I don't see how rewarding a player and that player's team for making progress in the game could be construed as unenjoyable. Explain how it would.
I don't see how RFK could not be implemented such that the advantage in timing for getting an extra pack of mines or a slightly faster fade / lerk for playing well would have a direct negative impact on any reasonable person's experience or ability to have fun. Explain how it would.
I've already given your slippery-slope agrument the benefit of the doubt and given it the best possible chance to be plausible, but even then it failed to be worthwhile. So again, explain why it should be taken seriously.
edit: And how many kills did [insert player name] need to get to that fade at a timing where it was impossible for marines to respond to it? Upwards of 20 in an extremely short period of time? Do you think [insert player name] was going to magically stop killing you if he wasn't getting RFK? Were you really going to magically comeback against [insert player name] just because he wasn't getting RFK? Sorry but you guys just don't think these things through.
<!--quoteo(post=2020385:date=Nov 11 2012, 08:51 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how rewarding a player and that player's team for making progress in the game could be construed as unenjoyable. Explain how it would.
I don't see how RFK could not be implemented such that the advantage in timing for getting an extra pack of mines or a slightly faster fade / lerk for playing well would have a direct negative impact on any reasonable person's experience or ability to have fun. Explain how it would.
I've already given your slippery-slope agrument the benefit of the doubt and given it the best possible chance to be plausible, but even then it failed to be worthwhile. So again, explain why it should be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I'm gonna go play marine! Yay!" Commander: Dude you suck. Quit fedding them resources! "But, I got jumped" Commander: Don't care! That's like the 5th time you've just died. "But it was 5 on 1..." Commander: Go sit and babysit the power node you noob ******!!!
Why would rewarding a player based on their skill not be rewarding? Oh it would. But what about those that don't stack up. They are already losing RES for being dead and then just handed over RES to the other team. This, in my mind, will push the game to be far more skill based than team based, with commanders doing everything to keep their skilled players alive and give the non skilled either boring jobs or to be cannon fodder.
I've already been told to 'go die so the good guy behind you doesn't'. I wonder how much more I will hear it if this comes back. Yes, you, the player earning the kills, earning the extra RES will be having a blast. But what about those that aren't playing this to be CoD? Or DOTA?
What the hell are you playing the game to do then? If you don't seem to enjoy improving at the PvP aspects of the game then how can you complain about a commander asking you to do a non-PvP aspect of the game. It sounds like exactly what you wanted all along.
<!--quoteo(post=2020382:date=Nov 12 2012, 02:48 PM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 12 2012, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When do you ever meet fades without shotguns already researched? Infact, you start with enough pres for one one!
<!--quoteo(post=2020394:date=Nov 11 2012, 08:03 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 08:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020394"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What the hell are you playing the game to do then? If you don't seem to enjoy improving at the PvP aspects of the game then how can you complain about a commander asking you to do a non-PvP aspect of the game. It sounds like exactly what you wanted all along.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish to improve yes. I've looked at videos and written tips on how to improved. And I don't mind when the commander wants me to repair/heal/protect an area.
I DO mind a commander thinking that, based on my K/D, that I offer nothing to the match and should just either quit or sit in a corner.
So that commander who said something mean to you is your entire justification for not having RFK.
Glad we established that.
edit: Maybe people shouldn't form opinions on gameplay features when their primary motivation is some inferiority complex or maligned experience with some player.
<!--quoteo(post=2020402:date=Nov 11 2012, 09:10 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 09:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020402"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So that commander who said something mean to you is your entire justification for not having RFK.
Glad we established that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you take one thing from my argument.
Glad we established that.
My reasoning to no RFK is that it will degrade the game to 'strong eat weak' mindset. If you aren't 'strong' or skilled, why are you playing the game? More importantly, why are you on my team? I have no problem if you want RFK in certain servers, or even in competitive. But given that new players will be the lifeblood of the game, adding in a reward to the guy that killed them on top of the punishment of not getting RES, will turn newer people off to the game.
Edit: And maybe people shouldn't form opinions on gameplay features when they believe rewarding the strong and punishing the weak will look inviting to newer players.
You were the one who harped on some irrelevant anecdote where you were degraded and made to feel useless in a video game. Not me. So forgive me for not really caring.
