Letting people buy weapons and evolving into higher lifeforms is <b>FAR</b> more geared towards promoting good players than a measly +1 rfk. It's really dumb to swear blind that rfk is the root of all snowballing evil. NS2 is full of vastly more snowball-y mechanics - in fact, it's built around them.
<!--quoteo(post=2019708:date=Nov 11 2012, 03:35 PM:name=Shrimm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shrimm @ Nov 11 2012, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not even going to bother to reply to the rest of your reply. This is a game of <b><u>strategy</u></b>. A game of NS, though highly unlikely, Could literally be won without anyone on your team ever getting a kill. As in you just keep pushing the enemy back and they retreat before they die. As I said, highly unlikely, but the point is it could happen. Kills don't mean anything.
The way you throw around the word frag makes me think you play K/D based FPS. K/D means nothing in terms of skill and competency in NS.
P.S. nearly your entire post was based on opinions and given as fact....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypothetically what you say could happen. However, we don't live in a hypothetical world. The facts on the ground in NS are that frags are the most important thing for map control.
CoD taking skill - lol. Try a quake game sometime.
Yes, you do lose res when you get frags - because you don't get them when you're dead. So I run in first into a group of 3 marines, on a good day I kill 2 (maybe 3), but usually I then die, but my teammates mop up the frags. So I have completely cleared the room of marines or saved a res node, and I do not get any benefit from that. This is NOT teamplay. It is just silly.
<!--quoteo(post=2019918:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:36 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 11 2012, 06:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I have completely cleared the room of marines or saved a res node, and I do not get any benefit from that. This is NOT teamplay. It is just silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course you do: your res node got saved, and when you respawn the res ticks will give you more than they would have. You do lose res for dying, but your living teammates don't, and so your TEAM is conferred an advantage by what you did.
What you really want to say, I bet, is "I am playing better than everyone else and the game isn't extending my advantage so everyone can see how superior I am".
People saying kills don't matter in this game are also being silly though. In fact, much of the game is greatly influenced by the first 2-3 real engagements, as it determines map control in the early game.
<!--quoteo(post=2019918:date=Nov 11 2012, 10:36 AM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 11 2012, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hypothetically what you say could happen. However, we don't live in a hypothetical world. The facts on the ground in NS are that frags are the most important thing for map control.
CoD taking skill - lol. Try a quake game sometime.
Yes, you do lose res when you get frags - because you don't get them when you're dead. So I run in first into a group of 3 marines, on a good day I kill 2 (maybe 3), but usually I then die, but my teammates mop up the frags. So I have completely cleared the room of marines or saved a res node, and I do not get any benefit from that. This is NOT teamplay. It is just silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frags being the most important thing for map control? No, just no. Destroying buildings plays a far more important role, and that MIGHT involve killing, but some times skulks harrassing every marine RT is far more effective than skulks killing marines, when it comes to winning the game.
And you loose res when you DIE, not when you get frag. Don't try to look smart with that "I'm the one dying for the team" attitude.
<!--quoteo(post=2019738:date=Nov 11 2012, 09:12 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 11 2012, 09:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->May as well remove the RTS element of NS2 if this RFK system is implemented. Let's remove one of the core gameplay mechanics of RTS gameplay just so people can feel gratified with their kills...as if the kill###### mentality isn't bad enough. I don't much care at all about my K/D (though it would certainly look a lot better if I did) and I enjoy playing like a lemming with singleminded determination. I'm going to take down that RT no matter how many times you kill me! Rather than contributing to my team by taking down important resource nodes, I've become a feeder...
Whoo that snowball sure looks mighty big!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This IMO is one of the biggest problems with RFK. It doesn't just reward kills, its penalizes deaths. It turns bad players into resource nodes for the other team, and forces players to cower and hide so they don't feed the other team.
If you want a reward for kills, how about when you kill another player they are taken out of the game for a period of time only to reappear back at their base forcing them to travel back to tactically valuable locations. This would allow your team to gain control of areas by killing members of the other team.
