<!--quoteo(post=1995159:date=Oct 22 2012, 02:00 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The system you described is essentially identical to one in which players are only punished for dying, and given no reward for killing. Every time someone dies they are essentially losing resources because their enemy is gaining resources. To put it simply; it doesn't matter if you have 100 res, if your enemy has 200 res, <b>you are behind</b>. The only difference in your system is that you hide this fact from the player. You make them <b>think </b>that things are going to be better because they are being rewarded for kills, but you aren't showing them the consequences of their death. Then, when they eventually get steam rolled because they were <b>feeding </b>the enemy resources, they have absolutely no idea why it happened. And let me tell you, the single most aggravating thing for new players in a game is not losing, it's not knowing <b>why</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't give players much credit... If the enemy team is holding 7 rez towers while they are holding 2 I don't think its that hard for them to realize their was a discrepancy in resources. Or when they see a Exo Suit rolling them when they barely have an onos I think they will now why they loss.
Anyone who wants RFK either has forgotten the lessons of NS1 or really does want good players to always have the res to do whatever they want. Back in NS1, you'd have a good alien. Once that player got Fade they always had the res to refade. Get a couple marines together and the team had an obscene amount of res at all times. The good thing about no RFK is that it actively hinders good players from absolutely going as fast as possible and completely leaving everyone else in the dust.
*edit*
Furthermore, it will cause a lot of players to be more afraid to push or to be aggressive for fear of feeding the enemy team. This game MUST be balanced around pub play, not around comp play.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
My experience with RFK in games is that it helps the winning team win faster. At best, I could see it making a difference in certain marginal cases in which good players join a losing team who are res starved (only 1 or 2 RTs).
Also, on a last note, if you're losing due to not holding towers, it's because you exerted poor map control. You've got to be able to take and hold territory, thats the point of the game. Out shooting your opponent is the means to that end, not the end in of itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1995159:date=Oct 22 2012, 10:00 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 10:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The system you described is essentially identical to one in which players are only punished for dying, and given no reward for killing. Every time someone dies they are essentially losing resources because their enemy is gaining resources. To put it simply; it doesn't matter if you have 100 res, if your enemy has 200 res, <b>you are behind</b>. The only difference in your system is that you hide this fact from the player. You make them <b>think </b>that things are going to be better because they are being rewarded for kills, but you aren't showing them the consequences of their death. Then, when they eventually get steam rolled because they were <b>feeding </b>the enemy resources, they have absolutely no idea why it happened. And let me tell you, the single most aggravating thing for new players in a game is not losing, it's not knowing <b>why</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. How is it harder to understand that your enemy gets res for killing you than that you don't get res when you are dead?
2. The high-skilled players you are afraid of being uber-effective with RFK don't need to be feeded. They are friggin' res stocks, with or without RFK
3. I'm not talking about new players mainly (just mettioned them to eyplain m point). I'm talking about me also. I, as an experienced, but average FPS player don't want to simply wait for my weapons.
<!--quoteo(post=1995166:date=Oct 22 2012, 11:06 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 22 2012, 11:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995166"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My experience with RFK in games is that it helps the winning team win faster. At best, I could see it making a difference in certain marginal cases in which good players join a losing team who are res starved (only 1 or 2 RTs).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This actually made me think of an interesting take on RFK. It may not address all the issues with the system, but it certainly makes it more feasible.
So the system we are used to is; kill a player, get a res point. One person gets 5 kills, one person gets 5 res. Horribly slanted and rewards single players far too much. What if instead, in this highly team oriented game, the res wasn't awarded to the single person who happened to get the kill, but the entire team. One resource point spread among 6 or so players. This means singular players are not raised above the rest of the team, and in fact would probably be unable to make any difference at all by themselves. Singular players are also mostly unable to detriment the entire team, as only team wide actions, whether it be team wide deaths or team wide kills, would be noticeable.
<!--quoteo(post=1995180:date=Oct 22 2012, 02:21 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 22 2012, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This actually made me think of an interesting take on RFK. It may not address all the issues with the system, but it certainly makes it more feasible.