So now your new argument is it creates some "mindset" that will make the game unenjoyable for new players. And of course it's laced with strawmen, who would of guessed! Yes, why would anyone ever play any game or do any activity ever where a more experienced, practiced player seems to have an edge on his competition. You might as well just have everyone except the guy ranked #1 on the ladder quit the game and try their luck at another game in hopes of becoming #1. I mean it'd just be impossible for a new player to still have fun if an older player does well because he will be infected with the mindset that now pervades the entire gaming community that if you don't get every kill you're worthless and shouldn't even try.
Really? I tried my best to be considerate and understanding, but that's ###### retarded.
You know, I can come back mean, spiteful, bitter, etc.
The fact is, in my opinion, adding in RFK would be a mistake for pub play. Do I have the numbers and data to back this up? No, I do not. But if the argument of adding in RFK is so airtight, I guess we will be hearing about it in a month or two.
The argument is it adds to the game in every respect possible (Encourage players to make kills, not discouraging taking chances that could result in dying, giving teams the opportunities to gain small edges for big plays, prevent a team from holding an area and raking up kills being unrewarded for doing something important, etc...) while its counterpart (NO-RFD) offers nothing except a crutch for delaying lifeforms from being simultaneously available, and actually encourages aliens to sit in a corner and not die.
But I guess I could just be passive aggressive and say oxymoronic things like "the fact is, in my opinion, XXXXX"
Last point, RFK is impossible to truly balance because it is based on player skill which is completely random every single game and in every single situation.
<!--quoteo(post=2020419:date=Nov 11 2012, 08:45 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 11 2012, 08:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I guess I could just be passive aggressive and say oxymoronic things like "the fact is, in my opinion, XXXXX"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, wouldn't it be oxymoronic to say "the fact is, in my opinion, xxxxx, so it must be true!"?
JektJoin Date: 2012-02-05Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Last point, RFK is impossible to truly balance because it is based on player skill which is completely random every single game and in every single situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nonsensegenerator.com? Here's a couple good ones
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A late night stole the goods. An old apple doesn't like paying taxes. Trickery is often pregnant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What was your first point? Did you have one? Why can't it be balanced? Does player skill scale infinitely? Obviously not, so you can determine what is hypothetically possible for an individual in a given situation.
And if you know what the hypothetically perfect playing player can accomplish can you not balance the RFK around that (or more reasonably a gimped version of this player).
edit: If I have to explain to you why saying "the fact is" then immediately qualifying that statement with "well in my opinion" is an oxymoron then I give up.
<!--quoteo(post=2020419:date=Nov 12 2012, 06:45 AM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Nov 12 2012, 06:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The argument is it adds to the game in every respect possible (Encourage players to make kills, not discouraging taking chances that could result in dying, giving teams the opportunities to gain small edges for big plays, prevent a team from holding an area and raking up kills being unrewarded for doing something important, etc...) while its counterpart (NO-RFD) offers nothing except a crutch for delaying lifeforms from being simultaneously available, and actually encourages aliens to sit in a corner and not die.
But I guess I could just be passive aggressive and say oxymoronic things like "the fact is, in my opinion, XXXXX"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Encouraging players to make kills is a positive? You know this isn't the Activision forum right?
The fighting itself is grounded in the FPS genre. The reason you fight is grounded in RTS. Battles occur over territory and resources. Imagine playing SC2, and after your enemy beats you off two key locations, he is rewarded not only by the locations themselves, but by randomly being given any unit he desires. It creates a situation where losing a battle means losing a game. Each encounter becomes far too important.
If that isn't enough, the system would be highly exploitable. Marines begin game, marine A pulls ahead on Pres by getting a few kills. Another marine buys a shotgun and gives it to marine A. Marine A pulls ahead much much further. Marine A continues to be fed tech by the rest of his team until he can buy a dual minigun exo at the 4 minute mark. The reason it worked in NS1 was because the res was not shareable. Either the marine team as a whole got it, or individual aliens who cannot trade lifeforms got it. It doesn't fit into NS2. Not in its original incarnation.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2018657:date=Nov 10 2012, 11:54 AM:name=Industry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Industry @ Nov 10 2012, 11:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2018657"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In terms of marine turtling with RFK, the turret problem that NS1 had isn't really an issue anymore with the limit per room we enjoy in NS2. To do something like this there needs to be a careful balance on the numbers side as the fun factor is still important to the losing team and when the numbers are kept on the lower end you should see less people complaining about "feeders" which is also a problem with RFK.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Turtling is still an issue, however, thanks to recycling of weapons, GL player damage and armory humping.
