Squad Bonus
PsiWarp
Gifted GorgeRichmond, B.C., Canada Join Date: 2010-08-28 Member: 73810Members
Gifted GorgeRichmond, B.C., Canada Join Date: 2010-08-28 Member: 73810Members
Seeing the recent 100 PRes cap and extra pour into team, a squad bonus idea comes to mind. For being in a squad, you are eligible for RFK PRes from other Squad members, should you deal enough damage and/or kill a target. Naturally, a kill would net more PRes than damaging.
Some balance issues to keep in mind:
Q: Would it become too easy to farm PRes?
A: Depends, a squad of experienced players vs. 1 experienced player + several new/intermediate players does produce different results.
Q: Should there be a limit to members per squad?
A: I think there should be, as a Beacon or team push would produce a huge squad, causing every Marine who can aim and shoot to gain PRes very rapidly.
Q: Will weapons cost have to be increased?
A: Perhaps, it does discourage rambo-ing somewhat as the rambo marine cannot afford the big guns. Naturally, he'd want to buddy up for better gear. It may make weapons distribution more difficult for the Commander, however.
Still, we've yet to see how the game will assign squad members and if the Commander can manually assign Marines to squads. What other bonuses do you guys have in mind?
Some balance issues to keep in mind:
Q: Would it become too easy to farm PRes?
A: Depends, a squad of experienced players vs. 1 experienced player + several new/intermediate players does produce different results.
Q: Should there be a limit to members per squad?
A: I think there should be, as a Beacon or team push would produce a huge squad, causing every Marine who can aim and shoot to gain PRes very rapidly.
Q: Will weapons cost have to be increased?
A: Perhaps, it does discourage rambo-ing somewhat as the rambo marine cannot afford the big guns. Naturally, he'd want to buddy up for better gear. It may make weapons distribution more difficult for the Commander, however.
Still, we've yet to see how the game will assign squad members and if the Commander can manually assign Marines to squads. What other bonuses do you guys have in mind?
Comments
Weaponcosts would have to be doubled or trippled if this goes in, leading to nooby players probably thinking playing marines is pretty harsh.
Now they just need to introduce <u>T</u>RFK, and put all scaling-required support costs to TR. e.g. medpacks, ammopacks, nanoshield, etc.
The better you are supporting your marines, the better they can kill.
The better they are killing, the better you can support your marines.
The more marines there are, the more (support) resources you're getting.
The more aliens there are, the more (support) resources you're getting.
(each player gets same res per res node regardless of players?)
if this is the case then problem solved
team game now oriented around keeping res towers (territory control) as opposed to how well you can frag each other
There should be pRes for building / welding / moving to a waypoint (last one only every 2 or 3 minutes). And split the score and pRes you get out of building mathematically between the building marines. So everyone get the score / res for the work he has done. Not only the one who made the most.
Why would you set ammo/med to TR? <b>So that support scales with player count.</b> I've said this already.
Let's say you have a game with 4 players on the team.
You have x resource towers, you as commander are getting y resources from each of these towers, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to x*y/z medpacks/ammopacks in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? (x*y/z)/4.
Now let's say you have a game with 16 players on the team.
You have x resource towers, you as commander are getting y resources from each of these towers, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to x*y/z medpacks/ammopacks in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? (x*y/z)/16.
That is a quarter. This is a serious problem, if we want the game to scale (and we do).
Now let's consider each case again, with TRFK.
With 4 players, ignoring the income from towers, each player makes x number of kills, and earns y team resources per kill, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to (4*x*y/z) in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? x*y/z.
With 16 players, ignoring the income from towers, each player makes x number of kills, and earns y team resources per kill, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to (16*x*y/z) in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? x*y/z.
<u>2.</u>
If the commander needs to do something with his PR, then that's a separate issue. There are better ways to deal with it, and the criteria are as such:
- Stuff that the commander can do for the players on the ground (i.e. support).
- Stuff that teams cannot receive any benefit from by rotating commanders (i.e. no benefit from pooling personal resources) (e.g. by enforcing ability cooldowns) - anti-example: sentries, ease of spammability, this was present in earlier builds and was a serious problem (especially with multiple commanders).
- Stuff whose effects scale with player count (because one commander's personal resources do not scale) (e.g. large area of effect, or even global, support abilities) - anti-example: medpacks/ammopacks, these do not scale, this is present in current builds.
- Stuff that encourages frequent commander PR consumption, to ensure there is no build-up or hoarding.