Natural Selection is a team game. RFK completely destroys that feeling while simultaneously making game balance impossible. Don't get stomped by that really good skulk too many times, or he will be an onos 4 minutes into the game. Don't worry though, if you somehow manage to kill him after he spends the next 5 minutes trucking everyone, he will have already gained enough res to onos again.
RFK could be implemented as a Life-Form "Insurance" policy on the alien side payable upon the player's death and have a policy limit determined by the life-form that the player is currently invested in. (possibly allowing skulks at least 1 such Res)
In other words: If you were go to fade you would accumulate +1 Res to your Insurance policy per kill, up to the resource cost of a fade (50 ?) and then upon death and only upon death would you gain these resources back.
So in theory this would reward players for "risky" investments in expensive life-forms and at least allow some of that investment to be recovered; whilst adding personal incentive to get out there and kill things. This would also go a long way to mitigating the "snowball" effect.
<!--quoteo(post=2019942:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:57 PM:name=Heart1987)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Heart1987 @ Nov 11 2012, 06:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And you loose res when you DIE, not when you get frag. Don't try to look smart with that "I'm the one dying for the team" attitude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm usually the one who runs in first to save the res node, draws fire, maybe kills, while my teammates mop up. If I hadn't gone first we would have lost the res. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I know how to play the game and what is important to defend; yet I'm not afraid and have the skill to go first.
<!--quoteo(post=2019935:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM:name=DanielD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DanielD @ Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course you do: your res node got saved, and when you respawn the res ticks will give you more than they would have. You do lose res for dying, but your living teammates don't, and so your TEAM is conferred an advantage by what you did.
What you really want to say, I bet, is "I am playing better than everyone else and the game isn't extending my advantage so everyone can see how superior I am".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but you don't understand. The most efficient use of resources on alien team is for the best player to get the most resources to enable him/her to evolve higher lifeforms to retake areas on the map from the marines. If I die as the best player going first and maybe getting a frag or two, my team gets the res ticks which I do not get. Therefore, my reward has been transferred to the players on my team who cannot make the best use of it. That is NOT an optimum solution.
<!--quoteo(post=2019935:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM:name=DanielD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DanielD @ Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People saying kills don't matter in this game are also being silly though. In fact, much of the game is greatly influenced by the first 2-3 real engagements, as it determines map control in the early game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2020033:date=Nov 11 2012, 03:01 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 11 2012, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry but you don't understand. The most efficient use of resources on alien team is for the best player to get the most resources to enable him/her to evolve higher lifeforms to retake areas on the map from the marines. If I die as the best player going first and maybe getting a frag or two, my team gets the res ticks which I do not get. Therefore, my reward has been transferred to the players on my team who cannot make the best use of it. That is NOT an optimum solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are *that* amazing, I'm sure your commander would drop you eggs. I know I do as commander. Although I am against commanders using tres for drops, I would prefer they have pres.
Any system like RFK, or people with more kills getting more per tick, will just lead to even more snowballing. It would lead to lifeforms appearing too early. If you reduced res income to compensate, then all you are doing is making the game seem crap to all new players.
As a new player, if I buy a shotgun or exosuit, and die, then I accept I am rubbish because I've seen people do well with it. I had a bit of fun. If the game never gives me the chance to buy it, then I think this game is rubbish as I get slaughtered by the top alien player who is constantly an onos now. All I can do is die, more.
End of the day, pro-RFK people are just 'BAWWWW I WANNA STEAMROLL PEOPLE'. Being 10% better than someone entities you to kill them more, not always.
<!--quoteo(post=2020033:date=Nov 11 2012, 09:01 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 11 2012, 09:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry but you don't understand. The most efficient use of resources on alien team is for the best player to get the most resources to enable him/her to evolve higher lifeforms to retake areas on the map from the marines. If I die as the best player going first and maybe getting a frag or two, my team gets the res ticks which I do not get. Therefore, my reward has been transferred to the players on my team who cannot make the best use of it. That is NOT an optimum solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do understand that the optimum team-play from the better players will often lead to him losing out on res, which goes to his less-skilled teammates. However, it is very possible for a good skulk to escape from a bad situation and go back to the hive and heal, so you aren't being punished for your skill as much as you make it out.
