Resources for kills
beyond.wudge
Join Date: 2012-10-19 Member: 162731Members
Join Date: 2012-10-19 Member: 162731Members
<div class="IPBDescription">How much should skill count for?</div>Fun in games is generally about exerting power over things. This power comes in two flavours, physical power and intellectual power. Physical power often is about how well something is being done. Intellectual power is what is being done as compared with all the other things that could be done. Physical power is "if I do this well enough I will succeed in my goal" and intellectual power is "if I do X instead of Y then I will succeed, even if I am terrible at it."
Most games sit nicely upon a continuum of skill vs strategy, implementation vs choices, precision vs knowledge. A game like Counter-strike is mostly skill i.e. even with the wrong gun you can still win. Shogun 2 or Chess is mostly choices i.e. even if you are great at the point and click aspect of the game the economics and strategy aspect dominates how well you do.
In NS2, the real issue is not whether you get resources for kills or not. It's whether this game is about whether you play it well or whether you play it right. Whether you are good at doing the strategy or doing the right strategy.
There are three primary implications about the resource model in NS2 compared to NS1.
1) A team's economy is purely determined by map control i.e. how many harvesters it can build and keep. This can feel rather bland.
2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.
3) The game's pacing is strategy dependent. What your team chooses (early RTs vs hive vs tech) radically shifts the path the game goes along, but as noted above, in a very predictable fashion with little variance.
4) You are rewarded with res for staying alive but not for killing the enemy or taking risks (which go hand-in-hand). The resource model itself does not incentivise actually engaging the enemy.
What is the result? The resource model in NS2 is safe and balanced but ultimately somewhat bland. It's an intellectual model, it rewards choices rather than skill. To use a useful analogy, it's like a pinup girl who is still wearing all her clothes. It might be very useful, beautiful, tasteful, etc in an intellectual sense but it isn't particularly exciting, it doesn't arouse anyone's passions.
NS2's model is safe, dependable and comprehensible. It's easy to work with once you understand it and this is a commendable thing. The thing is though its not something you get passionate about. Its not something you excited and bounce off the walls over.
It's not this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhd6BM1MDeU&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhd6BM1MDeU...feature=related</a> (crowd reaction around 1:00-1:15)
Now that is ok. Not every part of a game needs to be super exciting. But the resource model is where the FPS and RTS parts of the game interlock, interweave, transition from one kind of game to the other. The first person gameplay is driven, blended and transitioned into the RTS game by the resource model. It's the part of the game that lives on both sides of the coin at the same time. This is why it is so important to get it right.
Resources for kills is code for FPS-focused gamers saying "I want the resource model to be exciting! I want my skill to matter!" Emotionally its code for "I want to feel passion in this part of the game!"
I suggest giving some of this passion to the system by reintroducing res for kills but without the same extremes it once had. By reintroducing a RFK model which gives it a more predictable flavour.
For instance, imagine you introduced a cap on the amount of PRes a player can generate from kills over a period of time. If a player generated 1 PRes from the first kill in a chain, 0.5 from the second, 0.25 from the third, etc then the impact upon the game could be controlled.
If an internal clock measured the time between kills and required a full sixty seconds to pass before a player could get another full 1 PRes kill then the distribution of PRes amongst different levels of skill would be far more even and the flow of the game of kill, kill, kill, build, rearm, scout, kill, kill, kill would be encouraged.
If a player's 'lost' PRes from the kills after the first was distributed across the team's PRes pool and the team's total PRes from kills was capped or reduced in a similar way as with players (i.e. the team can only generate 15 straight PRes from kills per minute before reducing the amounts or some such) then its impact on the timings and the snowball effect could be mitigated.
Overall, player's could perform well and feel rewarded by the system for it whilst not dominating the game's flow by their play. A local player cap/limiter, combined with a global team cap/limiter and a 'lost PRes to teammates' mechanic could allow resource for kills to bring some passion and excitement to the resource model without the same extremes of no PRes for bad players and too much for those who are very good.