There are many options other than RFK that dont have as many downsides.. RFK is really an inferior choice just like No Pres While Dead. (And one does NOT justify the use of the other.)
I also dont get the argument of "I got no reward for dominating." .... Yes you did? you kept the enemy off the battlefield, saved RTs, destroyed theirs, etc... all contributing to your pres influx?? Is it so bad that your contributions reap rewards that are equally shared amongst your team? I dont think so..
I would like to see an alternative suggested then, I havent seen a single one to date that has any merit or no major flaws like RFD... and for the record RFK actually allows for comebacks way more than people realize, and some of the points against it in this thread are amusing lol. Sounds like alot of people are upset from one skilled fade back in NS1 days who would hardly die.. Im pretty sure on pubs there are fades in NS2 that can never die, and if they do they manage to have 100 pres magically because they have been shutting down marine pressure, RFK isnt going to change that battle, youll still loose to a fade of superior skill with or without RFK.
In all honesty I am fine without it, but it did add another dimension to combat in NS1. It was usually useful when marines were on the back of the field and on 1 or 2 RT's. At least getting kills actually mattered when aliens could simply afford to keep buying higher lifeforms over and over again. The RFK system gave fully teched marines a chance when the aliens can go around pounding RT's with onos and gorges laming up every hallway (Which isn't a combat oriented advantage to aliens). This is why RFK can help balance out games when they go back and forth. The more skilled players are rewarded, and so is their team. Perhaps make RFK only give TRES instead of PRES. This way the TEAM benefits from skilled players and not just the skilled player. How would you feel about that idea |3lessed? That's how it was in NS1 on marine side anyway...
To be honest RFK may help break stalemates, and also could potentially make games LONGER, and more enjoyable. Which is exactly what blessed wants? RFK could also make games shorter, depending on the extent of early res accrued. I'd prefer to either see short and painless games, than long drawn out idiotic games. Back and forth games are fine when they are long, but there are far too many 30-40 min retard fest games springing up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A late night stole the goods. An old apple doesn't like paying taxes. Trickery is often pregnant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, I think I'll be argumenting using Haikus from now on. It shouldn't affect the quality of the discussion in any way.
---
As for the topic itself, I'm not particularly bothered that RFK isn't in the game (nor that it's not coming as long as the gameplay structure gets sorted out somehow), but it's seriously annoying that people refuse to look at it in any rational manner. It has got benefits. It has got negatives. Can we please start aknowledging that at the very least rather than going through the "IT SUXXX" routine?
The Vault KeyJoin Date: 2012-11-11Member: 169550Members
How is a Fade OP ? I don't get it, some explaination ? 1 Marine can easily kill a fade without any struggle if he knows what's he doing, you have to strike at isolated targets if you want to stay alive, more than one marine is a deadly oponent to a Fade so I don't see him beeing OP anywhere. Yesterday I did 40-3 as a Fade and I was focusing on killing isolated Marines, if you want a fade to be shut down then move in groups and do not say it's OP, to be honest it is allright or slightly weak.
I don't know much about ns1 RFK metagame myself but I've yet to see a single valid arguement against it. It makes good players better? Yea not like a jetpack marine who has 50 kills on one life is also going to have a shotgun anyway. That pro alien player on your team though? Who is there to give him the res for a better lifeform? This and the "snowballing" argument doesn't work. As not only can it and it does backfire, but empowering a bad team by making good players worse just to make them feel like they have a chance in a one-sided game is pretty stupid and doesn't help this turtling thing that's already common. Either way, no resources while dead is terrible as unlike RFK because it punishes players and their team for taking tactical risks which skulks especially have to do. The skulk who went around killing multiple marines and RTs gets less resources than the skulk who is too scared to engage in fights other than spamming parasite or even attack RTs? What a joke. This isn't as much of a problem for marines as their spawn is faster, but you get the same thing as you can just stay out of range and shoot the easy targets that are at your teammate's feet all round and get gear faster than they would.
<!--quoteo(post=2020460:date=Nov 11 2012, 10:40 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 11 2012, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020460"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Turtling is still an issue, however, thanks to recycling of weapons, GL player damage and armory humping.
There are many options other than RFK that dont have as many downsides.. RFK is really an inferior choice just like No Pres While Dead. (And one does NOT justify the use of the other.)