If you're smart and polite, you can usually get a less-skilled player to go in first anyway, that's what I do.
Frankly I think it's a good thing, the way it works now. This is a team game. It IS optimal that the strongest players are helping their team, and not themselves.
<!--quoteo(post=2020068:date=Nov 11 2012, 02:45 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 11 2012, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I adore the tactical and team work aspect of NS2, and RFK simply ruins that.
You are forced to play the team game, it is great. People listen to me when I comm!
Stop with the NS1 nostalgia and just get with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say it's less NS1 nostalgia (because honestly I really do get that vibe from these forums at times) and more looking at something we know people enjoyed and trying to apply it here. That isn't to say it will work because there is a possible likelyhood in application it will not, especially from a fun factor. I really just wanted to stimulate thought on something we have discussed almost to death and apply it back to the overall resource model as to me that is where a lot of the problems with the alien tech tree flow from (aside from scaling).
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2012
People like to talk about RFK snowballing, but they don't seem to realize it could also have the opposite effect.
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=2020150:date=Nov 11 2012, 03:03 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Nov 11 2012, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People like to talk about RFK snowballing, but they don't seem to realize it could also have the opposite effect.
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also enables turtle comebacks. If you let them build up enough RFK, doesn't matter how many nodes you have, they just reach parity.
<!--quoteo(post=2020150:date=Nov 11 2012, 07:03 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Nov 11 2012, 07:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People like to talk about RFK snowballing, but they don't seem to realize it could also have the opposite effect.
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that the Fade dies to two shotgun blasts and a gentle breeze in NS2 and being res locked to such a degree would ensure that marines are already rolling exos to shred your paper Fade. Onos? We already have Onos drops thanks to TRes and I bet the team can get that Onos way faster than with some random player getting kills. I'd even go so far as to say that RFK is pointless so long as the egg drop mechanic exists for aliens.
So yeah implementing RFK in the game's current state would do nothing but destroy the fundamental design of the RTS aspect of this game. Your team has bigger issues than trying to get enough PRes through kills if they can't even secure 3 res nodes.
Res for kills was a mistake in NS1. Bad luck, lag, or just a badly mismatched encounter in the first minute or two of the map determined which team would win. There wasn't much strategy beyond "Which Skulk will farm up 40 res for early second hive and which Skulk wants to farm up 50 res and rush Fade?" or "Okay <Squad 5>, hold at Pipe Junction and farm kills. You <Squad 3> go along the other side of the map and build nodes with that res. [good player], come back to base and get this Shotgun."
<!--quoteo(post=2020259:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:05 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interestingly enough that's 100% more strategy than what's present without RFK.
Hmmmm....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My strategy if RFK came in would be to hide in a corner and do nothing. At all. Because I don't want the enemy team farming me for money.
Hmmmm....
Really to me this system would make the game more "CoD"ish, as the the good players would get the toys and the bad/newer/rookie players would be cattle.
I can't exactly remember the ns1 timings, but was fade generally something like 6 minutes?
To put this in perspective, <b>without dying</b> and non-standard <b>aggressive harvestor expansion</b> (3-5 with harvestor deaths and rebuild times) in ns2, you're looking at about a 9minuteish pres fade. Any earlier than this i think is totally unfeasible. When you take into account rfd and normal competitive harvester counts, this usually ends up being something like 12-15 minutes +.
So really, its quite incorrect to say rfk leads to snowballing and omgod imbalance. We're really only talking about small, well tuned amounts of rfk that might earn you a minute or so if you played really really well. If anything, i think rfk is actually needed to bring the current pres timings down.
It's not quite accurate to paint rfk as anti-teamwork either. Purposely feeding last bites to one player does add more depth.
<!--quoteo(post=2020306:date=Nov 11 2012, 05:57 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 11 2012, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not quite accurate to paint rfk as anti-teamwork either. Purposely feeding last bites to one player does add more depth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When did we become a DOTA game?