Most games sit nicely upon a continuum of skill vs strategy, implementation vs choices, precision vs knowledge. A game like Counter-strike is mostly skill i.e. even with the wrong gun you can still win. Shogun 2 or Chess is mostly choices i.e. even if you are great at the point and click aspect of the game the economics and strategy aspect dominates how well you do.
In NS2, the real issue is not whether you get resources for kills or not. It's whether this game is about whether you play it well or whether you play it right. Whether you are good at doing the strategy or doing the right strategy.
There are three primary implications about the resource model in NS2 compared to NS1.
1) A team's economy is purely determined by map control i.e. how many harvesters it can build and keep. This can feel rather bland.
2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.
3) The game's pacing is strategy dependent. What your team chooses (early RTs vs hive vs tech) radically shifts the path the game goes along, but as noted above, in a very predictable fashion with little variance.
4) You are rewarded with res for staying alive but not for killing the enemy or taking risks (which go hand-in-hand). The resource model itself does not incentivise actually engaging the enemy.
What is the result? The resource model in NS2 is safe and balanced but ultimately somewhat bland. It's an intellectual model, it rewards choices rather than skill. To use a useful analogy, it's like a pinup girl who is still wearing all her clothes. It might be very useful, beautiful, tasteful, etc in an intellectual sense but it isn't particularly exciting, it doesn't arouse anyone's passions.
NS2's model is safe, dependable and comprehensible. It's easy to work with once you understand it and this is a commendable thing. The thing is though its not something you get passionate about. Its not something you excited and bounce off the walls over.
It's not this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhd6BM1MDeU&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhd6BM1MDeU...feature=related</a> (crowd reaction around 1:00-1:15)
Now that is ok. Not every part of a game needs to be super exciting. But the resource model is where the FPS and RTS parts of the game interlock, interweave, transition from one kind of game to the other. The first person gameplay is driven, blended and transitioned into the RTS game by the resource model. It's the part of the game that lives on both sides of the coin at the same time. This is why it is so important to get it right.
Resources for kills is code for FPS-focused gamers saying "I want the resource model to be exciting! I want my skill to matter!" Emotionally its code for "I want to feel passion in this part of the game!"
I suggest giving some of this passion to the system by reintroducing res for kills but without the same extremes it once had. By reintroducing a RFK model which gives it a more predictable flavour.
For instance, imagine you introduced a cap on the amount of PRes a player can generate from kills over a period of time. If a player generated 1 PRes from the first kill in a chain, 0.5 from the second, 0.25 from the third, etc then the impact upon the game could be controlled.
If an internal clock measured the time between kills and required a full sixty seconds to pass before a player could get another full 1 PRes kill then the distribution of PRes amongst different levels of skill would be far more even and the flow of the game of kill, kill, kill, build, rearm, scout, kill, kill, kill would be encouraged.
If a player's 'lost' PRes from the kills after the first was distributed across the team's PRes pool and the team's total PRes from kills was capped or reduced in a similar way as with players (i.e. the team can only generate 15 straight PRes from kills per minute before reducing the amounts or some such) then its impact on the timings and the snowball effect could be mitigated.
Overall, player's could perform well and feel rewarded by the system for it whilst not dominating the game's flow by their play. A local player cap/limiter, combined with a global team cap/limiter and a 'lost PRes to teammates' mechanic could allow resource for kills to bring some passion and excitement to the resource model without the same extremes of no PRes for bad players and too much for those who are very good.
Comments
This topic has been discussed to death and honestly if RFK did make a return it would need to be for balance considerations not to explicitly reward player skill. There is plenty in the game for that already. This is a touchy subject for both sides of the debate so brace your pants.
Pros of RFK:
-gives you mild satisfaction on getting kills.
-Holds your hand and tells you how great you're doing!
Cons of RFK:
-Makes good players better
-makes bad players 'feeders'
-The best of players would "bind X kill" and always press X before the enemy can get the last hit.
-Promotes cowboy play by letting you feel like you're actually accomplishing something by running ahead without your team.