I also dont get the argument of "I got no reward for dominating." .... Yes you did? you kept the enemy off the battlefield, saved RTs, destroyed theirs, etc... all contributing to your pres influx?? Is it so bad that your contributions reap rewards that are equally shared amongst your team? I dont think so..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not really on the RFK as a reward bandwagon, I mean it definitely would feel good getting a kill, but rather I'd like to see it used in a res model with soft timings for when certain techs come out. Currently, in terms of pres, we have more hard timings where a Fade or a Lerk will be out at X time when you have Y harvesters. There is no way for an individual player to influence that, and some people like that which I understand. What this has caused however and we've seen it all throughout the beta and currently after 1.0 which is multiple lifeforms popping at the same time. No pres while dead was supposed to help alleviate this but effectively given the distribution of deaths on either side it does not stagger pres but merely slows it down for the whole team. Rarely do I see a deviation of more than 3-4 res when the fade timing comes. Other pres sinks would help but I don't think they can add enough to balance out the opportunity cost for saving for that crucial fade or onos.
I agree that turtling is still an issue but it isn't as bad as it once was with the oceans of turrets. It is a lot easier for aliens to break them than it used to be. Weapon recycling should be toned down (shave like 2-3 seconds off the despawn time) and armor healing should be removed from the basic armory (though flayra said on the ESL stream that this wasn't going to happen so it is a pipe dream now /sad).
I am all for discussing other ideas. What I really wanted to do was stimulate thought on the res model using the beaten horse of RFK as the ignition point.
<!--quoteo(post=2020760:date=Nov 12 2012, 06:59 AM:name=The Vault Key)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Vault Key @ Nov 12 2012, 06:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is a Fade OP ? I don't get it, some explaination ? 1 Marine can easily kill a fade without any struggle if he knows what's he doing, you have to strike at isolated targets if you want to stay alive, more than one marine is a deadly oponent to a Fade so I don't see him beeing OP anywhere. Yesterday I did 40-3 as a Fade and I was focusing on killing isolated Marines, if you want a fade to be shut down then move in groups and do not say it's OP, to be honest it is allright or slightly weak.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The current fade is not OP by any means in fact it is widely held that it is a tad underwhelming given its res cost and relative power to the onos. The title I chose for this thread is definitely editorialized and maybe has caused a bit more confusion than I had intended. It was more a reference to previous incarnations of the fade and it's NS1 counterpart. My bad.
<!--quoteo(post=2020783:date=Nov 12 2012, 02:16 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Nov 12 2012, 02:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020783"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know much about ns1 RFK metagame myself but I've yet to see a single valid arguement against it. It makes good players better? Yea not like a jetpack marine who has 50 kills on one life is also going to have a shotgun anyway. That pro alien player on your team though? Who is there to give him the res for a better lifeform? This and the "snowballing" argument doesn't work. As not only can it and it does backfire, but empowering a bad team by making good players worse just to make them feel like they have a chance in a one-sided game is pretty stupid and doesn't help this turtling thing that's already common. Either way, no resources while dead is terrible as unlike RFK because it punishes players and their team for taking tactical risks which skulks especially have to do. The skulk who went around killing multiple marines and RTs gets less resources than the skulk who is too scared to engage in fights other than spamming parasite or even attack RTs? What a joke. This isn't as much of a problem for marines as their spawn is faster, but you get the same thing as you can just stay out of range and shoot the easy targets that are at your teammate's feet all round and get gear faster than they would.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An interesting note to those citing examples of how RFK was bad in NS1... RFK would actually suite NS2 much better than NS1 due to the dual resource system. You can only do so much with your personal res, which is all it would give I'm assuming. It would not give your team more techpoints, higher tech or anything else requiring t-res.
If anything it would help to possibly counter the "t-res snowball" when one team holds 6+ RTs for any period of time, it's very punishing to the other team and hard to come back from right now.