I hope you're aware that lerks purposely did that quite often in ns1, and it was quite a strategic element of RFK. There really is no plausible argument for RFK providing "less" strategy, tactics, or anything really. Perhaps just less static timings? Which is not a negative effect.
Feeding the other team with pointless, ineffective deaths is not a negative aspect of the game. It's actually a very simple and effective deterrent to playing poorly. You can argue it's harsh or difficult for new players to grasp, but so is the rest of ns2 for the most part; so that argument can be ignored easily.
I'm honestly curious what argument people have against RFK that holds any water or has any merit at this point. It seems like they're all just strawmen and irrelevant asides ("lol ur game is call of duty gtfo").
<!--quoteo(post=2020029:date=Nov 11 2012, 03:58 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 11 2012, 03:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020029"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm usually the one who runs in first to save the res node, draws fire, maybe kills, while my teammates mop up. If I hadn't gone first we would have lost the res. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I know how to play the game and what is important to defend; yet I'm not afraid and have the skill to go first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is one of my problems. Many engagements with skulks vs marines end up like "one skulk (or two) soak up most of the fire or distract most of the fire away from the rest and then they mop it up". Yet, despite all the skulks there being important, 1/2 of them got "punished" for dying first. The rest gained res as normal
I think the issue with RPK is that the game, as it stands now, really wasn't build or balanced around it. Suddenly adding it would cause chaos and require significant work to revamp other mechanics to it. I think the NS2 team has decided not to do it...and they don't want to do it now.
RFK was removed because it amplifies the ability of a few players to completely dominate a game. You create a situation in which one player decides the outcome for everyone else. It is not fun accept for the player dominating everyone.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=2020306:date=Nov 12 2012, 02:57 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 12 2012, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't exactly remember the ns1 timings, but was fade generally something like 6 minutes?
To put this in perspective, <b>without dying</b> and non-standard <b>aggressive harvestor expansion</b> (3-5 with harvestor deaths and rebuild times) in ns2, you're looking at about a 9minuteish pres fade. Any earlier than this i think is totally unfeasible. When you take into account rfd and normal competitive harvester counts, this usually ends up being something like 12-15 minutes +.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Usually around 4 minutes in NS1, usually around 10 minutes in NS2.
So the only situation where that is even mildly plausible is the hypothetical scenario of a really good skulk getting to a fade exceptionally quickly.
It's pretty easy to see this being trivial to ignore because the player capable of racking up enough kills as a skulk to get fade with ns2's current pres system would of already had to have set the marine team so far back in map control and consequently economy, tech, etc... that they were already in a virtually unrecoverable situation.
So in your hypothetical, situation that is supposedly the reason for removing RFK. RFK apparently had no impact on the game beyond ending it faster and allowing another game to occur while also rewarding a player for doing well.
Explain to me why it's more fun to be dominated by an unrewarded player than a rewarded player. Do all the new players have a statistically significant more amount of fun knowing the player killing them isn't getting resources? What is giving you a better experience by removing RFK?
It only accelerates a slippery slope for the opposite team creating a situation in which the game is decided within the first few minutes or even before it has begun.
Any feature added to this game that rewards skill will be vehemently protested and cried about by the average "COD" style gamer that is all too present in todays communities.
It makes more sense to them to have something like slight of hand, or some other retarded perk to artificially level the playing field. Because in their eyes this makes them feel like the game is more "fair" and gives equal chances to all players, including themselves, who feel like they should be able to contend with anybody. It all stems from personal ego's and an inability to see ones own downfalls.
@|3lessed, are oh eff el @ saying games are decided before they even begin or in the first few minutes. So you basically want a game where playing better isn't rewarded and either team can do ###### all to win at any point? Without having any consequence for ###### playing?
Or it comes down to players not enjoying game mechanics which tilt the playing field in favor of those who already are ahead based on skill. Your reward for being skilled is dominating players already; developers don't need to put in mechanics that tilt the playing field in your favor, when it is already in your favor. However, this doesn't mean giving non-skilled players an artificial boost with gimmicky abilities and what not to make the field "equal," which thank god NS2 has not done.
