Instead of gaining res, your giving the player you killed less because of the no res while dead mechanic Good players still get stuff faster, it just doesnt spiral out of control like in NS1
Just to point this out to the guy that says his 'friend' goes AFK until he can Lerk...
A lot of servers have AFK kick, or at least they're starting to. I know this because I smoke, and I come back to being kicked quite frequently.
Secondly, he will only get Lerk faster if his team is able to hold on to those res nodes being a person short. Since Marines genuinely seem to have one extra guy pretty often that would put you <i>two</i> people short, and in Natural Selection that add's up really fast.
In short, your friend is kind of a jerk. The ten resources you need to go Lerk goes fast, and at worst you'll be punished only a few minutes until you can upgrade. Now, if he's waiting for Spores to go Lerk? Well, he must AFK through a lot of aliens losses before he can do that.
No resources while dead isn't what causes your friend to do what he does. Him being a total non-teamplayer jerk is what causes it.
And to the rest of the RFK crowd? If winning isn't enough of an advantage or reward for being a good player, than why on earth are you playing Natural Selection? Must you <i>also</i> trounce the other team? Must you embarrass the new players and drive them away from Natural Selection?
(Oh, and once again getting resources for a kill does <i>nothing at all</i> in Natural Selection. You are still quite literally limited by your commanders research as far as what you can buy. If you implement RFK you'll see a lot of full teams of Dual-Exo's and infinite shotguns for decent players. It simply locks out the team that's being killed more often from being able to play the game. No thanks.)
For those who lament no RFKs, remember this game has been developed for a while now, we had RFKs, it got removed, then res income whilst dead got removed and now no res for commanders too. Honestly, RFKs is *long* gone.
There is assymmetry / disjunction between the FPS and RTS aspects of the game. Wasn't that one of the design ideals for NS2?
Really hope UWE ask Activision for developers rights to a Battlezone remake :)
<!--quoteo(post=2026090:date=Nov 16 2012, 03:51 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 16 2012, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to point this out to the guy that says his 'friend' goes AFK until he can Lerk...
A lot of servers have AFK kick, or at least they're starting to. I know this because I smoke, and I come back to being kicked quite frequently.
Secondly, he will only get Lerk faster if his team is able to hold on to those res nodes being a person short. Since Marines genuinely seem to have one extra guy pretty often that would put you <i>two</i> people short, and in Natural Selection that add's up really fast.
In short, your friend is kind of a jerk. The ten resources you need to go Lerk goes fast, and at worst you'll be punished only a few minutes until you can upgrade. Now, if he's waiting for Spores to go Lerk? Well, he must AFK through a lot of aliens losses before he can do that.
No resources while dead isn't what causes your friend to do what he does. Him being a total non-teamplayer jerk is what causes it.
And to the rest of the RFK crowd? If winning isn't enough of an advantage or reward for being a good player, than why on earth are you playing Natural Selection? Must you <i>also</i> trounce the other team? Must you embarrass the new players and drive them away from Natural Selection?
(Oh, and once again getting resources for a kill does <i>nothing at all</i> in Natural Selection. You are still quite literally limited by your commanders research as far as what you can buy. If you implement RFK you'll see a lot of full teams of Dual-Exo's and infinite shotguns for decent players. It simply locks out the team that's being killed more often from being able to play the game. No thanks.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seems you are getting very defensive about that afk guy :) Its very easy to avoid afk detection if you are around the computer anyway. The thing I was pointing out is that he was being rewarding for staying idle and not helping the team which is something I don't like myself - his points are valid though no matter what it makes him. The main point was that having a system that punishes players for playing correctly just does not make sense, even though RFK would never be added to the game I think RFD should be removed.
If we think about RFK we don't really have to give the players the extra res for kill, you could also give it to the commander. The res needs to be a small amount and it might not be bad to have the game scale a little bit with players numbers(more res for meds / more lifeforms for aliens(when onos is fixed)). This also allows for games to end a bit faster when a team has an advantage. In ns1 you got huge amount of res for killing that allowed players to scale so effectively, it could be lowered significantly for ns2. Would it really be so horrible that some players could get fade 1 minute faster than the next guy because he managed to kill 30 marines in 12 minutes?
Not to mention kills don't necessarily = skill. How many times have you softened up a target only for somebody else to swoop in and land the killing blow? Can you imagine how annoyed you'd be if that happened often enough (which is to be expected given that NS2 is a team game) and you were denied buckets of res in the process? Me personally, I'd be happy to see kills disappear entirely in favour of something like organism damage score, structure damage score and your total deaths. Hell, throw kills in there as well, but damage scores would be more indicative of 'skill', and even then that wouldn't nearly be enough; one does not simply measure skill, so it seems silly to try and reward people for it. Besides, even if you could and did, it would only wreck the flow and balance of the game due to snowballing (see the posts above).
Need a fix for early onos drop first before even tickling the notion of including RFK into the game. Even then the concept of rewarding players for killing the opposition leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Where's the reward for the people taking down RTs? For forcing beacons? For healing a Hive near imminent death? Why must one aspect of the game receive a tangible reward while the rest is ignored?