<!--quoteo(post=2020783:date=Nov 12 2012, 09:16 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Nov 12 2012, 09:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020783"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know much about ns1 RFK metagame myself but I've yet to see a single valid arguement against it. It makes good players better? Yea not like a jetpack marine who has 50 kills on one life is also going to have a shotgun anyway. That pro alien player on your team though? Who is there to give him the res for a better lifeform? This and the "snowballing" argument doesn't work. As not only can it and it does backfire, but empowering a bad team by making good players worse just to make them feel like they have a chance in a one-sided game is pretty stupid and doesn't help this turtling thing that's already common. Either way, no resources while dead is terrible as unlike RFK because it punishes players and their team for taking tactical risks which skulks especially have to do. The skulk who went around killing multiple marines and RTs gets less resources than the skulk who is too scared to engage in fights other than spamming parasite or even attack RTs? What a joke. This isn't as much of a problem for marines as their spawn is faster, but you get the same thing as you can just stay out of range and shoot the easy targets that are at your teammate's feet all round and get gear faster than they would.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valid arguement eh? Well, how's this then... NS2 is a complex game and extremely difficult to balance, adding in RFK would require a massive effort to then rebalance the game. The current resource model is not perfect (show me something in life that is perfect) but its far from being "broken" to require a complete overhaul that RFK introduction would require.
How is No PRES when dead not broken? Just because the alien/marine win ratios are around 50/50 because of fast lifeforms via TRES drops in no way means that PRES lifeform timings are anywhere close to correct. Typical timing of a fade via PRES is 10 minutes, which assuming the marines are doing average could mean anything from w3/a3 to jetpacks/exos.
<!--quoteo(post=2021171:date=Nov 12 2012, 03:48 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Nov 12 2012, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2021171"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is No PRES when dead not broken? Just because the alien/marine win ratios are around 50/50 because of fast lifeforms via TRES drops in no way means that PRES lifeform timings are anywhere close to correct. Typical timing of a fade via PRES is 10 minutes, which assuming the marines are doing average could mean anything from w3/a3 to jetpacks/exos.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its a huge assumption on your part that the 50/50 split of pub wins is because of early lifeform drops from TRES, and it certainly doesn't reflect my experiences in game. I've maybe seen an Early ONOS in perhaps 5% of the games I've played in, and it certainly isn't a guarantee of an alien win at all, nor is the lack of an early ONOS a guarantee of an alien loss.
Your entire point rests on the supposition that good skulks are penalized... the thing is, we disagree on what a good skulk is, IMO a good skulk has nothing to do with K:D ratio... a good skulk is a good harasser, and a good ambusher. Frankly good skulks almost always stay alive longer... because that's what good skulks do.
Sure, there might be a scaredy skulk that never engages... but frankly those folks are so rare that reworking the balance of the entire game because of that miniscule population would be foolish in the extreme.
<!--quoteo(post=2021171:date=Nov 12 2012, 08:48 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Nov 12 2012, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2021171"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is No PRES when dead not broken?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent question. The only logical answer is that it is broken.
<!--quoteo(post=2021168:date=Nov 12 2012, 08:46 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Nov 12 2012, 08:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2021168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An interesting note to those citing examples of how RFK was bad in NS1... RFK would actually suite NS2 much better than NS1 due to the dual resource system. You can only do so much with your personal res, which is all it would give I'm assuming. It would not give your team more techpoints, higher tech or anything else requiring t-res.
If anything it would help to possibly counter the "t-res snowball" when one team holds 6+ RTs for any period of time, it's very punishing to the other team and hard to come back from right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was also thinking the same thing - only PRES for alien and marines for kills. And don't have marine start on 20 res so that they have to get a few frags and/or wait a while for shotguns. Good aliens have to wait ages for higher lifeforms, whereas any marine player can buy a SG or two.
No pres while dead is a really bad mechanic. It unfairly punishes aliens and delays their lifeforms (lerk to 5-7m, fade to 10-15m). It has little impact on marine timings because their items are generally cheaper (shotty 20 pres, jp 10 pres) and because marines typically die less than aliens early game.
Skulks are fodder. During a hive push, it's not uncommon (or unreasonable) for two or three waves of skulks to die clearing one wave of marines. In this situation, aliens are losing a minute of pres gain simply by playing the game where the marines aren't really losing anything. Marines respawn in <10 seconds which means they will usually miss one tick of pres.
RFD is one of the main contributing factors to why aliens are so weak early game (lerks are delayed 1-2 minutes -- typically ~25% slower) and weak midgame (fades come out after marines usually get jp, 2-1, phase gates).
More so than having RFK added, I'd simply like to see RFD removed. I have no problem with RFK coming back based on its merits as a lifeform staggering mechanic. It would need some rebalancing across the game, though.