<!--quoteo(post=2020351:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:52 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 06:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020351"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Explain to me why it's more fun to be dominated by an unrewarded player than a rewarded player. Do all the new players have a statistically significant more amount of fun knowing the player killing them isn't getting resources? What is giving you a better experience by removing RFK?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Man [insert name] is good as a skulk. Hate to see him as a Fade. Oh crap he is a fade! And he's wrecking us. Glad he's not an Onos...oh wait he is. Well good game despite the fact the other 6-9 players on the team couldn't even figure out what to do".
The 'fun' in being dominated by an unrewarded player is that the difference in Res shouldn't be too far between me and him. So next time we meet yeah he may have Fade from being alive, but I can have a shotgun. Yes that marine might have a shotgun and jetpack, but due to saving, I have lurk.
If you want to go into a game, have five minutes pass, then let the rest of the game be dictated by what team player X is on, by all means go ahead. Me, and all the other new players that just came in will be your cannon fodder which is fun right? I mean, player X and player Y need people to kill for their fun right? Right?
Comments
The way you throw around the word frag makes me think you play K/D based FPS. K/D means nothing in terms of skill and competency in NS.
P.S. nearly your entire post was based on opinions and given as fact....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypothetically what you say could happen. However, we don't live in a hypothetical world. The facts on the ground in NS are that frags are the most important thing for map control.
CoD taking skill - lol. Try a quake game sometime.
Yes, you do lose res when you get frags - because you don't get them when you're dead. So I run in first into a group of 3 marines, on a good day I kill 2 (maybe 3), but usually I then die, but my teammates mop up the frags. So I have completely cleared the room of marines or saved a res node, and I do not get any benefit from that. This is NOT teamplay. It is just silly.
Of course you do: your res node got saved, and when you respawn the res ticks will give you more than they would have. You do lose res for dying, but your living teammates don't, and so your TEAM is conferred an advantage by what you did.
What you really want to say, I bet, is "I am playing better than everyone else and the game isn't extending my advantage so everyone can see how superior I am".
People saying kills don't matter in this game are also being silly though. In fact, much of the game is greatly influenced by the first 2-3 real engagements, as it determines map control in the early game.
CoD taking skill - lol. Try a quake game sometime.
Yes, you do lose res when you get frags - because you don't get them when you're dead. So I run in first into a group of 3 marines, on a good day I kill 2 (maybe 3), but usually I then die, but my teammates mop up the frags. So I have completely cleared the room of marines or saved a res node, and I do not get any benefit from that. This is NOT teamplay. It is just silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frags being the most important thing for map control? No, just no. Destroying buildings plays a far more important role, and that MIGHT involve killing, but some times skulks harrassing every marine RT is far more effective than skulks killing marines, when it comes to winning the game.
And you loose res when you DIE, not when you get frag. Don't try to look smart with that "I'm the one dying for the team" attitude.
Whoo that snowball sure looks mighty big!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This IMO is one of the biggest problems with RFK. It doesn't just reward kills, its penalizes deaths. It turns bad players into resource nodes for the other team, and forces players to cower and hide so they don't feed the other team.
If you want a reward for kills, how about when you kill another player they are taken out of the game for a period of time only to reappear back at their base forcing them to travel back to tactically valuable locations. This would allow your team to gain control of areas by killing members of the other team.
Natural Selection is a team game. RFK completely destroys that feeling while simultaneously making game balance impossible. Don't get stomped by that really good skulk too many times, or he will be an onos 4 minutes into the game. Don't worry though, if you somehow manage to kill him after he spends the next 5 minutes trucking everyone, he will have already gained enough res to onos again.
In other words: If you were go to fade you would accumulate +1 Res to your Insurance policy per kill, up to the resource cost of a fade (50 ?) and then upon death and only upon death would you gain these resources back.
So in theory this would reward players for "risky" investments in expensive life-forms and at least allow some of that investment to be recovered; whilst adding personal incentive to get out there and kill things. This would also go a long way to mitigating the "snowball" effect.