<!--quoteo(post=2025453:date=Nov 16 2012, 01:33 AM:name=Bad Mojo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bad Mojo @ Nov 16 2012, 01:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did anyone even see my post?
Hate to sound butthurt but I suggested something that's at least different than just RFK.
Resources for Score.
Again, you're not just rewarded for kills, but doing anything that is productive (welding/healing, building, killing structures, and of course killing players)
But you don't have to be rewarded 1 resource each time you get a kill or whatever. Instead it would increase your pres per tick. So a player with a score of 10 would be getting +0.1 per tick for that, plus the base income rate based on the number of Extractors/Harvesters (ie .25). So that player is only getting .35 per tick, while a player with a score of 150 would be getting 1.75 per tick. Obviously rough numbers but it's merely to demonstrate the functionality.
Then just set a cap on pres per tick at maybe a maximum of 2. Would definitely work better than RFK.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this.
The point system would have to be reworked to not only include healing/welding, but to also give appropriate points for various tasks as things are a bit out of whack in the points department currently. Killing a light marine, no matter his equipment, gives 5 points. You should get more than the normal amount for killing a JP-Shotgunner/GLer/Flamer. Helping to build things as a gorge doesn't get you any points if you don't get the final construction "hit", so that would have to be based on how much of the total structure you helped build. This could also be applied to the marine side of things so that everyone gets a share of the points off a building, rather than 1 person getting "lucky". Just stuff like that.
Definitely a good replacement for RFK, which often promoted camping and bad rambo play rather than teamplay and productive rambo play. Yes, there's is a distinction in rambo's, bad rambo's don't listen or help, good rambo's don't need to listen because they're already doing what the comm would want, but that's for a different discussion. This would help drive both teams to go after proper objectives, killing buildings, taking locations, helping to build, just to play the game right and get some sort of actual reward for it. Giving purpose to the whole points thing would be a nice benefit as well.
Maybe some day it will happen, or something similar. Just not straight up RFK, simply because this game is much, much more than killing.
<!--quoteo(post=2026209:date=Nov 16 2012, 10:43 PM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 16 2012, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026209"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Need a fix for early onos drop first before even tickling the notion of including RFK into the game. Even then the concept of rewarding players for killing the opposition leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Where's the reward for the people taking down RTs? For forcing beacons? For healing a Hive near imminent death? Why must one aspect of the game receive a tangible reward while the rest is ignored?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. And what about the folk on voice/text comms relaying info back to the commander? How the hell do you account for them? They're often instrumental. It's just not something that can be balanced or worked out properly. The way it is at present is simple, flat and fair. If that's bland I'll take it.
People can say what they want about RFK, but it is definitely not worse than the current system of losing resources while dead. No resource gain while dead is a really terrible system.
although it is relatively the same, you penalize the weak in #2 and you reward the skilled in #1. #2 greatly twist the game towards map control and passive style. #1 rewards offensive plays. #2 drags the game longer while #1 shortens the game. so you think a clanner going 30-0 would have much difference where you have exos 3 minutes earlier or delay the onos horde 3 minutes? no. or yes, you lengthen the game, make people f4/rage quit and break the server. the verteran stomp argument is just plain invalid.
well sure some people think that building a wall of lame blocking your soccer goal is fun
<!--quoteo(post=2026393:date=Nov 16 2012, 08:44 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 16 2012, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. res for kill 2. no res when death.
the difference?
although it is relatively the same, you penalize the weak in #2 and you reward the skilled in #1. #2 greatly twist the game towards map control and passive style. #1 rewards offensive plays. #2 drags the game longer while #1 shortens the game. so you think a clanner going 30-0 would have much difference where you have exos 3 minutes earlier or delay the onos horde 3 minutes? no. or yes, you lengthen the game, make people f4/rage quit and break the server. the verteran stomp argument is just plain invalid.
well sure some people think that building a wall of lame blocking your soccer goal is fun<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Talk about a condescending attitude to a different playstyle. The weak? Really? You make it sound like death is something only the mentally handicapped experience in this game. So what if someone isn't as skilled as you are? There are other roles to be fulfilled in this game besides straight up deathmatch. The question now is why should the deathmatch aspect of the game be rewarded and the more teamplay oriented aspect ignored?
Does RFK shorten games? Most likely as the snowball effect would be more pronounced when the already strong gets even stronger and stronger to the point where there's no reason to even try and just F4 out. Does RFK make comebacks even harder? Absolutely.
A buddy of mine went 0-7 playing Gorge in one round we played. His score was atrocious and the playstyle unrewarding, yet he singlehandedly kept that game going against a superior marine team. Without his contributions to the team, we would not have won that match. There would have been no chance whatsoever of winning that game if he didn't make the sacrifices the team needed. Sacrifices he didn't have to make, but did anyway because it was what the team needed.