So the system we are used to is; kill a player, get a res point. One person gets 5 kills, one person gets 5 res. Horribly slanted and rewards single players far too much. What if instead, in this highly team oriented game, the res wasn't awarded to the single person who happened to get the kill, but the entire team. One resource point spread among 6 or so players. This means singular players are not raised above the rest of the team, and in fact would probably be unable to make any difference at all by themselves. Singular players are also mostly unable to detriment the entire team, as only team wide actions, whether it be team wide deaths or team wide kills, would be noticeable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that could work, or a system that involves heavily the use of assists not based on damage but on proximity to the kill because obviously most kills are not just one on ones they are team efforts.
Also I don't think it should be kill a player get a rez point, that may be too much. Maybe .5 or .25 (Obviously they could find the right number to balance) because I do agree the game is about rez towers and map control but I think especially for the aliens and newer players alike, quickening tech and rewarding players for skill and teamwork in kills and objectives.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
All those attempting to justify RFK by comparing the current poor implementation of No Resource While Dead are creating huge fallacies and it doesnt work? No one advocates no resources while dead... but that doesnt make RFK a good option either? As techercizer pointed out theres a list of issues previously discussed ad naseum of the downsides. I used to like RFK before i heard all the arguments against it in the past year..
<b>You don't need either.</b>
The point of introducing them at all was to alleviate the mass tech / tech explosion issue. It addresses the symptoms and not the cause, and thus has minimal impact to the issue (you can still easily have a team of Fades or shotguns??). The proper method is to ensure that the option to mass tech is there, but that it means high risk and low chance of success. I.e. a team of Fades shouldn't be GG, just like a team of GLs shouldn't be.
The only real way to fix Mass tech is through soft RPS mechanics as suggested in the high level design docs. Then you wouldn't need any problematic mechanic to balance because there's no need for it.
How to please everyone - give RFK with +1 pres per kill. Example: Someone gets 10 kills more than others. He gets, what...? ...a free gorge? Half a shotgun? Whoopty effin doo. So, you get your nice res ping every time you get a kill, but in the grand scheme of things it dun goofed the game. Or something.
<!--quoteo(post=1995202:date=Oct 22 2012, 11:49 PM:name=Mestaritonttu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mestaritonttu @ Oct 22 2012, 11:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How to please everyone - give RFK with +1 pres per kill. Example: Someone gets 10 kills more than others. He gets, what...? ...a free gorge? Half a shotgun? Whoopty effin doo. So, you get your nice res ping every time you get a kill, but in the grand scheme of things it dun goofed the game. Or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By that logic, give someone 29 res and all they can get is a free gorge. Whoopty effin doo indeed.
<!--quoteo(post=1995196:date=Oct 22 2012, 02:44 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 22 2012, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995196"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only real way to fix Mass tech is through soft RPS mechanics as suggested in the high level design docs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1995216:date=Oct 22 2012, 03:05 PM:name=TimmahIsASaint)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TimmahIsASaint @ Oct 22 2012, 03:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Top Secret ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/150pxFW1b_KqgdzIF4MNxO1xBA-jrndZZ9-d_Ez0L1js/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/150pxFW1...-d_Ez0L1js/edit</a> Its been public for a while, though most people don't know how to get there (just like the much neglected wiki).
Personally, I'd like to see more hard counters, RTS-style. I think it would increase the strategic depth quite a bit, but it has the potential to impact the FPS part of the game quite a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, as shown by med/ammopack).
Yeah, I'd like to see Shotguns shut down Fades who shut down GLs who shut down Oni who shut down Shotguns. As it is, it's just Shotguns shut down (lifeform).
<!--quoteo(post=1995205:date=Oct 23 2012, 12:52 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 23 2012, 12:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995205"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By that logic, give someone 29 res and all they can get is a free gorge. Whoopty effin doo indeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would require someone having 29 kills more than the rest of the team. That's quite alot. Not a scenario worth thinking about, tbh.
<!--quoteo(post=1995040:date=Oct 22 2012, 02:49 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Oct 22 2012, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because this discussion hasn't happened a hundred times on here, or anything...
RFK snowballs good players into unstoppable killing machine and mudslides bad ones into active hindrances to their team. If you want resources, complete the objective of keeping your damn towers alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought the issue was that there was too much resources, Ive seen marines get out PL gear in 10 minutes off 4 rts which to me seems rather easy.