-Screws with balance of the game
-Alienates newer players even further
- Etc. Etc.
I can also see this creating a lot of hang back heroes who will let their buddies go first into the slaughter then come in to clean up the kills.
<!--quoteo(post=2025246:date=Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM:name=beyond.wudge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beyond.wudge @ Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025246"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2025246:date=Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM:name=beyond.wudge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beyond.wudge @ Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025246"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2025246:date=Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM:name=beyond.wudge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beyond.wudge @ Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025246"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2025246:date=Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM:name=beyond.wudge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beyond.wudge @ Nov 15 2012, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025246"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) The game's pacing is heavily standardised. It does not vary substantially based upon anything but the harvester count and a few lopsided engagements. This limits the number of meaningful variations in its timings and outcomes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and yes yes.
Games with low skill ceiling become boring very quickly. Too easy to learn, too easy to master. One should never be punished for playing well, and the opposite is also true.
Removing RFK was giving up, imo.
I can also see this creating a lot of hang back heroes who will let their buddies go first into the slaughter then come in to clean up the kills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a better system might be to implement the currently pointless score feature into the pres income formula. Of course from where it is right now the score system would need a lot of adjusting, but if having a higher score increased your pres per tick, or you got a flat 1 pres per 20 score or something to that effect, it would reward helping your team in general, rather than just being able to go on a rambo killing rampage.
Removing RFK was giving up, imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ditto.
Removing RFK was giving up, imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can make sure RT's don't die.
Thread has been done to death. RFK is a horrible idea.
See the second posts thread link under the OP for all the posts that will follow, and more.
These are probably bad, unbalanced examples - but here they are:
e.g.
chew down an extractor = you get a 10 second speed boost
kill 1 skulk with a rifle and another with a pistol = your rifle reloads 3 times as fast
kill an alien with 70% accuracy = free pack
kill a marine with two consequtive melee hits = adrenaline rush : instant refill of energy bar
hit 3 different marines with spores = super health regen
parasite 3 different marines with in 3 seconds = instant re-cloak (assuming you have invisiblity upgrade ony our alien)
And there could be 20+ more of these to suit various situations and play styles, as well as in a way teaching players how to be good at the game.
edit: i think that could be enough of an instant incentive / reward for doing well without causing economy problems
I assume your argument is res for kill = skill, when in fact its the opposite. If you kill someone at the start of the game, that may very well have quite a bit to do with skill. When you kill someone 10 minutes into the game because you were rewarded for already having more skill than them in the beginning of the game, that is no longer skill, that is the manifestation of a game mechanic.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RFK is a horrible idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->RFK as it existed in NS1 was problematic. It could be implemented more subtly and intelligently. Scrapping it entirely was the easy way out.
I assume your argument is res for kill = skill, when in fact its the opposite. If you kill someone at the start of the game, that may very well have quite a bit to do with skill. When you kill someone 10 minutes into the game because you were rewarded for already having more skill than them in the beginning of the game, that is no longer skill, that is the manifestation of a game mechanic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you are saying the game needs a leveling system, where every unit or structure is worth a certain amount of points - and depending which unit is killing which, a variable amount of Pres is given to the killer.
you'd work out a formula i guess, but in essence it would be doing something like :
e.g. skulk kills exo = 10 res
exo kills skulk = 0.1 res
skulk kills marine = 0.4
skulk kills marine with shotgun = 1 res
marine kills skulk = 0.4 res
marine with shotgun kills skulk = 0.2
marine with shotgun kills skulk with carapace = 0.3
marine with level 3 shotgun kills skulk with celerity = 0.2 res
fade with celerity kills marine with level 0 armor = 0.3 res
fade kills exo = 5 res
and so on....