- Multiple options, such that there are real trade-offs and opportunity cost.
<u>3.</u>
You cannot have PR for support tasks / following orders, because that is effectively one-sided spontaneous generation of resources, and it can very easily lead to abuse. (Commanders and teams making trash orders / doing trash tasks to build up PR.) Pretend, for instance, that teams gained TR for their members building / welding / moving to a waypoint. <b>Now</b> do you see the problem? The team is generating valuable resources out of nothing, without even needing to interact with the other team or the external environment (e.g. killing enemies, and capturing resource nodes).
Why would you set ammo/med to TR? <b>So that support scales with player count.</b> I've said this already.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just don't see the need for scaling the amount of ammo and medpacs to the player amount. If you have many marines, than they are a vicious force for their own. Being able to push them further more with ammo and health isnt a good idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1900207:date=Feb 6 2012, 03:20 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 03:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say you have a game with 4 players on the team.
You have x resource towers, you as commander are getting y resources from each of these towers, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to x*y/z medpacks/ammopacks in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? (x*y/z)/4.
Now let's say you have a game with 16 players on the team.
You have x resource towers, you as commander are getting y resources from each of these towers, each medpack/ammopack costs z resources, that means you can support up to x*y/z medpacks/ammopacks in total at some point in time.
How many is that per player? (x*y/z)/16.
That is a quarter. This is a serious problem, if we want the game to scale (and we do).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think it isn't a problem. Until we try, we will not know, who is right.
<!--quoteo(post=1900207:date=Feb 6 2012, 03:20 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 03:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><u>3.</u>
You cannot have PR for support tasks / following orders, because that is effectively one-sided spontaneous generation of resources, and it can very easily lead to abuse. (Commanders and teams making trash orders / doing trash tasks to build up PR.) Pretend, for instance, that teams gained TR for their members building / welding / moving to a waypoint. <b>Now</b> do you see the problem? The team is generating valuable resources out of nothing, without even needing to interact with the other team or the external environment (e.g. killing enemies, and capturing resource nodes).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So please explain how to abuse pRes for Building / welding / move to waypoint. Building and recycling will cost tRes for pRes. Assuming that there is maximum 3 pRes for one build task (splitted between the builders!) it wouldn't be worth it.
1pRes for every 30 points in armor welded isn't abusable either. Because every damage you get, also costs you health. So you cant play this abuse-game for how long? Like 2 pRes? In the same time you could have been useful for your team.
Getting 1pRes for moving to a waypoint every 3 (maybe even 5 minutes) isnt even worth the time you need to abuse this.
But if you play for your team, all the 3 points together get you more pRes than the one who is only for the killing or doing nothing for the team.
Because... there are also more aliens. :/ I thought that was obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=1900224:date=Feb 6 2012, 10:49 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 6 2012, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900224"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And I think it isn't a problem. Until we try, we will not know, who is right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is <b>already</b> a problem: with the system, even if you haven't yet noticed the symptoms.
<!--quoteo(post=1900224:date=Feb 6 2012, 10:49 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 6 2012, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900224"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So please explain how to abuse pRes for Building / welding / move to waypoint. Building and recycling will cost tRes for pRes. Assuming that there is maximum 3 pRes for one build task (splitted between the builders!) it wouldn't be worth it.
1pRes for every 30 points in armor welded isn't abusable either. Because every damage you get, also costs you health. So you cant play this abuse-game for how long? Like 2 pRes? In the same time you could have been useful for your team.
Getting 1pRes for moving to a waypoint every 3 (maybe even 5 minutes) isnt even worth the time you need to abuse this.
But if you play for your team, all the 3 points together get you more pRes than the one who is only for the killing or doing nothing for the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to ignore your numbers, because we should first be dealing in concepts.
Let's consider waypoints. I already said how you would abuse it. Commanders would drop trash waypoints, players would follow them, thus gaining PR; rinse and repeat; team is now PR-rich and can all afford the best equipment that money can buy.
Let's consider building. You are giving marines resources for building structures that marines have spent resources on. Let's ignore the intermediate there, and deal with first cause and final effect. You are giving marines resources for spending resources.
Let's consider welding. You are rewarding marines for repairing players/structures that aliens have damaged. Let's ignore the intermediate there, and deal directly with first cause and final effect. You are rewarding marines for aliens damaging their players/structures.