<!--quoteo(post=1995063:date=Oct 22 2012, 03:16 PM:name=countbasie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (countbasie @ Oct 22 2012, 03:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995063"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's just not true. Fana and Tane will make a team win on a pub server, no matter if you have RFK or not. The difference is, that right now the opposite team just can sit and wait and keep RTs up. With RFK they have a goal, the goal to have a fast counter and to play the FPS part better.
- in a FPS game with buyable stuff you need to reward players for good actions, so they can buy stuff faster. Otherwise it's just boring. - bad players don't become better and good players don't become worse without RFK (there is nothing like an 'unstoppable killing machine'-class in NS2, there are just very good players. A good player will keep his Fade alive until he can afford the next one, let there be RFK or not). High Alien-K/D-ratio does not equal winning team. Marines just have to chase away fades/onoses to have time while they heal to do whatever. - the game will be more exciting with a dynamic appearance of different weapons/lifeforms (no tech-explosions). - it was never a real problem in NS1, well, not on the alien side, since it was basically a PRes model for aliens (I DON'T want NS2 to be NS1). These are some pro-arguments.
EDIT: one point updated EDIT2: "<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1995378:date=Oct 22 2012, 10:33 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 22 2012, 10:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I loathe games which reward winning players with more win.
Winning is enough by itself, it doesn't need more win added to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is really how you feel... I would suggest you stop playing RTS, or RTS/FPS hybrids for that matter, because map control based resource collection rewards the winning team with more tools to win with.
People seem to be living in a dream world or something. Like they watched too many episodes of dragon ball Z and now they think that IF YOU JUST BELIEVE then you can beat anything the world throws at you. Take the Fane & Tane, Fana & Tana example. Players who are being steamrolled will have the "goal of playing the FPS part better". Ummm. No. We, those against RFK, are specifically referencing situations in which the opposing players are <b>better in every way</b>. Even if the ones being steamrolled did rally together and cast a spirit bomb, it still wouldn't be good enough because they are getting steamrolled.
The notion that you are trying to defend RFK as something which empowers inexperienced players is completely mind boggling. It does the exact opposite and anyone who is even half objective can see that in an instant.
<!--quoteo(post=1995385:date=Oct 22 2012, 11:56 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 22 2012, 11:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If this is really how you feel... I would suggest you stop playing RTS, or RTS/FPS hybrids for that matter, because map control based resource collection rewards the winning team with more tools to win with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a RTS, there's a trade-off to expansion, and that is making units and rushing.
If you let the enemy (team) expand more AND produce more units (i.e. you wait long enough) then you deserve to lose and lose hard.
I'm talking about when the game is about even for example, and then a fight occurs. Res/XP/whatever for killing the units gives you more win, which makes playing anymore meaningless, assuming equal skill/experience of players involved of course. Basically, those games devolve into whoever wins the first battle, and make it nearly impossible to come back if you lost the first battle.
In a lot of ways, Supcom2 air is like that for example.
<!--quoteo(post=1995389:date=Oct 22 2012, 11:03 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 22 2012, 11:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995389"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm talking about when the game is about even for example, and then a fight occurs. Res/XP/whatever for killing the units gives you more win, which makes playing anymore meaningless, assuming equal skill/experience of players involved of course. Basically, those games devolve into whoever wins the first battle, and make it nearly impossible to come back if you lost the first battle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
except that in every RTS this is true to some extent. Winning the first battle puts you in a position where you are more likely to win the next battle... otherwise you wouldn't say you won the first battle. Pretty much any game with an economy is going to have snow balling to some extent.
To put it more simply, and to exaggerate, take COD for example:
Someone killed 3 people in a row? Well, it's not enough that he killed 3 people (he is winning already), but let's give him a wallhack for 15 seconds (more win).
He killed 6 people in a row with the wallhack? Well, it's not enough that he's killed 6 people (he is winning more win on his win already), but let's give him an AI chopper.
The AI chopper killed 3 more people, so he's up to 9? Yo dawg, I heard you like win, so I put more win in your win so you can win while you win. Out comes the magic briefcase raining win on the win within win within win.