So what does this anecdotal story mean? Absolutely nothing. Just like the random player going 30-0. So tell me why one should be rewarded and the other ignored?
<!--quoteo(post=2026393:date=Nov 16 2012, 09:44 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 16 2012, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->although it is relatively the same, you penalize the weak in #2 and you reward the skilled in #1. #2 greatly twist the game towards map control and passive style. #1 rewards offensive plays. #2 drags the game longer while #1 shortens the game. so you think a clanner going 30-0 would have much difference where you have exos 3 minutes earlier or delay the onos horde 3 minutes? no. or yes, you lengthen the game, make people f4/rage quit and break the server. the verteran stomp argument is just plain invalid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not the worst part about no res for kill. RFK or points for kill <b>encourages</b> good play by rewarding players who do well and benefit their team. No resource for death <b>discourages</b> good play because it punishes taking risks or making important plays. In this case the best way to play would be to take the least risks, such as play a gorge or marine who only sits at base, and only go for resource towers that are far away from the action. RFK or RFP rewards making good plays and even if you die a lot you are still being more useful.
<!--quoteo(post=2026071:date=Nov 16 2012, 02:29 PM:name=Skware)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skware @ Nov 16 2012, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of gaining res, your giving the player you killed less because of the no res while dead mechanic Good players still get stuff faster, it just doesnt spiral out of control like in NS1<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026413:date=Nov 16 2012, 10:17 PM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 16 2012, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So tell me why one should be rewarded and the other ignored?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason that RFK and no resource for death exist is to balance the resource flow between teams. Just because it doesn't cost to spawn doesn't mean that your life means nothing as a 0 res lifeform or a stock loadout marine. Otherwise engagements would mean nothing unless resource towers were lost, just imagine what Starcraft would be like if units didn't cost anything. Encouraging good play is a secondary effect which is not found in no resource for death. As a good commander you should notice which one of your marines or aliens is more skilled, because supporting him the most with medpacks ammo and weapons, or dropping lifeform eggs for him, would mean your team does better, and it could even be the difference between losing or winning. With RFK, your good players will feed your commanders and help them do this, with a nice side effect being if you do roll your enemy they won't have the chance to make it a 2 hour game due to turtleing, because they will bleed resources if they are completely outmatched. Remember that this also counts for groups of good players or you being a commander and sending your troops into victory, and you get rewarded as such. In fact, this may balance out turtleing completely if you can feed resources into Tres. If you are not the star player and you are complaining because you have a big ego but suck and don't get the same attention then that is your problem, stop being such a nut and just play the game. Or get good.
<!--quoteo(post=2026413:date=Nov 17 2012, 10:17 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 10:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So tell me why one should be rewarded and the other ignored?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is an extremely simple economic question. Res should be spent on good players which would do most good to the team. By killing an enemy, you immediately effectively:
1. stopped a potential loss to an rt 2. stopped a potential loss of an important power node 3. stopped a ninja pg 4. stopped a potential force bacon 5. put someone back to spawn queue pressuring it.
this is what you got while you succeed. and everything would be on you if you fail. and you get 1 res for succeeding it, sounds fair taking the risk? without the risk reward, why bother blinking your fade into groups of marine unless they are building a phase gate? one clanner knows that one have to die defending a critical choke point while the others just sit back chill doing nothing just because they are likely to die and have no res while dead. the clanner failed a few times but still defended it. then he finds out that the afk-looking players have more res than him and still sitting there waiting for a 2-minute onos. sounds absolutely efficient and logical isnt it?
those who do not die easily, clanners and veterans, are those who keep doing these for you and hence could spend res more efficiently. as if you die, you are quite likely to lose your sg and immediately lose your fade. this is a team game, not a single player game. you allocate resources such that the best takes most and do the best for your team. this is exactly like in the real world where you get paid more doing jobs more important and less people could do while you get less vice versa. gaming is no difference.
for the time being, idealistically, one would turtle when they are getting majority of the rt and map control until they get to a perfect combo of classes, then rush and win. which is exactly the meta game we have in league of legends. farm creeps and play defensively until you have enough gold margin, win a battle, one major push and win, which leads to extremely boring games. the winning team is (still) snowballing slow but they cannot win yet, so they keep on playing defensively until they snowball enough and win. people are not practicing this because this is boring, so they move out engage some random skulk and then lose an rt, not because being offensive is an ideal strategy. if the current res system is not reworked, we will soon move to this meta.
and yet, i have never see in the real world people complaining about you shouldnt get paid for your job because altruism doesnt pay explicitly. sounds communism and extremeism enough. most of those who objects rfk are those who have never benefited from arent they? seeing how one clanner stomping one whole server i see why theres so much of you.
afk sounds weird when you can only use it as team res as in ns1. but it absolutely fits in the current pres system.
And by your definition good players are players who get kills? That works if the gameplay consists only of the deathmatch variety, but thankfully NS2 is not your typical deathmatch game.
You seem to have a strange fascination with the “I†mentality when NS2 is a team game. What you listed is what the team would get if they succeed in their objectives and the failure is spread equally to the team as a whole.
