Death Penalty?
Wisp
Join Date: 2007-12-18 Member: 63211Members, Reinforced - Diamond
Join Date: 2007-12-18 Member: 63211Members, Reinforced - Diamond
I didn't play Natural Selection 1, so please forgive my ignorance. My question here is what will be the death penalty in the game to encourage players to value their own lives? I see lots of healing related spells (Crag, Gorge, Medpacks, Armory)...but why do any of them matter unless dying is a significant penalty to your team? It seems easier to just die and respawn then run back to base and heal up. In the Alpha, there is no real death penalty besides a few seconds of waiting time. Will it be different in the final version?
Comments
I think the question is whether if there is rpk or not.
The res for kill system also rewarded fragging, so you didn't want to 'feed' oppositing team with unnecessary resoucres.
NS2 might be a little less intense on the aggression by teams though, since the techonology trees seem to work a bit different. The original time pressure was mostly created by the combination smoothly progressing marine tech and alien tech progressing in big bursts. Now alien commander probably adds some smoothness to alien teching too.
I will cast some spells then... wait, there's no mage or sorcerer...
[/troll]
On topic:
When you die your team have 1 less player to help the others, therefore the other team can manage to get them too, this along the res you get for killing and the weapons/upgrades you lose. 30 seconds is too much time on a game like NS, so it is a penalty on it's own. 1 team member less for 30 seconds is the difference between securing a zone or losing it.
Of course, skilled players can secure a zone almost for their own, but that is another topic.
We have death teleportation and loss of equipment, so I think we're good.
Unless the Marines Distress Beacon.
Basically dying brings you slightly closer to losing, if everyone dies all the time you can't get anything done, so avoid doing it if possible.
I don't like RFK. Simply because some aliens are meant to hinder marines with their <b>lives</b>.
Whatever that means, it should not help Teranians to get another boomstick.
As you need res points to perform research and (as far as I know) to contribute to your own res income, it's still neccesary to hold them.
If someone is really good they will be focussed on regardless of the gear they get, and if someone is getting dozens of kills I'm likely to give them the best stuff as commander anyway.
whats wrong with a positive feedback mechanism?..if someone goes on abit of rampage he would atleast deserve something for the effort (or atleast his team should)...
even if the rfk mechanism is removed...which team you think would win between a team of stars and a team of noobs? My point is that people who are good at the game will still win regardless if you reward them anyways...because they are <b>good at the game</b>...
If you scroll up there is a huge list of incentives for players <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>not</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> to get killed-from spawn wait time to resource conservation. Why shouldn't there be an incentive for players to make kills? Seems like equal but opposite forces that you would want to encourage...
Karrde here seems to think that "star players" are a detriment to teamwork, but there are always going to be some players who have higher skill and knowledge and they will always be able to decimate people who are much lower in skill and game knowledge.
Game design decisions should be made based on what happens between 2 players/teams that are of equal skill level, not based on interactions between veterans and newbies. In the case where equally skilled opponents meet, RFK is perfectly acceptable.
In complex games that means you need to give points/cash for something other than kills, but kills are generally helpful and should certainly be a component of it.
And ye: dying needs to have consequences. Maybe less for the aliens, them being more rambo'ish by design, but for marines it should definitely spell doom. You know why? Because if deaths don't matter, then what's the point? No one is going to pat you on the back for that great kill or for sacrificing yourself to destroy that base. If every death and kill mattered it would rise the respect towards good players and even bad ones would feel good whenever they succeed.
Have to see what the devs do. Since they haven't considered this so far and remembering what they did to NS1, I think it is unlikely that they would make a change now. In my case, I'll be checking this out when the game is published before I decide do I buy or not.
The incentive to not die is simple. Spawn queues suck -- it's time out of the game during which you're not gaining resources and not helping your team.
The incentive to kill is simple -- Better that they face the spawn queue than you do.
Or have it always be given but only award the second type of resource (I've forgotten their names) as long as its only used for comm built stuff or upgrades. Can someone clarify to me what each resource type is used for btw? I couldnt figure it out in the 10 mins I played around in the alpha.
Or have it always be given but only award the second type of resource (I've forgotten their names) as long as its only used for comm built stuff or upgrades. Can someone clarify to me what each resource type is used for btw? I couldnt figure it out in the 10 mins I played around in the alpha.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of what I like in RFK is that you can direct it to certain players. For example a good lerk or fade can feed RFK to skulks instead of picking all the frags himself. Directing all to the comm pool would remove that aspect.
Maybe the aspect could be preserved by giving skulks and gorges more RFK than the higher lifeforms. In NS1 terms a fade would always get 1 RFK, skulks 2 and gorges 2 or 3 RFK. That way it's still worth giving skulks the frag even if the RFK itself goes to an unified commander pool. It would also create diversion between the res incomes, since the amount of frags on the scoreboard wouldn't directly equal the amount of RFK the oppositing team has had.
The incentive to not die is simple. Spawn queues suck -- it's time out of the game during which you're not gaining resources and not helping your team.
The incentive to kill is simple -- Better that they face the spawn queue than you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT
Unless the Marines Distress Beacon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BACON
The incentive to not die is simple. Spawn queues suck -- it's time out of the game during which you're not gaining resources and not helping your team.
The incentive to kill is simple -- Better that they face the spawn queue than you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no point in not rewarding the more skilled player, this was no issue in 6v6 which is the balanced ratio for NS1, res where the main flow was from the RTS.
RFK is a must it adds complexity and improves team work as it does matter who does get the frag (lerk / hive etc) it also adds variety to the game and dieing a lot should be punished whether if it meant fast fade / lerk / hive it didnt mean game over.
Like Bacillius said it has been discussed quite a lot, should probably check em out before you make your opinion.
Subject to change, o'course.
--Scythe--