Up to 12? Win within win within win not win enough for you? Let's f'n just NUKE THE ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM because the win within win within win within win was not enough. More win.
----
You can argue that the enemy team has those abilities too. Sure, they do, but you have to be mentally challenged to not see the snowball effect that occurs there...
no one is arguing that snow balling doesn't happen. The point is, NS2 already has a huge amount of snow balling. So if you really hate games with snowballing, then you shouldn't play ns2.
<!--quoteo(post=1995400:date=Oct 23 2012, 08:19 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 23 2012, 08:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995400"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no one is arguing that snow balling doesn't happen. The point is, NS2 already has a huge amount of snow balling. So if you really hate games with snowballing, then you shouldn't play ns2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Game already has snowballing -> add more snowballing.
Except it kind of doesn't. Except aliens. Aliens losing is the only snowball that occurs.
On the marine side, there's no snowballing. You can repick up weapons which mixes up the game greatly, you can recycle which makes room losses and RT losses not complete, and you can pretty easily come back from a loss of e.g. a shotgun or a GL, a power node in some room, etc..
On the Alien side, it's a different story. No recycling means losing a RT is a fixed 10 res down the drain, even if you can see the loss coming ahead of time. Also right now, when the fades/oni go down, the game ends. 5-8 mistakes (or however many players there are on Aliens), and that's it, gg/had fun.
Even so, I enjoy aliens more, playing aliens is just more fun for me right now, even with the crap 223 patch that we've all had to endure for the last week or so.
Also, you have to differentiate between snowballing (rewarding winning with more win) and just winning the game.
I'm not against winning a game. If you fought well, or out-smarted the enemy team in the RTS game, or had better teamwork, etc. you deserve to win and win more by itself. I'm against rewarding winning a battle with more win beyond what's inherent in the RTS game already.
If you win a battle in NS2, you win map control which means more RTs for your team and better tech. If higher weapons or life forms are involved, you also cause res loss (which is also a win). Winning map control/RTs and causing res loss are wins enough by themselves. They don't need another win added on top of them.
No RFK hurts aliens the most. If I'm carrying my team as a skulk surely I deserve to be able to fade much earlier than the guy whos 2-14 but no. The guy whos 2-14 can fade at the exact same time I'll be able to. So It limits me back to his level.
Why even bother becoming good at this game when you're treated just like everyone else?
<!--quoteo(post=1995410:date=Oct 23 2012, 12:38 AM:name=Koven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koven @ Oct 23 2012, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why even bother becoming good at this game when you're treated just like everyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, like I said above, winning by itself is enough. There are enough tools right now to reward good players and punish bad players in the game, without adding more on top of those.
Just one of those: fade egg drop. Can be done at about 5:00.
<!--quoteo(post=1995410:date=Oct 23 2012, 08:38 AM:name=Koven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koven @ Oct 23 2012, 08:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No RFK hurts aliens the most. If I'm carrying my team as a skulk surely I deserve to be able to fade much earlier than the guy whos 2-14 but no. The guy whos 2-14 can fade at the exact same time I'll be able to. So It limits me back to his level.
Why even bother becoming good at this game when you're treated just like everyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soz bro. I don't play games to get special treatment from a digital entity. I play games to have fun and be challenged. I don't see much challenge in being made better for being better. Kinda defeats the point in being better at all, don't you think?
<!--quoteo(post=1995411:date=Oct 23 2012, 07:42 AM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 23 2012, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because, like I said above, winning by itself is enough. There are enough tools right now to reward good players and punish bad players in the game, without adding more on top of those.
Just one of those: fade egg drop. Can be done at about 5:00.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not think that you can tell people what is and what is not enough for them.
Comments
You don't give players much credit... If the enemy team is holding 7 rez towers while they are holding 2 I don't think its that hard for them to realize their was a discrepancy in resources. Or when they see a Exo Suit rolling them when they barely have an onos I think they will now why they loss.
*edit*
Furthermore, it will cause a lot of players to be more afraid to push or to be aggressive for fear of feeding the enemy team. This game MUST be balanced around pub play, not around comp play.
1. How is it harder to understand that your enemy gets res for killing you than that you don't get res when you are dead?