I'm usually the one who runs in first to save the res node, draws fire, maybe kills, while my teammates mop up. If I hadn't gone first we would have lost the res. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I know how to play the game and what is important to defend; yet I'm not afraid and have the skill to go first.
What you really want to say, I bet, is "I am playing better than everyone else and the game isn't extending my advantage so everyone can see how superior I am".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but you don't understand. The most efficient use of resources on alien team is for the best player to get the most resources to enable him/her to evolve higher lifeforms to retake areas on the map from the marines. If I die as the best player going first and maybe getting a frag or two, my team gets the res ticks which I do not get. Therefore, my reward has been transferred to the players on my team who cannot make the best use of it. That is NOT an optimum solution.
<!--quoteo(post=2019935:date=Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM:name=DanielD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DanielD @ Nov 11 2012, 06:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2019935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People saying kills don't matter in this game are also being silly though. In fact, much of the game is greatly influenced by the first 2-3 real engagements, as it determines map control in the early game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks.
If you are *that* amazing, I'm sure your commander would drop you eggs. I know I do as commander. Although I am against commanders using tres for drops, I would prefer they have pres.
Any system like RFK, or people with more kills getting more per tick, will just lead to even more snowballing. It would lead to lifeforms appearing too early. If you reduced res income to compensate, then all you are doing is making the game seem crap to all new players.
As a new player, if I buy a shotgun or exosuit, and die, then I accept I am rubbish because I've seen people do well with it. I had a bit of fun.
If the game never gives me the chance to buy it, then I think this game is rubbish as I get slaughtered by the top alien player who is constantly an onos now. All I can do is die, more.
End of the day, pro-RFK people are just 'BAWWWW I WANNA STEAMROLL PEOPLE'. Being 10% better than someone entities you to kill them more, not always.
You are forced to play the team game, it is great. People listen to me when I comm!
Stop with the NS1 nostalgia and just get with it.
I do understand that the optimum team-play from the better players will often lead to him losing out on res, which goes to his less-skilled teammates. However, it is very possible for a good skulk to escape from a bad situation and go back to the hive and heal, so you aren't being punished for your skill as much as you make it out.
If you're smart and polite, you can usually get a less-skilled player to go in first anyway, that's what I do.
Frankly I think it's a good thing, the way it works now. This is a team game. It IS optimal that the strongest players are helping their team, and not themselves.
You are forced to play the team game, it is great. People listen to me when I comm!
Stop with the NS1 nostalgia and just get with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say it's less NS1 nostalgia (because honestly I really do get that vibe from these forums at times) and more looking at something we know people enjoyed and trying to apply it here. That isn't to say it will work because there is a possible likelyhood in application it will not, especially from a fun factor. I really just wanted to stimulate thought on something we have discussed almost to death and apply it back to the overall resource model as to me that is where a lot of the problems with the alien tech tree flow from (aside from scaling).
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also enables turtle comebacks. If you let them build up enough RFK, doesn't matter how many nodes you have, they just reach parity.
For example: In NS1, an alien team that was getting dominating and couldn't keep their resource towers up, still had a chance to get a fade and get back into the game if one of their players managed to get enough frags.
RFK wouldn't destroy the RTS elements of NS2, as some posters like to disingenuously assert, it would simply add another nuance to gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that the Fade dies to two shotgun blasts and a gentle breeze in NS2 and being res locked to such a degree would ensure that marines are already rolling exos to shred your paper Fade. Onos? We already have Onos drops thanks to TRes and I bet the team can get that Onos way faster than with some random player getting kills. I'd even go so far as to say that RFK is pointless so long as the egg drop mechanic exists for aliens.
So yeah implementing RFK in the game's current state would do nothing but destroy the fundamental design of the RTS aspect of this game. Your team has bigger issues than trying to get enough PRes through kills if they can't even secure 3 res nodes.
Hmmmm....
Hmmmm....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My strategy if RFK came in would be to hide in a corner and do nothing. At all. Because I don't want the enemy team farming me for money.
Hmmmm....
Really to me this system would make the game more "CoD"ish, as the the good players would get the toys and the bad/newer/rookie players would be cattle.