The risk one takes engaging groups of marines is a Fade is death by shotgun to the face. The reward? What about the fact that you buy time for your team to attack elsewhere while you keep groups of marines occupied through your harassment?
All your reasons seem to be allocating resources to players that can utilize it effectively and I completely agree with you. You call that a competent commander, not RFK. The commander has the added role of allocating team resources to where it is needed, whether it be structures or player equipment. Where does RFK fit into this when tRES drops already fulfills this role?
And now you bring the fact that people who complain about RFK are people who don't benefit from it? Well excuse me if I don't focus my game solely on getting kills and earning pRES. I'll turn that around and say that people who want RFK are people with the mentality of “I'm good and I deserve a reward.†Like a spoiled child who already has everything, yet wants more.
I'm not arguing that no res gain in death is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for removing it from the game as the only punishment in death should be waiting for respawn. This bad mechanic should not be used to justify RFK in any shape or form.
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And by your definition good players are players who get kills? That works if the gameplay consists only of the deathmatch variety, but thankfully NS2 is not your typical deathmatch game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> as i mentioned, so your logic is that just because altruism doesnt pay explicit meaning that all jobs should be unpaid and punished while unemployed? being in the right position doing the right thing killing the right guy wins you reputation and authority from those who are actually diligent. it saves your time when people trust you instead of building a wall of text in a action-packed game for how your plan would work (and you could do the explanation afterwards). yet this process is long and could be frustrating if you are not in above average servers. on top of that, a properly tuned rfk does solve a lot of turtling issues. <!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to have a strange fascination with the “I†mentality when NS2 is a team game. What you listed is what the team would get if they succeed in their objectives and the failure is spread equally to the team as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is again the same old issue for explicity measurable gain and unexplicitly measurable gains. just because some are diffcult to measure, does not mean that all shouldn't be rewarded. thats why a comm exists to verbally praise in the long term correct but failed-by-chance decisions
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All your reasons seem to be allocating resources to players that can utilize it effectively and I completely agree with you. You call that a competent commander, not RFK. The commander has the added role of allocating team resources to where it is needed, whether it be structures or player equipment. Where does RFK fit into this when tRES drops already fulfills this role?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> the old system of ns1 marine comm allocating res only adds difficulty to new comms but not competitive plays and veterans. if the optimal is to spend more res on the best, why dun you just make it the simple way making pubs a better life? <!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And now you bring the fact that people who complain about RFK are people who don't benefit from it? Well excuse me if I don't focus my game solely on getting kills and earning pRES. I'll turn that around and say that people who want RFK are people with the mentality of “I'm good and I deserve a reward.†Like a spoiled child who already has everything, yet wants more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> and hence risk taking shouldnt be rewarded. having the ability to take up larger responsiblity and jobs shouldnt be rewarded in both gaming world and the real world. <!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not arguing that no res gain in death is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for removing it from the game as the only punishment in death should be waiting for respawn. This bad mechanic should not be used to justify RFK in any shape or form.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> it is even worse. the winning wouldn't even bother to engage unless rts attacked resulting in 2-minute map control establishment game into hard turtles until a optimal combo. and hence, see above. 5-3 rts, i have moar so i turtle hard with phase gates dun lose anything and i will win after one whole hour.
<!--quoteo(post=2026432:date=Nov 16 2012, 07:34 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Nov 16 2012, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are not the star player and you are complaining because you have a big ego but suck and don't get the same attention then that is your problem, stop being such a nut and just play the game. Or get good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's so many things wrong with this statement. And so many ways it take this statement. Basically bashing the newer players for their 'big egos but suck' probably won't make newer players want to stick around. You know, players that will be the lifeblood of the game. Unless all the good pro vet players start openly donating to the game.
I do have a question. How will RFK not make the game more passive? Because here's my view/understanding. We should never die right? Being dead prevents us from getting money. So by playing safe and turtly we can keep up on the RES. Add RFK to the mix now. Okay, now I don't want to die because I won't be getting money AND the guy that killed me will get RES. Better play even safer.
That and I hate the fact of RFK rewards the guys with high KD. I tend to end the game with low and bad KD, but I tend to help the team in other ways, such as scouting, destroying/building things, and other team based actions in a team based game. I just find it an odd idea to reward the either skillful or lucky rambo but the guy playing the game the way they probably meant for it to be played gets nothing.
Also, and this is a really stupid question. How hard would it be for someone to make a server and mod the game to do this, as a test of sorts?