2. The high-skilled players you are afraid of being uber-effective with RFK don't need to be feeded. They are friggin' res stocks, with or without RFK
3. I'm not talking about new players mainly (just mettioned them to eyplain m point). I'm talking about me also. I, as an experienced, but average FPS player don't want to simply wait for my weapons.
This actually made me think of an interesting take on RFK. It may not address all the issues with the system, but it certainly makes it more feasible.
So the system we are used to is; kill a player, get a res point. One person gets 5 kills, one person gets 5 res. Horribly slanted and rewards single players far too much. What if instead, in this highly team oriented game, the res wasn't awarded to the single person who happened to get the kill, but the entire team. One resource point spread among 6 or so players. This means singular players are not raised above the rest of the team, and in fact would probably be unable to make any difference at all by themselves. Singular players are also mostly unable to detriment the entire team, as only team wide actions, whether it be team wide deaths or team wide kills, would be noticeable.
So the system we are used to is; kill a player, get a res point. One person gets 5 kills, one person gets 5 res. Horribly slanted and rewards single players far too much. What if instead, in this highly team oriented game, the res wasn't awarded to the single person who happened to get the kill, but the entire team. One resource point spread among 6 or so players. This means singular players are not raised above the rest of the team, and in fact would probably be unable to make any difference at all by themselves. Singular players are also mostly unable to detriment the entire team, as only team wide actions, whether it be team wide deaths or team wide kills, would be noticeable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that could work, or a system that involves heavily the use of assists not based on damage but on proximity to the kill because obviously most kills are not just one on ones they are team efforts.
Also I don't think it should be kill a player get a rez point, that may be too much. Maybe .5 or .25 (Obviously they could find the right number to balance) because I do agree the game is about rez towers and map control but I think especially for the aliens and newer players alike, quickening tech and rewarding players for skill and teamwork in kills and objectives.
No one advocates no resources while dead... but that doesnt make RFK a good option either? As techercizer pointed out theres a list of issues previously discussed ad naseum of the downsides. I used to like RFK before i heard all the arguments against it in the past year..
<b>You don't need either.</b>
The point of introducing them at all was to alleviate the mass tech / tech explosion issue.
It addresses the symptoms and not the cause, and thus has minimal impact to the issue (you can still easily have a team of Fades or shotguns??). The proper method is to ensure that the option to mass tech is there, but that it means high risk and low chance of success. I.e. a team of Fades shouldn't be GG, just like a team of GLs shouldn't be.
The only real way to fix Mass tech is through soft RPS mechanics as suggested in the high level design docs.
Then you wouldn't need any problematic mechanic to balance because there's no need for it.
By that logic, give someone 29 res and all they can get is a free gorge. Whoopty effin doo indeed.
Top Secret ?
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/150pxFW1b_KqgdzIF4MNxO1xBA-jrndZZ9-d_Ez0L1js/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/150pxFW1...-d_Ez0L1js/edit</a>
Its been public for a while, though most people don't know how to get there (just like the much neglected wiki).
Personally, I'd like to see more hard counters, RTS-style. I think it would increase the strategic depth quite a bit, but it has the potential to impact the FPS part of the game quite a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, as shown by med/ammopack).
That would require someone having 29 kills more than the rest of the team. That's quite alot. Not a scenario worth thinking about, tbh.
So skulk or LMG kills received a +1
no other lifeforms or guns got a RFK benefit. so no ultimate fades or shotgun etc etc.
This would help lower tiers advance. Advance tiers would get no benefit they would only be affected by the res production.
RFK snowballs good players into unstoppable killing machine and mudslides bad ones into active hindrances to their team. If you want resources, complete the objective of keeping your damn towers alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought the issue was that there was too much resources, Ive seen marines get out PL gear in 10 minutes off 4 rts which to me seems rather easy.
- in a FPS game with buyable stuff you need to reward players for good actions, so they can buy stuff faster. Otherwise it's just boring.
- bad players don't become better and good players don't become worse without RFK (there is nothing like an 'unstoppable killing machine'-class in NS2, there are just very good players. A good player will keep his Fade alive until he can afford the next one, let there be RFK or not). High Alien-K/D-ratio does not equal winning team. Marines just have to chase away fades/onoses to have time while they heal to do whatever.
