Death Penalty?

WispWisp 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?
«1

Comments

  • TrCTrC Join Date: 2008-11-30 Member: 65612Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1796118:date=Aug 25 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ Aug 25 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796118"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I think the question is whether if there is rpk or not.
  • Dank McShwaggerDank McShwagger Join Date: 2009-06-10 Member: 67784Members
    if you die the opposite team receives resources, atleast thats how it worked in ns1.
  • BacillusBacillus Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58241Members
    In original NS the time was absolutely crucial resource. One of the teams is always in big pressure to control the map and deal damage before the enemy gets heavier gear on. Dying and losing 30 seconds of valuable time you could be dealing damage was huge.

    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.
  • y3kflexoy3kflexo Join Date: 2003-04-04 Member: 15203Members, Constellation
    Also there was the amount of res that was invested in you. at the beginning of a match it was all about not feeding the enemies res, but as the match progressed it was also about not wasting the res being spent on you in the form of upgrades, Heavy armour, jetpacks, shotguns, HMG, and grenade launchers all cost res and if your team was struggling to hold an area of the map or had hardly any res towers. Every thing was precious.
  • QuovatisQuovatis Team Inversion Join Date: 2010-01-26 Member: 70321Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
  • WispWisp Join Date: 2007-12-18 Member: 63211Members, Reinforced - Diamond
    Abilities. You know what I mean.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    Technically they are indeed spells, resource for kill the enemy receives is the obvious one. That and probably losing your gear when you die, having to repurchase it at the armory
  • PaiSandPaiSand Join Date: 2005-01-07 Member: 33487Members
    edited August 2010
    [troll]
    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.
  • yourbonesakinyourbonesakin Join Date: 2005-08-06 Member: 57682Members
    Death teleportation and loss of equipment are significant punishments because they can cause you to lose the game.

    We have death teleportation and loss of equipment, so I think we're good.
  • spellman23spellman23 NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
    Bonus that there was a respawn queue, so if you wipe the whole enemy team it takes a while before they can all respawn and threaten you en masse again.

    Unless the Marines Distress Beacon.
  • JirikiJiriki retired ns1 player Join Date: 2003-01-04 Member: 11780Members, NS1 Playtester, Squad Five Silver
    Am I the only one to check this topic and before reading, thinking this had to do something with american politics.
  • WispWisp Join Date: 2007-12-18 Member: 63211Members, Reinforced - Diamond
    Thanks for all the answers. Having a resource gain for a kill makes sense, and I certainly didn't consider loss of equipment. That's a loss of resources right there. In a real game, I guess you're going to want to be very careful not to die and lose that precious Flamethrower.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    Also you lose all your stuff.

    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.
  • RobBRobB TUBES OF THE INTERWEB Join Date: 2003-08-11 Member: 19423Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1796165:date=Aug 25 2010, 03:52 AM:name=Wisp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wisp @ Aug 25 2010, 03:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796165"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for all the answers. Having a resource gain for a kill makes sense, and I certainly didn't consider loss of equipment. That's a loss of resources right there. In a real game, I guess you're going to want to be very careful not to die and lose that precious Flamethrower.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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.
  • KarrdeKarrde Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16264Members
    edited August 2010
    RFK really needs to go. For the reasons RobB mentioned, but also it's a positive feedback mechanism allowing the better players earliest access to the best items reinforcing their ability to kill even more. IMHO it takes away from the team effort and focuses more on individual star players. Furthermore it undermines the purpose of holding strategic res areas.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    The 'best items' are going to be research locked, just because someone kills half a dozen skulks doesn't mean they get to run around with an exosuit and dual miniguns five minutes in.

    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.
  • salorsalor Join Date: 2004-02-21 Member: 26771Members
    edited August 2010
    <!--quoteo(post=1796187:date=Aug 25 2010, 01:52 AM:name=Karrde)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Karrde @ Aug 25 2010, 01:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RFK really needs to go. For the reasons RobB mentioned, but also it's a positive feedback mechanism allowing the better players earliest access to the best items reinforcing their ability to kill even more. IMHO it takes away from the team effort and focuses more on individual star players. Furthermore it undermines the purpose of holding strategic res areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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>...
  • criticaIcriticaI Join Date: 2003-04-07 Member: 15269Banned, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1796187:date=Aug 25 2010, 12:52 AM:name=Karrde)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Karrde @ Aug 25 2010, 12:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RFK really needs to go. For the reasons RobB mentioned, but also it's a positive feedback mechanism allowing the better players earliest access to the best items reinforcing their ability to kill even more. IMHO it takes away from the team effort and focuses more on individual star players. Furthermore it undermines the purpose of holding strategic res areas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    Also you should be getting money/points for any helpful action. If an activity is helpful to the team but results in your death, then you should be making a profit off it. The whole point of a points system is to measure positive contribution, your score is a measure of how good at the game you are, and helps the player to tell when they're playing the game properly.