i think i like the idea of a combo system better to reward players for activities with health/ammo/speed type awards rather than res would work better
you'd work out a formula i guess, but in essence it would be doing something like :
e.g. skulk kills exo = 10 res
exo kills skulk = 0.1 res
skulk kills marine = 0.4
skulk kills marine with shotgun = 1 res
marine kills skulk = 0.4 res
marine with shotgun kills skulk = 0.2
marine with shotgun kills skulk with carapace = 0.3
marine with level 3 shotgun kills skulk with celerity = 0.2 res
fade with celerity kills marine with level 0 armor = 0.3 res
fade kills exo = 5 res
and so on....
i think i like the idea of a combo system better to reward players for activities with health/ammo/speed type awards rather than res would work better<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, this still goes against the "skill" concept people are associating with RFK. If the marines send in an exo, and a skulk kills him, do you think that skulk needs the 10 res reward to just kill that exo again if he returns? I mean, if that skulk does kill the exo, and then uses that 10 res to evolve into a higher lifeform, and then kills that exo again, he will get less return for the second kill because it "requires less skill", correct? You've effectively reduced the skill of the alien player by rewarding him for being good in the first place.
No, it doesn't keep coming up for a good reason. The only reason it keeps coming up is because people are too use to games like COD and BF to actually realize the satisfaction of this game comes from working as a team. It comes up because people like to be handheld throughout there gaming experience. Which is not what NS is about.
Seriously why do people need to be babied with "OMG you're doing so good here's a Reward" to actually have fun.
1. Res for kills feels nice: I really don't like this reasoning. There's a billion twitch shooters out there, and while I do appreciate that NS/NS2 have more guts to the shooter aspect... The "feels nice" aspect of res for kills is not the same "feels nice" as a particularly satisfying movement system or really chunky shotgun recoil model in an FPS game. It more comes down to, "I feel like I'm helping my team just by killing things". And I'd argue that's actually very bad for NS. The implication you've made is that it's always more beneficial to be killing an enemy than doing something else. I don't think we need extra motivation for that. We're already looking at a shooter game, we've got this game that is half way between RTS and shooter, and honestly, if you watch how RTS games are played, teams in NS already are doing WAY too much exchanging of armies compared to what is strategically and tactically ideal. Honestly, the incentives are already too high. It's free (in res) to respawn, it's VERY cheap to die... however, the assumption that it's always better to engage than not engage is still fundamentally false, and we don't need more mechanics in the game encouraging people to be tactically stupid. Your skill matters because if you use it correctly your team wins, you get tactical advantages, you get to occupy locations at important timings that you wouldn't have if you had died earlier. The slippery slope a team has to overcome after losing a skirmish in NS2 is already very steep, we really are not pining for ways to make it steeper. Res for Kills does nothing to make a team player feel better about his team play. It encourages the opposite of skillful play. It only rewards combat skill at the expense of what is actually needed out of players in this game.
2. Res for kills makes the resource model of the game more interesting: Once again, I highly disagree with this. NS2s resource model is more predictable than starcraft for example... But the temptation is to look for differences in timings in big overarching branches like "did the commander go craig hive first or shift hive first?" when those are patently not the only meaningful tactical decisions in the game. The assumption that there is only 1 resource in NS2 is false. And therefore the assumption that all trends in the game can be understood by looking at what is being done with res is also false. The location of your army and the player time you have to work with are also both resources you must manage in NS2. A marine team, at the 4 minute mark of the game, that has 4 resource nodes in skylights, computer lab, c12 and overlook is in a VERY different strategic position from a marine team that has 4 resource nodes in skylights, computer lab, and double on NS2_veil. In one case the marine team is pinned back in a defensive position and in the other the marine team is either just about to be divided and conquered, or about to push out and own the rest of the map. There are many very important strategic decisions around where you go, what nodes and tech points you take, and why. Evaluating what the opposing team is attempting to do or what timing pushes they are attempting to hit is much more complex than just looking at how many nodes they have at a given time stamp. That's usually the least useful indicator actually. Like wise, having a certain number of nodes at a certain timestamp is not generally the most vital tactical decision you make in terms of securing a specific timing. You need to be able to ensure your army has access to the things you are requiring it to do, and that aspect of the game is FAR from oversimplified in NS. It's very deep, very nuanced, and very interesting.