<!--quoteo(post=2026597:date=Nov 16 2012, 10:12 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 16 2012, 10:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026597"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lol lucky combo. heard this kind of term almost every competitive game i play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you can't tell me that sometimes what one would call skillful mastery of the game another would call 'that lucky insane rambo'.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's so many things wrong with this statement. And so many ways it take this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People always want as much as they can get with putting in as little effort as possible, disregarding the effort others put in. It's a fact of life.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So by playing safe and turtly we can keep up on the RES. Add RFK to the mix now. Okay, now I don't want to die because I won't be getting money AND the guy that killed me will get RES. Better play even safer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point is to get rid of no res while dead. If you turtle, you won't win. NS2 is about map control. It's about making good plays. Good plays get you resources and map control. If you are part of the team that makes these plays, you will find yourself getting resources either way.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That and I hate the fact of RFK rewards the guys with high KD. I tend to end the game with low and bad KD, but I tend to help the team in other ways, such as scouting, destroying/building things, and other team based actions in a team based game. I just find it an odd idea to reward the either skillful or lucky rambo but the guy playing the game the way they probably meant for it to be played gets nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you play well in any way that helps your team your k/d <b>ratio</b> should technically be high, unless you only kill res nodes, in which case the enemy team is losing resources anyway, and you lose nothing while dead because that system should be gone. But with resource loss while dead you lose out while doing that, if they can balance RFP (resource for points) this could help those types of players better. Either way if you are the type that passively helps your team you will gain more res because you lose none while dead. If you die and your killer gains 1 res or the commander gets that much for example, you have to ask was your scouting worth that much for your team? If the answer is yes then the system is working. Yes it rewards skilful players, but it also rewards those who stick together as you gain kills with your team as well. So as long as you are helpful in some way, RFK will help you a lot more than no gain while dead in every situation. As long as you don't have an ego like I said and expect to be as privileged as those who know how to win the game for their team you should not have a problem with RFK.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, and this is a really stupid question. How hard would it be for someone to make a server and mod the game to do this, as a test of sorts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that hard but I highly doubt it would do anything to change other people's opinions about RFK.
It's very simple: it appears the people arguing against RFK are generally of low skill. I can tell from the comments.
Good players argue for it because it enhances the game experience as the OP said, RFK makes the game fun. It is SO unrewarding to be totally carrying your team as a skulk and lose out on lifeforms first and lose the ability to influence the game over a team of newb marines just because there is no RFK. Instead, all that effort is expended and you lose to a team of NS2-only newbie marines just because the alien comm/team was incompetent.
This is actually an important point. Losing as aliens is a LOT LESS FUN than losing as marines. As marines, you get a rifle and can camp and pick off aliens as they try and take your base out which is quite hard for them early in the game. As an alien, if you're on the losing end because your team has no comm/bad comm then you get a skulk with no upgrades and have to really struggle to kill w3/a3 marines and when you do you get no reward for it. If you did get RFK then you could take an early lifeform and practice skill that way and have a bit of fun. Without RFK you're basically a skulk until the game is already over.
Aliens NEED RFK to make the game enjoyable when losing, marines less so. Just to be clear, I'm talking about PRES like NS1.
As a first step, no res when dead really needs to be eliminated. It is the most stupid game play mechanic I have ever seen. It rewards completely the opposite type of play from what should be rewarded.
Ouh, this topic again. This topic has been debated, tried, tested, tweaked and finally rejected, all in the last 9 (!) years. So we don't need to theory-craft if the snowball effect for very good players exist or not. Or if bad players profit from RFK or being damaged. We know all this from having RFK in NS1 AND in the NS2 beta. Comming to exactly this conclusions (updated list of an already posted version in the last RFK-thread):
<u>Res For Kills:</u> This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive. <b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul> <b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li><li>In the design doc it reads, that if there is a clash in interest between the RTS and the FPS part, the FPS part wins. Because more people are playing the FPS part. This is a good point. But it also leads to the situation, that the RTS part has less value to the outcome of the game than the FPS part. While RFK does little to improve the FPS part, it damages the value of the strategic decisions (in favor of the value of personal skill) and therefor damages the value of the RTS part, without the real need to do so.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)
imo it's an awful idea because you already get your net gain in resources by killing enemy RT's and costly units.
RFK would make RT's less important, which would botch up the RTS side of the game... not to mention it would reward camping instead of exploring the map and applying pressure - which is usually not a good way to get frags unless you're vastly superior to the other players on the server. reward boring play? no thanks.
it's an idea akin to rewarding resource for kills in starcraft etc. this is not dota or counterstrike, you spend your pres in NS2 and it's for the opposition to take it away - not for you to ignore the objective and chalk up cheap/lame frags and make a profit every time.
maybe this should be a suggestion for a mod like combat or something.
Pretty much all of your negative points could be adressed by giving points for kills and distributing the PRES among the team based on who has the most points. We already have the point system, use it for res distribution. That way the healing gorge, the building marine and the rt biting skulk get their candy for their hard work, even if they get killed a lot.
<!--quoteo(post=2026744:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:02 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Nov 17 2012, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026744"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><u>Res For Kills:</u> [*]It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.) [*]By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player. [/list]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I strongly disagree with all your points, but these two the most.
Games need to have a "skill depth" between good and bad players. This incentives getting better at a game and ensures its longevity. If players can just jump in and be good, they can get into the game fast but quickly move on to a new challenge. Games which do not reward time invested in getting better do not last long.