Comments
I don't see how RFK could not be implemented such that the advantage in timing for getting an extra pack of mines or a slightly faster fade / lerk for playing well would have a direct negative impact on any reasonable person's experience or ability to have fun. Explain how it would.
I've already given your slippery-slope agrument the benefit of the doubt and given it the best possible chance to be plausible, but even then it failed to be worthwhile. So again, explain why it should be taken seriously.
edit: And how many kills did [insert player name] need to get to that fade at a timing where it was impossible for marines to respond to it? Upwards of 20 in an extremely short period of time? Do you think [insert player name] was going to magically stop killing you if he wasn't getting RFK? Were you really going to magically comeback against [insert player name] just because he wasn't getting RFK? Sorry but you guys just don't think these things through.
I don't see how RFK could not be implemented such that the advantage in timing for getting an extra pack of mines or a slightly faster fade / lerk for playing well would have a direct negative impact on any reasonable person's experience or ability to have fun. Explain how it would.
I've already given your slippery-slope agrument the benefit of the doubt and given it the best possible chance to be plausible, but even then it failed to be worthwhile. So again, explain why it should be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I'm gonna go play marine! Yay!" Commander: Dude you suck. Quit fedding them resources! "But, I got jumped" Commander: Don't care! That's like the 5th time you've just died. "But it was 5 on 1..." Commander: Go sit and babysit the power node you noob ******!!!
Why would rewarding a player based on their skill not be rewarding? Oh it would. But what about those that don't stack up. They are already losing RES for being dead and then just handed over RES to the other team. This, in my mind, will push the game to be far more skill based than team based, with commanders doing everything to keep their skilled players alive and give the non skilled either boring jobs or to be cannon fodder.
I've already been told to 'go die so the good guy behind you doesn't'. I wonder how much more I will hear it if this comes back. Yes, you, the player earning the kills, earning the extra RES will be having a blast. But what about those that aren't playing this to be CoD? Or DOTA?
When do you ever meet fades without shotguns already researched? Infact, you start with enough pres for one one!
I wish to improve yes. I've looked at videos and written tips on how to improved. And I don't mind when the commander wants me to repair/heal/protect an area.
I DO mind a commander thinking that, based on my K/D, that I offer nothing to the match and should just either quit or sit in a corner.
Glad we established that.
edit: Maybe people shouldn't form opinions on gameplay features when their primary motivation is some inferiority complex or maligned experience with some player.
Glad we established that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you take one thing from my argument.
Glad we established that.
My reasoning to no RFK is that it will degrade the game to 'strong eat weak' mindset. If you aren't 'strong' or skilled, why are you playing the game? More importantly, why are you on my team? I have no problem if you want RFK in certain servers, or even in competitive. But given that new players will be the lifeblood of the game, adding in a reward to the guy that killed them on top of the punishment of not getting RES, will turn newer people off to the game.
Edit: And maybe people shouldn't form opinions on gameplay features when they believe rewarding the strong and punishing the weak will look inviting to newer players.
So now your new argument is it creates some "mindset" that will make the game unenjoyable for new players. And of course it's laced with strawmen, who would of guessed! Yes, why would anyone ever play any game or do any activity ever where a more experienced, practiced player seems to have an edge on his competition. You might as well just have everyone except the guy ranked #1 on the ladder quit the game and try their luck at another game in hopes of becoming #1. I mean it'd just be impossible for a new player to still have fun if an older player does well because he will be infected with the mindset that now pervades the entire gaming community that if you don't get every kill you're worthless and shouldn't even try.
Really? I tried my best to be considerate and understanding, but that's ###### retarded.
The fact is, in my opinion, adding in RFK would be a mistake for pub play. Do I have the numbers and data to back this up? No, I do not. But if the argument of adding in RFK is so airtight, I guess we will be hearing about it in a month or two.
But I guess I could just be passive aggressive and say oxymoronic things like "the fact is, in my opinion, XXXXX"
Actually, wouldn't it be oxymoronic to say "the fact is, in my opinion, xxxxx, so it must be true!"?
nonsensegenerator.com?
Here's a couple good ones
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A late night stole the goods.
An old apple doesn't like paying taxes.
Trickery is often pregnant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if you know what the hypothetically perfect playing player can accomplish can you not balance the RFK around that (or more reasonably a gimped version of this player).
edit: If I have to explain to you why saying "the fact is" then immediately qualifying that statement with "well in my opinion" is an oxymoron then I give up.