Secondly, regarding this point, having timings able to be somewhat predictable is actually a very good thing in my opinion. Using StarCraft2 as an example, some of the most unbelievably beautiful moments in that game is when some amazing player identifies a strong timing push their opponent is going to make, and cuts JUST to the razor's edge to counter that timing and gain an advantage. Games where players play exceptionally conservative tend to drag into the late game, they rarely show off skill, they become more predictable. Lets go back to NS1 for the next example, say I know the second alien hive is supposed to be up at the 7 minute mark at the earliest, and they will use leap to press an advantage and possibly win the game outright. Now, perhaps if I secure and hold 3 res nodes at certain known timings, I know I have a window in which, if things go well for me, I can make a phase get rush at exactly 6:15 and can afford to send 2 marines with shotguns, and 2 LMG marines (the 5th we can imagine is needed to protect nodes or something). Given reasonable resistance at the second hive I'm trying to rush down, I might be reasonably assured that I have a 10 second window in which I know I can kill the hive before it finishes. Now, if a skulk can get 2 kills and drop the hive 15 seconds earlier, my window disappears, and suddenly my timing push becomes much less safe. The counter to my timing push isn't any stratic or tactical decision the alien team has made, it's simply "get 2 kills". Having my timing push at a fixed time, and their timing weakness at a fixed time is not innately a bad thing, it allows for a VERY deep and nuanced metagame. We see that in starcraft 2. At any given time I'm not necessarily forced to play safely because there's just no way I can know that my effective timing for something that is razor thin will actually work. If timings are fixed and reliable, and I have good game information, I CAN know the razor thin timing I'm relying on will work, because I know the timings. NS1 players were really bad when it came to knowing solid timings, and knowing razor counters to them. We thought in really broad strokes, because finicky little things were too random and unpredictable to rely on. How long can you actually delay the obs if you know the aliens are going SC first? What are the advantages and disadvantages to delying the obs? We didn't look for razor timings because they could be consistently ###### with, but razor thin timings are a really cool element of the game, and they indicate a level of mastery we haven't really seen in NS yet. As for me, I'm looking forward to it!
The argument that RFK makes the situation better feels similar to claiming that lobster is boring alone, so you need to add a layer of cheese wizz, because cheese wizz is delicious... It's emotionally valid, but it just doesn't logically follow. I can respect your emotional fondness for RFK, and at the end of the day I don't think it would destroy the game. I just really don't think your arguments that it's somehow objectively better pan through. It's not one of the big things that adds remarkable depth to the game, I really feel it more takes away than anything. The cost of p-res, map control, player time, and army strength is punishment enough for dying in the field. And incurring those costs on the opposing team is reward enough. The game really doesn't need mechanics to encourage lone wolf play.
The best possible answer to "Why not?", is that it makes the good players better and the bad players worse. If you have one or two guys constantly running into the same guy and getting killed they're just feeding him. Think a 4 minute onos is too fast? Yea wait til a 2 minute onos comes out due to rfk.
Oh, and there is that RFK thing... umm, I guess I have an opinion on that?
If pres is what you had in mind I somehow doubt that flooding the field with even more higher tier tech than is already in the game is going to improve matters in any shape or form. Not to mention it will make comebacks that much more difficult and I like comebacks.
Tres on the other would be worth thinking about.
Hate to sound butthurt but I suggested something that's at least different than just RFK.
Resources for Score.
Again, you're not just rewarded for kills, but doing anything that is productive (welding/healing, building, killing structures, and of course killing players)
But you don't have to be rewarded 1 resource each time you get a kill or whatever. Instead it would increase your pres per tick. So a player with a score of 10 would be getting +0.1 per tick for that, plus the base income rate based on the number of Extractors/Harvesters (ie .25). So that player is only getting .35 per tick, while a player with a score of 150 would be getting 1.75 per tick. Obviously rough numbers but it's merely to demonstrate the functionality.
Then just set a cap on pres per tick at maybe a maximum of 2. Would definitely work better than RFK.