Abuse is just the one part of it: it's an inherently broken system. It's broken because it increases the wealth of one team <b>without them interacting with the other team or the external environment</b>.
What you want is to feel rewarded, so how about this: the commander, having nothing to do with his PR, can reward marines with his own PR for following his orders, or being supportive. That way, marines still get rewarded, but the team as a whole does not get any richer. I personally don't see much benefit in this*, but I wouldn't be wholly against it.
* It could still lead to the issue of pooling resources on one player, however.
Yeah maybe, but my experience is, that a high-number-marine-mob has a better battle value than a high-number-alien-swarm. Because of the long-range-advantage. With more guns, they can kill whole alien swarms before they even reach the marines. And more aliens always means more target. But this is only my experience, maybe I'm wrong here.
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm going to ignore your numbers, because we should first be dealing in concepts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, ignore the numbers. They are only examples. But why are you ignoring my arguments?
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's consider waypoints. I already said how you would abuse it. Commanders would drop trash waypoints, players would follow them, thus gaining PR; rinse and repeat; team is now PR-rich and can all afford the best equipment that money can buy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. As I said, there is a counter for this which prevents abuse. So this is only an little bonus for teamplaying marines. So little you wouldn't get any advantage, when you focus on abusing it.
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's consider building. You are giving marines resources for building structures that marines have spent resources on. Let's ignore the intermediate there, and deal with first cause and final effect. You are giving marines resources for spending resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. You giving marines personal Resources for building things paid with MUCH MORE(!) team resources. Its 2 completely other pools.
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's consider welding. You are rewarding marines for repairing players/structures that aliens have damaged. Let's ignore the intermediate there, and deal directly with first cause and final effect. You are rewarding marines for aliens damaging their players/structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. You rewarding marines for repairing what aliens have damaged. This comes to the extend, that the marine is vulnerable in this time.
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Abuse is just the one part of it: it's an inherently broken system. It's broken because it increases the wealth of one team <b>without them interacting with the other team or the external environment</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its only broken if you imagine it wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1900231:date=Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 6 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you want is to feel rewarded, so how about this: the commander, having nothing to do with his PR, can reward marines with his own PR for following his orders, or being supportive. That way, marines still get rewarded, but the team as a whole does not get any richer. I personally don't see much benefit in this, but I wouldn't be wholly against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This point sounds actually really nice.
Personal resources have <b>value</b>, yes? They have <b>value</b> because they are used to buy things of <b>worth</b> - equipment and lifeforms.
These things have <b>worth</b>, because they are used by <u>your team</u> to oppose the <i>other team</i>.
The <u>team</u>'s total personal resources determines the <u>team</u>'s total potential <b>worth</b>.
What should earn a <u>team</u> an increased potential <b>worth</b>? Doing well.
Doing well with respect to what? Doing well with respect to the <i>other team</i>.
How do you quantify this?
-> <u>Your team</u> <b>killing</b> <i>them</i>, and <b>not being killed</b>. <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->(RFK)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
-> <u>Your team</u> <b>taking territory</b> from <i>them</i>, and <b>keeping territory</b>. <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->(Res nodes and tech points)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
These are instances of <u>your team</u> <b>interacting</b> with the <i>other team</i>.
Does <u>its</u> members following orders, building or welding mean <u>your team</u> is <b>interacting</b> with the <i>other team</i>? <!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->No.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
So should the <u>marine team</u> be rewarded for <u>its</u> members following orders, building or welding? <!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->No.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
It is a matter of <u>team</u> vs <i>team</i> balance. That is what you have to imagine.
Why does rewarding the players on the ground with the commander's own PR not conflict with this idea?
Because the <u>team</u>'s total potential <b>worth</b> does not change - PR is simply being <b>re-allocated within</b> the <u>team</u>.
The same effect can be achieved by res overflow and swapping out a rich commander for a poor player, so this does not change the current system.
Doing well with respect to what? Doing well with respect to the <i>other team</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I think, that you don't have to reward a player for making that, what's the most fun in the game. Many marines ignore the order of the com to make some easy pew-pew-alien-killing. Why should we reward this on top? We should reward things with pRes to encourage teamplay. We don't need to reward the player for a thing he wants to do anyway.
Your assumption, that you have to reward the player for interacting with the other team settles on a wrong reason. And in my opinion its simply not necessary to encourage something the players do for their own. Because its the most fun you can get in a shooter. You actually want to shoot.
The problem right now is that there is often no teamplay. So lets encourage this and not the Rambos by rewarding them res for their kills.