There should always be a difference between good and bad players. The only people arguing against this are bad players. Bad players' opinions should not be given much weight.
As I said, RFK for marines is less good than having RFK for aliens. It takes far more skill to get kills as aliens than it does marines. Therefore, this should be rewarded in the game. Death as aliens SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE PENALISED.
In NS2, a "turtling" (such a bad expression) marine team loses anyway due to lack of a 2nd CC so it's not as if this is a viable strategy.
<!--quoteo(post=2026801:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:32 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 17 2012, 12:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026801"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I strongly disagree with all your points, but these two the most.
Games need to have a "skill depth" between good and bad players. This incentives getting better at a game and ensures its longevity. If players can just jump in and be good, they can get into the game fast but quickly move on to a new challenge. Games which do not reward time invested in getting better do not last long.
There should always be a difference between good and bad players. The only people arguing against this are bad players. Bad players' opinions should not be given much weight.
As I said, RFK for marines is less good than having RFK for aliens. It takes far more skill to get kills as aliens than it does marines. Therefore, this should be rewarded in the game. Death as aliens SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE PENALISED.
In NS2, a "turtling" (such a bad expression) marine team loses anyway due to lack of a 2nd CC so it's not as if this is a viable strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
giving skilled players an arbitrary bonus != skill depth... unless you like the critical strike reward system in tf2. it's an arbitrary bonus because it's a reward for something which is almost insignificant to the overall strategy.
as you said, RFK is indeed punishing people for dying. this in effect would cause people to become more cautious and lame in their playstyle. they don't want to give the other team easy resources, and they will use every sly strategy they know to steal cheap frags.
to be honest, i can't see any situation where RFK would not totally ruin the game.
Comments
Good players still get stuff faster, it just doesnt spiral out of control like in NS1
A lot of servers have AFK kick, or at least they're starting to. I know this because I smoke, and I come back to being kicked quite frequently.
Secondly, he will only get Lerk faster if his team is able to hold on to those res nodes being a person short. Since Marines genuinely seem to have one extra guy pretty often that would put you <i>two</i> people short, and in Natural Selection that add's up really fast.
In short, your friend is kind of a jerk. The ten resources you need to go Lerk goes fast, and at worst you'll be punished only a few minutes until you can upgrade. Now, if he's waiting for Spores to go Lerk? Well, he must AFK through a lot of aliens losses before he can do that.
No resources while dead isn't what causes your friend to do what he does. Him being a total non-teamplayer jerk is what causes it.
And to the rest of the RFK crowd? If winning isn't enough of an advantage or reward for being a good player, than why on earth are you playing Natural Selection? Must you <i>also</i> trounce the other team? Must you embarrass the new players and drive them away from Natural Selection?
(Oh, and once again getting resources for a kill does <i>nothing at all</i> in Natural Selection. You are still quite literally limited by your commanders research as far as what you can buy. If you implement RFK you'll see a lot of full teams of Dual-Exo's and infinite shotguns for decent players. It simply locks out the team that's being killed more often from being able to play the game. No thanks.)
There is assymmetry / disjunction between the FPS and RTS aspects of the game. Wasn't that one of the design ideals for NS2?
Really hope UWE ask Activision for developers rights to a Battlezone remake :)
(It's still snowballing, changing things that arn't broken, unfair and in my opinion stoopid, but it's an idea at least)
A lot of servers have AFK kick, or at least they're starting to. I know this because I smoke, and I come back to being kicked quite frequently.
Secondly, he will only get Lerk faster if his team is able to hold on to those res nodes being a person short. Since Marines genuinely seem to have one extra guy pretty often that would put you <i>two</i> people short, and in Natural Selection that add's up really fast.
In short, your friend is kind of a jerk. The ten resources you need to go Lerk goes fast, and at worst you'll be punished only a few minutes until you can upgrade. Now, if he's waiting for Spores to go Lerk? Well, he must AFK through a lot of aliens losses before he can do that.
No resources while dead isn't what causes your friend to do what he does. Him being a total non-teamplayer jerk is what causes it.
And to the rest of the RFK crowd? If winning isn't enough of an advantage or reward for being a good player, than why on earth are you playing Natural Selection? Must you <i>also</i> trounce the other team? Must you embarrass the new players and drive them away from Natural Selection?
(Oh, and once again getting resources for a kill does <i>nothing at all</i> in Natural Selection. You are still quite literally limited by your commanders research as far as what you can buy. If you implement RFK you'll see a lot of full teams of Dual-Exo's and infinite shotguns for decent players. It simply locks out the team that's being killed more often from being able to play the game. No thanks.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems you are getting very defensive about that afk guy :) Its very easy to avoid afk detection if you are around the computer anyway. The thing I was pointing out is that he was being rewarding for staying idle and not helping the team which is something I don't like myself - his points are valid though no matter what it makes him. The main point was that having a system that punishes players for playing correctly just does not make sense, even though RFK would never be added to the game I think RFD should be removed.