What, like egg's?
^_^
Seriously though, egg's do cost T.Res. You get a certain amount by default, but if you want them somewhere useful you've gotta pay for them.
Replacing RFK with a score-based RFS would be better than the other proposed idea's, but I think Gorge's already save up for Onos fast enough. ^_-
You currently pay a tiny amount of P-res to spawn.
Like it or not, however, NS2 is an RTS/<b>FPS</b> hybrid, and personal rewards are a strong tool to encourage teamplay in FPSes.
It seems like UWE tried to remove a lot of the "FPS" in NS2's balance. I do feel more like a random, throwaway RTS unit in NS2.
Now, RFK certainly isn't necessary for an organized group of players to work as a team, but random public players definitely do need incentives to work as a team. If NS is not as fun as it could be on public servers, then it is doomed to a very small community.
Right now, NS2 is balanced primarily with penalties (only sticks; no carrots). If you die, you are penalized with no pres. Not dying is generally a faster ticket to a higher lifeform than helping out your teammates in a fight. I want to see NS2 balanced with both carrots and sticks. Taking risks should be rewarded, not merely "not penalized".
Since he does not really like playing skulk (to much of it) he decided to play really passive and stay afk most of the game. He is usually just browsing or doing something else on the 2nd screen til he got the 30 res he needs to lerk. Because he never dies he manages to go lerk way faster than anyone else in the team, he plays it til he dies and then does the same thing again.
Even though I understood why he did this I did comment that he was kinda screwing his team over by not helping out in the early part but it was hard to argue with his reasons. He plays the game to have fun, playing skulk got boring pretty fast and there is no incetive for him to play it well. In some cases getting a early adv lifeform actually helps his team, if he was out there dieing he would be egglocked anyway if the was losing.
Having a fps game that is so much based around combat it does not make any sens to not give rewards to players that perform well. But what makes even less sense is punishing players for playing and enjoying the game. No res while dead is bascially telling players to not fight the enemy to gain resources.
There is one general rule you can find in most long lasting games, it rewarding players for playing the game correctly. This is why I think RFD is not healthy for the natural selection 2 in the longrun.
We can already assume the better team will hold more nodes, why double dip? The last thing we need is a godzilla skulk going onos on pres at 5-6min in addition to the egg the khamm just dropped.
Edit: An easy server position check should kick a player who AFK's like that^^^ It's not hard or server intense to implement, you're tracking their positions already....
RFK just breaks the flow of the game.
However, there is a lot that could be done to still provide small personal rewards to incentivize teamwork, with much less risk of snowballing.
Like it or not, however, NS2 is an RTS/<b>FPS</b> hybrid, and personal rewards are a strong tool to encourage teamplay in FPSes.
It seems like UWE tried to remove a lot of the "FPS" in NS2's balance. I do feel more like a random, throwaway RTS unit in NS2.
Now, RFK certainly isn't necessary for an organized group of players to work as a team, but random public players definitely do need incentives to work as a team. If NS is not as fun as it could be on public servers, then it is doomed to a very small community.
Right now, NS2 is balanced primarily with penalties (only sticks; no carrots). If you die, you are penalized with no pres. Not dying is generally a faster ticket to a higher lifeform than helping out your teammates in a fight. I want to see NS2 balanced with both carrots and sticks. Taking risks should be rewarded, not merely "not penalized".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The topic comes up less than many other features that were removed from NS1. Every little thing that makes people nostalgic about NS1 is going to come up over and over again here. Even things that are really probably negative when you sit down and think about them, like RFK.
[edit] As a player I have a very high risk high reward play style in NS. I usually have a decent kill ranking, but I also tend to lead the scoreboard in # of deaths. I can't recall a time in NS2 where I've been more than 4 res behind the first player who could afford an onos off of P-res. The disincentives to dying are just not high enough to really make you obsess over them, but they're JUST high enough to discourage selfish lone wolf play. Even though any move to balance things out between kills and deaths would benefit me, I just really don't see it as being necessary.