    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.
  • WirheWirhe Join Date: 2003-06-22 Member: 17610Members
    Agreed, RFK should go. I'm not even sure what the heck the devs were thinking when they implemented it in NS1, since all it encouraged was Combat -style fragging. Which was very bad. Part of the reason as to why <b>I</b> consider the later incarnations of NS1 a failure.

    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.
  • KwilKwil Join Date: 2003-07-06 Member: 17963Members
    edited August 2010
    RFK was a bad idea because it destroyed teams. It could be used to grief a team, and it caused many players to become abusive to team-mates who weren't as skilled/focused and would get killed repeatedly (thus boosting the other team). It was part of what sharpened the balance so much in NS1 that a single slip could quickly lead to a team being cut to ribbons. It also took significant focus away from the territorial game, as a team sufficiently skilled in twitch could successfully compete with a lesser team without having to worry about territory control -- using RFK for upgrades, etc.

    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.
  • ctoon6ctoon6 Join Date: 2007-06-15 Member: 61256Members
    dieing isn't a total loss, you can still get your welder/gun back, and when you die your team gets ammo too. however you still loose the HA/JP and give the other team resources. in ns2 it wont matter, unless you drop equipment on death, because you buy your own.
  • BacillusBacillus Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58241Members
    There was some RFK discussion <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=108289" target="_blank">over here</a> a year ago. I think it has got some interesting discussion in it too.
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Members
    How about giving RFK only in the enemy's territory?

    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.
  • BacillusBacillus Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58241Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1796355:date=Aug 26 2010, 10:14 AM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Aug 26 2010, 10:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about giving RFK only in the enemy's territory?

    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.
  • NurEinMenschNurEinMensch Join Date: 2003-02-26 Member: 14056Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1796209:date=Aug 25 2010, 11:27 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 25 2010, 11:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796209"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RFK was a bad idea because it destroyed teams. It could be used to grief a team, and it caused many players to become abusive to team-mates who weren't as skilled/focused and would get killed repeatedly (thus boosting the other team). It was part of what sharpened the balance so much in NS1 that a single slip could quickly lead to a team being cut to ribbons. It also took significant focus away from the territorial game, as a team sufficiently skilled in twitch could successfully compete with a lesser team without having to worry about territory control -- using RFK for upgrades, etc.

    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
  • TigTig Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71674Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    <!--quoteo(post=1796143:date=Aug 24 2010, 08:12 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Aug 24 2010, 08:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796143"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bonus that there was a respawn queue, so if you wipe the whole enemy team it takes a while before they can all respawn and threaten you en masse again.

    Unless the Marines Distress Beacon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    BACON
  • TrCTrC Join Date: 2008-11-30 Member: 65612Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1796209:date=Aug 25 2010, 12:27 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 25 2010, 12:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796209"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RFK was a bad idea because it destroyed teams. It could be used to grief a team, and it caused many players to become abusive to team-mates who weren't as skilled/focused and would get killed repeatedly (thus boosting the other team). It was part of what sharpened the balance so much in NS1 that a single slip could quickly lead to a team being cut to ribbons. It also took significant focus away from the territorial game, as a team sufficiently skilled in twitch could successfully compete with a lesser team without having to worry about territory control -- using RFK for upgrades, etc.

    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.
  • RobBRobB TUBES OF THE INTERWEB Join Date: 2003-08-11 Member: 19423Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    Three years of endured resfeeding to the other team pretty much qualifies as an oppinion maker I think.
  • ScytheScythe Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
    Note that RFK is only given as one resource type, the type used to buy guns. It's not the resource type used to buy buildings or tech upgrades. This means that the marine team still needs map control to progress techwise, but RFK helps them out in the guns department.

    Subject to change, o'course.

    --Scythe--
Sign In or Register to comment.