- the game will be more exciting with a dynamic appearance of different weapons/lifeforms (no tech-explosions).
- it was never a real problem in NS1, well, not on the alien side, since it was basically a PRes model for aliens (I DON'T want NS2 to be NS1).
These are some pro-arguments.
EDIT: one point updated
EDIT2: "<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with everything this man said.
Winning is enough by itself, it doesn't need more win added to it.
Winning is enough by itself, it doesn't need more win added to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is really how you feel... I would suggest you stop playing RTS, or RTS/FPS hybrids for that matter, because map control based resource collection rewards the winning team with more tools to win with.
The notion that you are trying to defend RFK as something which empowers inexperienced players is completely mind boggling. It does the exact opposite and anyone who is even half objective can see that in an instant.
In a RTS, there's a trade-off to expansion, and that is making units and rushing.
If you let the enemy (team) expand more AND produce more units (i.e. you wait long enough) then you deserve to lose and lose hard.
I'm talking about when the game is about even for example, and then a fight occurs. Res/XP/whatever for killing the units gives you more win, which makes playing anymore meaningless, assuming equal skill/experience of players involved of course. Basically, those games devolve into whoever wins the first battle, and make it nearly impossible to come back if you lost the first battle.
In a lot of ways, Supcom2 air is like that for example.
except that in every RTS this is true to some extent. Winning the first battle puts you in a position where you are more likely to win the next battle... otherwise you wouldn't say you won the first battle. Pretty much any game with an economy is going to have snow balling to some extent.
Someone killed 3 people in a row? Well, it's not enough that he killed 3 people (he is winning already), but let's give him a wallhack for 15 seconds (more win).
He killed 6 people in a row with the wallhack? Well, it's not enough that he's killed 6 people (he is winning more win on his win already), but let's give him an AI chopper.
The AI chopper killed 3 more people, so he's up to 9? Yo dawg, I heard you like win, so I put more win in your win so you can win while you win. Out comes the magic briefcase raining win on the win within win within win.
Up to 12? Win within win within win not win enough for you? Let's f'n just NUKE THE ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM because the win within win within win within win was not enough. More win.
----
You can argue that the enemy team has those abilities too. Sure, they do, but you have to be mentally challenged to not see the snowball effect that occurs there...
Game already has snowballing -> add more snowballing.
ok.jpg
On the marine side, there's no snowballing. You can repick up weapons which mixes up the game greatly, you can recycle which makes room losses and RT losses not complete, and you can pretty easily come back from a loss of e.g. a shotgun or a GL, a power node in some room, etc..
On the Alien side, it's a different story. No recycling means losing a RT is a fixed 10 res down the drain, even if you can see the loss coming ahead of time. Also right now, when the fades/oni go down, the game ends. 5-8 mistakes (or however many players there are on Aliens), and that's it, gg/had fun.
Even so, I enjoy aliens more, playing aliens is just more fun for me right now, even with the crap 223 patch that we've all had to endure for the last week or so.
Also, you have to differentiate between snowballing (rewarding winning with more win) and just winning the game.
I'm not against winning a game. If you fought well, or out-smarted the enemy team in the RTS game, or had better teamwork, etc. you deserve to win and win more by itself. I'm against rewarding winning a battle with more win beyond what's inherent in the RTS game already.
If you win a battle in NS2, you win map control which means more RTs for your team and better tech. If higher weapons or life forms are involved, you also cause res loss (which is also a win). Winning map control/RTs and causing res loss are wins enough by themselves. They don't need another win added on top of them.
Why even bother becoming good at this game when you're treated just like everyone else?
Because, like I said above, winning by itself is enough. There are enough tools right now to reward good players and punish bad players in the game, without adding more on top of those.
Just one of those: fade egg drop. Can be done at about 5:00.
Why even bother becoming good at this game when you're treated just like everyone else?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soz bro. I don't play games to get special treatment from a digital entity. I play games to have fun and be challenged. I don't see much challenge in being made better for being better. Kinda defeats the point in being better at all, don't you think?
Just one of those: fade egg drop. Can be done at about 5:00.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not think that you can tell people what is and what is not enough for them.