If we think about RFK we don't really have to give the players the extra res for kill, you could also give it to the commander. The res needs to be a small amount and it might not be bad to have the game scale a little bit with players numbers(more res for meds / more lifeforms for aliens(when onos is fixed)). This also allows for games to end a bit faster when a team has an advantage. In ns1 you got huge amount of res for killing that allowed players to scale so effectively, it could be lowered significantly for ns2. Would it really be so horrible that some players could get fade 1 minute faster than the next guy because he managed to kill 30 marines in 12 minutes?
Hate to sound butthurt but I suggested something that's at least different than just RFK.
Resources for Score.
Again, you're not just rewarded for kills, but doing anything that is productive (welding/healing, building, killing structures, and of course killing players)
But you don't have to be rewarded 1 resource each time you get a kill or whatever. Instead it would increase your pres per tick. So a player with a score of 10 would be getting +0.1 per tick for that, plus the base income rate based on the number of Extractors/Harvesters (ie .25). So that player is only getting .35 per tick, while a player with a score of 150 would be getting 1.75 per tick. Obviously rough numbers but it's merely to demonstrate the functionality.
Then just set a cap on pres per tick at maybe a maximum of 2. Would definitely work better than RFK.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this.
The point system would have to be reworked to not only include healing/welding, but to also give appropriate points for various tasks as things are a bit out of whack in the points department currently. Killing a light marine, no matter his equipment, gives 5 points. You should get more than the normal amount for killing a JP-Shotgunner/GLer/Flamer. Helping to build things as a gorge doesn't get you any points if you don't get the final construction "hit", so that would have to be based on how much of the total structure you helped build. This could also be applied to the marine side of things so that everyone gets a share of the points off a building, rather than 1 person getting "lucky". Just stuff like that.
Definitely a good replacement for RFK, which often promoted camping and bad rambo play rather than teamplay and productive rambo play. Yes, there's is a distinction in rambo's, bad rambo's don't listen or help, good rambo's don't need to listen because they're already doing what the comm would want, but that's for a different discussion. This would help drive both teams to go after proper objectives, killing buildings, taking locations, helping to build, just to play the game right and get some sort of actual reward for it. Giving purpose to the whole points thing would be a nice benefit as well.
Maybe some day it will happen, or something similar. Just not straight up RFK, simply because this game is much, much more than killing.
This. And what about the folk on voice/text comms relaying info back to the commander? How the hell do you account for them? They're often instrumental. It's just not something that can be balanced or worked out properly. The way it is at present is simple, flat and fair. If that's bland I'll take it.
2. no res when death.
the difference?
although it is relatively the same, you penalize the weak in #2 and you reward the skilled in #1. #2 greatly twist the game towards map control and passive style. #1 rewards offensive plays. #2 drags the game longer while #1 shortens the game. so you think a clanner going 30-0 would have much difference where you have exos 3 minutes earlier or delay the onos horde 3 minutes? no. or yes, you lengthen the game, make people f4/rage quit and break the server. the verteran stomp argument is just plain invalid.
well sure some people think that building a wall of lame blocking your soccer goal is fun
2. no res when death.
the difference?
although it is relatively the same, you penalize the weak in #2 and you reward the skilled in #1. #2 greatly twist the game towards map control and passive style. #1 rewards offensive plays. #2 drags the game longer while #1 shortens the game. so you think a clanner going 30-0 would have much difference where you have exos 3 minutes earlier or delay the onos horde 3 minutes? no. or yes, you lengthen the game, make people f4/rage quit and break the server. the verteran stomp argument is just plain invalid.
well sure some people think that building a wall of lame blocking your soccer goal is fun<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Talk about a condescending attitude to a different playstyle. The weak? Really? You make it sound like death is something only the mentally handicapped experience in this game. So what if someone isn't as skilled as you are? There are other roles to be fulfilled in this game besides straight up deathmatch. The question now is why should the deathmatch aspect of the game be rewarded and the more teamplay oriented aspect ignored?
Does RFK shorten games? Most likely as the snowball effect would be more pronounced when the already strong gets even stronger and stronger to the point where there's no reason to even try and just F4 out. Does RFK make comebacks even harder? Absolutely.
A buddy of mine went 0-7 playing Gorge in one round we played. His score was atrocious and the playstyle unrewarding, yet he singlehandedly kept that game going against a superior marine team. Without his contributions to the team, we would not have won that match. There would have been no chance whatsoever of winning that game if he didn't make the sacrifices the team needed. Sacrifices he didn't have to make, but did anyway because it was what the team needed.
So what does this anecdotal story mean? Absolutely nothing. Just like the random player going 30-0. So tell me why one should be rewarded and the other ignored?
That's not the worst part about no res for kill. RFK or points for kill <b>encourages</b> good play by rewarding players who do well and benefit their team. No resource for death <b>discourages</b> good play because it punishes taking risks or making important plays. In this case the best way to play would be to take the least risks, such as play a gorge or marine who only sits at base, and only go for resource towers that are far away from the action. RFK or RFP rewards making good plays and even if you die a lot you are still being more useful.