No interaction with the other team = no reward for <u>your team</u>.
Simple.
<b>I'm not even arguing for PRFK, I'm glad of its removal.</b>
I'm arguing for TRFK and TR-cost support abilities because it allows support abilities to scale with player count.
And I'm arguing against "teamplay rewards", because <i>No interaction with the other team = no reward for <u>your team</u>.</i>
Is that what you're misunderstanding? The difference between <u>you</u> and <u>your team</u>?
<u>You</u> being rewarded with PR, is <u>your team</u> being rewarded.
<u>You</u> or <u>your team</u> being rewarded for interacting with the other team is ideal, because this is a team game and it is a competitive activity.
<u>You</u> being rewarded for activities that don't include interacting with the other team <b>could</b> be fine, <b>but</b> <u>your team</u> cannot also be rewarded.
If we want to reward <u>you</u> for teamplay, it must not affect the <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->game balance<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> (i.e. by rewarding <u>your team</u>).
We already have something that is compatible with this, and it's "score" on the scoreboard.
I do not understand why your arguments are "because its called so" or "because it has to be so". And why you are not arguing with reasons and facts. Game Balance isn't an argument ether, because you can tweak the function / amount later to make it balanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1900898:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900898"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No interaction with the other team = no reward for your team.
Simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Why has it to be this way?
I see no argument with a cause.
I see no problem in rewarding pRes to one player because he plays good in his team. (welds, builds, etc)
I see not a single cause to reward a player for something he would do anyway, because its fun.
When your team successfully interacts with the other team than you got one RT more or got down a hive. If your team has successfully interacted with the other team, you are rewarded enough. Because you had fun. The time flied by and now you have a bunch more of resources to spend (simply from the RTs because you doesn't mentioned the time flied by. Because you had so much fun in fighting.) So there is no need to push the pRes in this case even further.
But when you defend an RT or repair a powernode, than you should get pRes in addition. Because thats not really the most fun but necessary for your team.
Let me try and show you the problem in another way, by describing a mechanic that is <b>directly analogous</b> to your suggestion: Every time a marine player says to another marine player "Good job, guys!" he gets 1 PRes. To "prevent abuse", he can only be rewarded if he hasn't been rewarded in the last minute. You will be able to spend this PRes on weapons that you can inflict on the alien team.
<!--quoteo(post=1900918:date=Feb 8 2012, 04:29 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 8 2012, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see not a single cause to reward a player for something he would do anyway, because its fun.
When your team successfully interacts with the other team than you got one RT more or got down a hive. If your team has successfully interacted with the other team, you are rewarded enough. Because you had fun. The time flied by and now you have a bunch more of resources to spend (simply from the RTs because you doesn't mentioned the time flied by. Because you had so much fun in fighting.) So there is no need to push the pRes in this case even further.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, okay. You obviously are not actually reading what I'm saying, and yet forming your own conclusions about what I say. I have begun to lose patience.
Please, please, read my post again. I will quote it here for you:
<!--quoteo(post=1900898:date=Feb 8 2012, 03:01 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900898"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is it that you do not understand?
No interaction with the other team = no reward for <u>your team</u>.
Simple.
<b>I'm not even arguing for PRFK, I'm glad of its removal.</b>
I'm arguing for TRFK and TR-cost support abilities because it allows support abilities to scale with player count.
And I'm arguing against "teamplay rewards", because <i>No interaction with the other team = no reward for <u>your team</u>.</i>
Is that what you're misunderstanding? The difference between <u>you</u> and <u>your team</u>?
<u>You</u> being rewarded with PR, is <u>your team</u> being rewarded.
<u>You</u> or <u>your team</u> being rewarded for interacting with the other team is ideal, because this is a team game and it is a competitive activity.
<u>You</u> being rewarded for activities that don't include interacting with the other team <b>could</b> be fine, <b>but</b> <u>your team</u> cannot also be rewarded.
If we want to reward <u>you</u> for teamplay, it must not affect the <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->game balance<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> (i.e. by rewarding <u>your team</u>).
