-lone marine measures.
A single marine being able to kill 3 skulks in single combat upsets the balance of the overall game. Players are for all purposes a resource in the game, but each individual player has his or her own variable value. A highly skilled player is worth more than one who just started the game, but you can only have a finite amount of players on each team. Since you can't properly leverage stronger players by giving the other team more weaker ones, things start to get messy.
Lets say there are a few players on one team that overshadow everyone else in the game in either team. The problem is that there is no good way to reduce the disparity between players of different value. When a single marine is capable of handling two or more aliens in the situation where the lone marine should have lost, there is upset in the game. Not only more aliens than there should be needed have to work together to kill him, it also means that the other marines who normally be assisting him can do other things. For every alien that marine is capable of holding off, his team effectively has an extra player in addition to the numerous alien players he withholds. This happening occasionally is not an issue, but when it happens too constantly; the game is too strongly skewed.
Having that lone marine requiring a second player of some value to cover his back is way to leverage those resources so that the power gap never grows too severely because of one player. While aliens are being killed by this high value player, no additional players are effectively added to his team.
<!--quoteo(post=1695550:date=Dec 7 2008, 08:54 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 7 2008, 08:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Removing dependence from the commander not a shift towards solo play? What is it a shift towards?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Making it easier for new players to play so that a long life can be ensured for the game?