But I guess I could just be passive aggressive and say oxymoronic things like "the fact is, in my opinion, XXXXX"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Encouraging players to make kills is a positive? You know this isn't the Activision forum right?
The fighting itself is grounded in the FPS genre. The reason you fight is grounded in RTS. Battles occur over territory and resources. Imagine playing SC2, and after your enemy beats you off two key locations, he is rewarded not only by the locations themselves, but by randomly being given any unit he desires. It creates a situation where losing a battle means losing a game. Each encounter becomes far too important.
If that isn't enough, the system would be highly exploitable. Marines begin game, marine A pulls ahead on Pres by getting a few kills. Another marine buys a shotgun and gives it to marine A. Marine A pulls ahead much much further. Marine A continues to be fed tech by the rest of his team until he can buy a dual minigun exo at the 4 minute mark. The reason it worked in NS1 was because the res was not shareable. Either the marine team as a whole got it, or individual aliens who cannot trade lifeforms got it.
It doesn't fit into NS2. Not in its original incarnation.
Turtling is still an issue, however, thanks to recycling of weapons, GL player damage and armory humping.
There are many options other than RFK that dont have as many downsides.. RFK is really an inferior choice just like No Pres While Dead. (And one does NOT justify the use of the other.)
I also dont get the argument of "I got no reward for dominating." .... Yes you did? you kept the enemy off the battlefield, saved RTs, destroyed theirs, etc... all contributing to your pres influx?? Is it so bad that your contributions reap rewards that are equally shared amongst your team? I dont think so..
In all honesty I am fine without it, but it did add another dimension to combat in NS1. It was usually useful when marines were on the back of the field and on 1 or 2 RT's. At least getting kills actually mattered when aliens could simply afford to keep buying higher lifeforms over and over again. The RFK system gave fully teched marines a chance when the aliens can go around pounding RT's with onos and gorges laming up every hallway (Which isn't a combat oriented advantage to aliens). This is why RFK can help balance out games when they go back and forth. The more skilled players are rewarded, and so is their team. Perhaps make RFK only give TRES instead of PRES. This way the TEAM benefits from skilled players and not just the skilled player. How would you feel about that idea |3lessed? That's how it was in NS1 on marine side anyway...
To be honest RFK may help break stalemates, and also could potentially make games LONGER, and more enjoyable. Which is exactly what blessed wants? RFK could also make games shorter, depending on the extent of early res accrued. I'd prefer to either see short and painless games, than long drawn out idiotic games. Back and forth games are fine when they are long, but there are far too many 30-40 min retard fest games springing up.
An old apple doesn't like paying taxes.
Trickery is often pregnant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, I think I'll be argumenting using Haikus from now on. It shouldn't affect the quality of the discussion in any way.
---
As for the topic itself, I'm not particularly bothered that RFK isn't in the game (nor that it's not coming as long as the gameplay structure gets sorted out somehow), but it's seriously annoying that people refuse to look at it in any rational manner. It has got benefits. It has got negatives. Can we please start aknowledging that at the very least rather than going through the "IT SUXXX" routine?
1 Marine can easily kill a fade without any struggle if he knows what's he doing, you have to strike at isolated targets if you want to stay alive, more than one marine is a deadly oponent to a Fade so I don't see him beeing OP anywhere.
Yesterday I did 40-3 as a Fade and I was focusing on killing isolated Marines, if you want a fade to be shut down then move in groups and do not say it's OP, to be honest it is allright or slightly weak.
There are many options other than RFK that dont have as many downsides.. RFK is really an inferior choice just like No Pres While Dead. (And one does NOT justify the use of the other.)
I also dont get the argument of "I got no reward for dominating." .... Yes you did? you kept the enemy off the battlefield, saved RTs, destroyed theirs, etc... all contributing to your pres influx?? Is it so bad that your contributions reap rewards that are equally shared amongst your team? I dont think so..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not really on the RFK as a reward bandwagon, I mean it definitely would feel good getting a kill, but rather I'd like to see it used in a res model with soft timings for when certain techs come out. Currently, in terms of pres, we have more hard timings where a Fade or a Lerk will be out at X time when you have Y harvesters. There is no way for an individual player to influence that, and some people like that which I understand. What this has caused however and we've seen it all throughout the beta and currently after 1.0 which is multiple lifeforms popping at the same time. No pres while dead was supposed to help alleviate this but effectively given the distribution of deaths on either side it does not stagger pres but merely slows it down for the whole team. Rarely do I see a deviation of more than 3-4 res when the fade timing comes. Other pres sinks would help but I don't think they can add enough to balance out the opportunity cost for saving for that crucial fade or onos.