We already have something that is compatible with this, and it's "score" on the scoreboard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->NOTE THAT IT SAYS <b>I'm not even arguing for PRFK, I'm glad of its removal.</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REWARDING <u>you</u> AND REWARDING <u>your team</u>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->NOTE THAT REWARDING <u>you</u> WITH PRES IS ALSO REWARDING <u>your team</u>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->UNDERSTAND THAT <u>your team</u> SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR NOT INTERACTING WITH <i>the other team</i>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REWARDING <u>you</u> AND REWARDING <u>your team</u>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->NOTE THAT REWARDING <u>you</u> WITH PRES IS ALSO REWARDING <u>your team</u>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->UNDERSTAND THAT <u>your team</u> SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR NOT INTERACTING WITH <i>the other team</i>.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I don't like things that scale with team-size. The problem here is that the marines will become more effective as they kill aliens, but the aliens will not become more effective as they kill marines, without re-introducing PRFK. And TRFK for the aliens doesn't make sense, and wouldn't be as useful, because the alien comm doesn't support aliens offensively, only defensively, and that's all to do with energy. Yes marines can't be supported so well when there are more of them, but it's easier to get up and keep up RTs, so the problem is somewhat reduced there. Also, it's likelier that marines will be in larger groups, which makes them inherently stronger. That does scale with team-size, as the amount of marines increases, the amount of aliens needed to kill them increases <i>more</i>, so it does balance. Now I'm not saying this is perfect, but supporting marines more, when the team sizes are larger, seems to play against the aliens in a big way.
<!--quoteo(post=1900898:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900898"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No interaction with the other team = no reward for <u>your team</u>.
...
Its a broken game mechanic.
...
If we want to reward <u>you</u> for teamplay, it must not affect the <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->game balance<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are no arguments. This is only your opinion. You can't say its broken and wont work just because you think so. You can't say it would be unbalanced because you didn't see it. (Btw. Balancing in this case is only a matter of numbers. How can you say, that this would be unbalanced, no matter how many Res you get.) You think, I do not understand what you write. But maybe you don't understand that I'm simply of different opinion? I see that you don't like it. But I don't see, that it would not work.
<!--quoteo(post=1900898:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900898"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is that what you're misunderstanding? The difference between <u>you</u> and <u>your team</u>?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not even what I'm arguing for. I stated a simple logical fact: You didn't need to reward a player for something he does anyway because its fun. You need to reward a player for something the game mechanic needs but isn't so much fun at all. Like building / welding / listening to the com / waiting for your teammates to get ready for a rush. It is a detail if it will be pRes or tRes. A Detail that doesn't even matter in the first case for this argument. Only when you look closer, than it would be more rewarding for the player to get pRes out of it than tRes. If building a RT, the reward in tRes is there anyway. But on top he should earn pRes because he has accomplished this task.
To phrase it again: Reward players with pRes, for tasks that are neglected by most players. Reward the player for good teamplay to encourage him and focus the overall teamplay (Also the teamplay with the commander). And don't reward players for going rambo. (I know, you didn't arguing for that, but I'm independent arguing against it.) And don't reward players for something they would do anyways. Because of <a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/12/14/the-overjustification-effect/" target="_blank">the overjustification effect</a>. (Nice to know about.)
P.res for building structures and welding? All the players are ignoring each other and dying while building and welding for additional points.
P.res for kills? Everyone is trying to kill something and completely ignore the structures.
However, feeding is always an important part of competitive play. So having t.res for kill would stop some of the constant rushes the aliens do in early game. As they wouldn't want to give the marines a res advantage if they fail.
even if t.res is only for support abilities with cooldowns or delays like dropping packs?
I'm meaning the usual commander res pool. As in structures and research.
That kind of advantage would slow down the amount of blind rushes.
That's more of a complaint with the alien commander implementation.
<!--quoteo(post=1900994:date=Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900994"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have read your post the first time and now again to be sure that I didn't have missed something. And please, don't try to capslock me to death. It does not help to convince me. Same with biiiig baaad fonts. (You aren't <18 years young aren't you?) Arguments help to convince me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only did that because it seems like English is not your first language. In my experience, talking louder (or talking in capital letters) appears to get the sentiment across, and that occasionally helps to get the meaning across.
<!--quoteo(post=1900994:date=Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900994"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These are no arguments. This is only your opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not <b>opinion</b>. It is <b>reasoning</b>. Is it <b>opinion</b> that if I drop a ball from a height, it will fall? Before I drop the ball, is there anything to indicate that the ball will fall? So why do we know that the ball will, most likely, fall? Because of <b>experience</b> and <b>reasoning</b>.
And balancing is <b>never</b> a case of <b>just numbers</b>. That is such a terribly narrow point of view, and generally a terrible way to balance a game from the ground up. The fundamentals need to be sound before you discuss the numbers. Your suggestion is fundamentally broken.