To put this in perspective, <b>without dying</b> and non-standard <b>aggressive harvestor expansion</b> (3-5 with harvestor deaths and rebuild times) in ns2, you're looking at about a 9minuteish pres fade. Any earlier than this i think is totally unfeasible. When you take into account rfd and normal competitive harvester counts, this usually ends up being something like 12-15 minutes +.
So really, its quite incorrect to say rfk leads to snowballing and omgod imbalance. We're really only talking about small, well tuned amounts of rfk that might earn you a minute or so if you played really really well. If anything, i think rfk is actually needed to bring the current pres timings down.
It's not quite accurate to paint rfk as anti-teamwork either. Purposely feeding last bites to one player does add more depth.
When did we become a DOTA game?
Feeding the other team with pointless, ineffective deaths is not a negative aspect of the game. It's actually a very simple and effective deterrent to playing poorly. You can argue it's harsh or difficult for new players to grasp, but so is the rest of ns2 for the most part; so that argument can be ignored easily.
I'm honestly curious what argument people have against RFK that holds any water or has any merit at this point. It seems like they're all just strawmen and irrelevant asides ("lol ur game is call of duty gtfo").
This is one of my problems.
Many engagements with skulks vs marines end up like "one skulk (or two) soak up most of the fire or distract most of the fire away from the rest and then they mop it up". Yet, despite all the skulks there being important, 1/2 of them got "punished" for dying first. The rest gained res as normal
I think the issue with RPK is that the game, as it stands now, really wasn't build or balanced around it. Suddenly adding it would cause chaos and require significant work to revamp other mechanics to it. I think the NS2 team has decided not to do it...and they don't want to do it now.
To put this in perspective, <b>without dying</b> and non-standard <b>aggressive harvestor expansion</b> (3-5 with harvestor deaths and rebuild times) in ns2, you're looking at about a 9minuteish pres fade. Any earlier than this i think is totally unfeasible. When you take into account rfd and normal competitive harvester counts, this usually ends up being something like 12-15 minutes +.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Usually around 4 minutes in NS1, usually around 10 minutes in NS2.
So the only situation where that is even mildly plausible is the hypothetical scenario of a really good skulk getting to a fade exceptionally quickly.
It's pretty easy to see this being trivial to ignore because the player capable of racking up enough kills as a skulk to get fade with ns2's current pres system would of already had to have set the marine team so far back in map control and consequently economy, tech, etc... that they were already in a virtually unrecoverable situation.
So in your hypothetical, situation that is supposedly the reason for removing RFK. RFK apparently had no impact on the game beyond ending it faster and allowing another game to occur while also rewarding a player for doing well.
Explain to me why it's more fun to be dominated by an unrewarded player than a rewarded player. Do all the new players have a statistically significant more amount of fun knowing the player killing them isn't getting resources? What is giving you a better experience by removing RFK?
It makes more sense to them to have something like slight of hand, or some other retarded perk to artificially level the playing field. Because in their eyes this makes them feel like the game is more "fair" and gives equal chances to all players, including themselves, who feel like they should be able to contend with anybody. It all stems from personal ego's and an inability to see ones own downfalls.
@|3lessed, are oh eff el @ saying games are decided before they even begin or in the first few minutes. So you basically want a game where playing better isn't rewarded and either team can do ###### all to win at any point? Without having any consequence for ###### playing?
"Man [insert name] is good as a skulk. Hate to see him as a Fade. Oh crap he is a fade! And he's wrecking us. Glad he's not an Onos...oh wait he is. Well good game despite the fact the other 6-9 players on the team couldn't even figure out what to do".
The 'fun' in being dominated by an unrewarded player is that the difference in Res shouldn't be too far between me and him. So next time we meet yeah he may have Fade from being alive, but I can have a shotgun. Yes that marine might have a shotgun and jetpack, but due to saving, I have lurk.
If you want to go into a game, have five minutes pass, then let the rest of the game be dictated by what team player X is on, by all means go ahead. Me, and all the other new players that just came in will be your cannon fodder which is fun right? I mean, player X and player Y need people to kill for their fun right? Right?