I agree that turtling is still an issue but it isn't as bad as it once was with the oceans of turrets. It is a lot easier for aliens to break them than it used to be. Weapon recycling should be toned down (shave like 2-3 seconds off the despawn time) and armor healing should be removed from the basic armory (though flayra said on the ESL stream that this wasn't going to happen so it is a pipe dream now /sad).
I am all for discussing other ideas. What I really wanted to do was stimulate thought on the res model using the beaten horse of RFK as the ignition point.
<!--quoteo(post=2020760:date=Nov 12 2012, 06:59 AM:name=The Vault Key)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Vault Key @ Nov 12 2012, 06:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2020760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is a Fade OP ? I don't get it, some explaination ?
1 Marine can easily kill a fade without any struggle if he knows what's he doing, you have to strike at isolated targets if you want to stay alive, more than one marine is a deadly oponent to a Fade so I don't see him beeing OP anywhere.
Yesterday I did 40-3 as a Fade and I was focusing on killing isolated Marines, if you want a fade to be shut down then move in groups and do not say it's OP, to be honest it is allright or slightly weak.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The current fade is not OP by any means in fact it is widely held that it is a tad underwhelming given its res cost and relative power to the onos. The title I chose for this thread is definitely editorialized and maybe has caused a bit more confusion than I had intended. It was more a reference to previous incarnations of the fade and it's NS1 counterpart. My bad.
Well said.
If anything it would help to possibly counter the "t-res snowball" when one team holds 6+ RTs for any period of time, it's very punishing to the other team and hard to come back from right now.
Valid arguement eh? Well, how's this then... NS2 is a complex game and extremely difficult to balance, adding in RFK would require a massive effort to then rebalance the game. The current resource model is not perfect (show me something in life that is perfect) but its far from being "broken" to require a complete overhaul that RFK introduction would require.
Its a huge assumption on your part that the 50/50 split of pub wins is because of early lifeform drops from TRES, and it certainly doesn't reflect my experiences in game. I've maybe seen an Early ONOS in perhaps 5% of the games I've played in, and it certainly isn't a guarantee of an alien win at all, nor is the lack of an early ONOS a guarantee of an alien loss.
Your entire point rests on the supposition that good skulks are penalized... the thing is, we disagree on what a good skulk is, IMO a good skulk has nothing to do with K:D ratio... a good skulk is a good harasser, and a good ambusher. Frankly good skulks almost always stay alive longer... because that's what good skulks do.
Sure, there might be a scaredy skulk that never engages... but frankly those folks are so rare that reworking the balance of the entire game because of that miniscule population would be foolish in the extreme.
Excellent question. The only logical answer is that it is broken.
<!--quoteo(post=2021168:date=Nov 12 2012, 08:46 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Nov 12 2012, 08:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2021168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An interesting note to those citing examples of how RFK was bad in NS1... RFK would actually suite NS2 much better than NS1 due to the dual resource system. You can only do so much with your personal res, which is all it would give I'm assuming. It would not give your team more techpoints, higher tech or anything else requiring t-res.
If anything it would help to possibly counter the "t-res snowball" when one team holds 6+ RTs for any period of time, it's very punishing to the other team and hard to come back from right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was also thinking the same thing - only PRES for alien and marines for kills. And don't have marine start on 20 res so that they have to get a few frags and/or wait a while for shotguns. Good aliens have to wait ages for higher lifeforms, whereas any marine player can buy a SG or two.
Skulks are fodder. During a hive push, it's not uncommon (or unreasonable) for two or three waves of skulks to die clearing one wave of marines. In this situation, aliens are losing a minute of pres gain simply by playing the game where the marines aren't really losing anything. Marines respawn in <10 seconds which means they will usually miss one tick of pres.
RFD is one of the main contributing factors to why aliens are so weak early game (lerks are delayed 1-2 minutes -- typically ~25% slower) and weak midgame (fades come out after marines usually get jp, 2-1, phase gates).
More so than having RFK added, I'd simply like to see RFD removed. I have no problem with RFK coming back based on its merits as a lifeform staggering mechanic. It would need some rebalancing across the game, though.