<!--quoteo(post=1900994:date=Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 8 2012, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900994"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not even what I'm arguing for. I stated a simple logical fact: You didn't need to reward a player for something he does anyway because its fun. You need to reward a player for something the game mechanic needs but isn't so much fun at all. Like building / welding / listening to the com / waiting for your teammates to get ready for a rush. It is a detail if it will be pRes or tRes. A Detail that doesn't even matter in the first case for this argument. Only when you look closer, than it would be more rewarding for the player to get pRes out of it than tRes. If building a RT, the reward in tRes is there anyway. But on top he should earn pRes because he has accomplished this task.
To phrase it again: Reward players with pRes, for tasks that are neglected by most players. Reward the player for good teamplay to encourage him and focus the overall teamplay (Also the teamplay with the commander). And don't reward players for going rambo. (I know, you didn't arguing for that, but I'm independent arguing against it.) And don't reward players for something they would do anyways. Because of <a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/12/14/the-overjustification-effect/" target="_blank">the overjustification effect</a>. (Nice to know about.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You continue to fail to understand.
PRes rewards <u>players</u> <b>as well as</b> <u>teams</u>, because PRes is used to buy <b>power</b>.
If you want to reward <u>players</u>, then <b>by all means</b>, do so. Reward them with score, reward them with persistent stats, reward them with pats on the back. Do not reward them with PRes, because then you are <b>giving their team an undeserved, and unearned advantage</b>.
Also, you do realise that RT's provide PRes, right? If your reasoning is that "the reward in TRes is there anyway", then that's trivially countered with "the reward in PRes is there anyway".
Not true.
If you want to make the commander able to drop more support with more kills, it needs to be Commander PRFK. Not TRFK.
So the commander gets personal res every time someone on the team gets a kill.
I would also like to see an upgrade on extractors costing teamres, increasing the commanders personal res income.
To create the trade-off from NS1 where you had to decide if you want to support your marines, or tech faster.
Thats not true. But I think, adding the mentioned system would have the same balancing impact like scrapping the idea for Res4Kills. What they did. And even if the balancing has to be adjusted after this. Than you can do this by simply changing the amount of pRES an RT creates per player, to find a compensation. Thats why I see no problem in balancing this idea.
Where I see a problem is, that there is none to little teamplay in my last games. And I'm searching for a solution.
@Harimau: You are right, that english isn't my first language. So maybe I just cant understand what you want to say. So lets just agree to disagree.
If you want to make the commander able to drop more support with more kills, it needs to be Commander PRFK. Not TRFK.
So the commander gets personal res every time someone on the team gets a kill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At first, I was confused about what exactly it was that you meant. I mean, giving the commander all the PRFK would mean the commander could easily get swapped out for another and afford, like, an exo right away. Terrible idea.
But then I realised... you missed the other part of the suggestion which was to set all support abilities to cost TRes.
Really, it could be a third resource, let's call it 3Res.
-You get 3RFK.
-Commander spends 3Res to purchase medpacks, ammopacks, nanoshields and other <b>single-unit</b> support abilities.
I just like the idea of using TRes though, because it leads to more trade-offs in the commander's decision-making.
@_Necro_: I don't think it's really that difficult. You just need to divorce the idea of the player from the idea of the team.
It is noble to reward the player for doing supportive activities, I have no qualms with that.
What I have qualms with, is rewarding the <b>team</b> for its players doing supportive activities (beyond the reward that such supportive activities already provide the team), because that makes no sense and will lead to imbalances.
And PR is inherently a <b>team</b> thing, not just a player thing, because PR is used to buy upgrades - do these upgrades help the player <b>alone</b>? No, they help the team as well.
Your suggestion means that Team A gets more powerful <b>independently</b> of Team B - in a game where these two teams <b>never interact</b> (e.g. highscore tables), this would be fine: but this is not that game, since this is a head-to-head competition (Team A is actively competing with Team B, so the difference in power is critical).
Consider these two systems that I would not consider broken:
A) Reward the player with the commander's PRes (a direct transfer).
B) Reward the player with score for doing supportive actions.
Why are these (reasonably) okay?
For A), it's because <b>the team's TOTAL PRES POOL does not get richer</b>. PRes is simply being moved around.
For B), it's more fundamental: score is entirely irrelevant to the interaction between teams, since score is just a number on the scoreboard.