Good players still get stuff faster, it just doesnt spiral out of control like in NS1<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ns1 didn't spiral out of control
The reason that RFK and no resource for death exist is to balance the resource flow between teams. Just because it doesn't cost to spawn doesn't mean that your life means nothing as a 0 res lifeform or a stock loadout marine. Otherwise engagements would mean nothing unless resource towers were lost, just imagine what Starcraft would be like if units didn't cost anything. Encouraging good play is a secondary effect which is not found in no resource for death. As a good commander you should notice which one of your marines or aliens is more skilled, because supporting him the most with medpacks ammo and weapons, or dropping lifeform eggs for him, would mean your team does better, and it could even be the difference between losing or winning. With RFK, your good players will feed your commanders and help them do this, with a nice side effect being if you do roll your enemy they won't have the chance to make it a 2 hour game due to turtleing, because they will bleed resources if they are completely outmatched. Remember that this also counts for groups of good players or you being a commander and sending your troops into victory, and you get rewarded as such. In fact, this may balance out turtleing completely if you can feed resources into Tres. If you are not the star player and you are complaining because you have a big ego but suck and don't get the same attention then that is your problem, stop being such a nut and just play the game. Or get good.
This is an extremely simple economic question. Res should be spent on good players which would do most good to the team. By killing an enemy, you immediately effectively:
1. stopped a potential loss to an rt
2. stopped a potential loss of an important power node
3. stopped a ninja pg
4. stopped a potential force bacon
5. put someone back to spawn queue pressuring it.
this is what you got while you succeed. and everything would be on you if you fail. and you get 1 res for succeeding it, sounds fair taking the risk? without the risk reward, why bother blinking your fade into groups of marine unless they are building a phase gate? one clanner knows that one have to die defending a critical choke point while the others just sit back chill doing nothing just because they are likely to die and have no res while dead. the clanner failed a few times but still defended it. then he finds out that the afk-looking players have more res than him and still sitting there waiting for a 2-minute onos. sounds absolutely efficient and logical isnt it?
those who do not die easily, clanners and veterans, are those who keep doing these for you and hence could spend res more efficiently. as if you die, you are quite likely to lose your sg and immediately lose your fade. this is a team game, not a single player game. you allocate resources such that the best takes most and do the best for your team. this is exactly like in the real world where you get paid more doing jobs more important and less people could do while you get less vice versa. gaming is no difference.
for the time being, idealistically, one would turtle when they are getting majority of the rt and map control until they get to a perfect combo of classes, then rush and win. which is exactly the meta game we have in league of legends. farm creeps and play defensively until you have enough gold margin, win a battle, one major push and win, which leads to extremely boring games. the winning team is (still) snowballing slow but they cannot win yet, so they keep on playing defensively until they snowball enough and win. people are not practicing this because this is boring, so they move out engage some random skulk and then lose an rt, not because being offensive is an ideal strategy. if the current res system is not reworked, we will soon move to this meta.
and yet, i have never see in the real world people complaining about you shouldnt get paid for your job because altruism doesnt pay explicitly. sounds communism and extremeism enough. most of those who objects rfk are those who have never benefited from arent they? seeing how one clanner stomping one whole server i see why theres so much of you.
afk sounds weird when you can only use it as team res as in ns1. but it absolutely fits in the current pres system.
You seem to have a strange fascination with the “I†mentality when NS2 is a team game. What you listed is what the team would get if they succeed in their objectives and the failure is spread equally to the team as a whole.
The risk one takes engaging groups of marines is a Fade is death by shotgun to the face. The reward? What about the fact that you buy time for your team to attack elsewhere while you keep groups of marines occupied through your harassment?
All your reasons seem to be allocating resources to players that can utilize it effectively and I completely agree with you. You call that a competent commander, not RFK. The commander has the added role of allocating team resources to where it is needed, whether it be structures or player equipment. Where does RFK fit into this when tRES drops already fulfills this role?
And now you bring the fact that people who complain about RFK are people who don't benefit from it? Well excuse me if I don't focus my game solely on getting kills and earning pRES. I'll turn that around and say that people who want RFK are people with the mentality of “I'm good and I deserve a reward.†Like a spoiled child who already has everything, yet wants more.
I'm not arguing that no res gain in death is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for removing it from the game as the only punishment in death should be waiting for respawn. This bad mechanic should not be used to justify RFK in any shape or form.
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to have a strange fascination with the “I†mentality when NS2 is a team game. What you listed is what the team would get if they succeed in their objectives and the failure is spread equally to the team as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is again the same old issue for explicity measurable gain and unexplicitly measurable gains. just because some are diffcult to measure, does not mean that all shouldn't be rewarded. thats why a comm exists to verbally praise in the long term correct but failed-by-chance decisions
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All your reasons seem to be allocating resources to players that can utilize it effectively and I completely agree with you. You call that a competent commander, not RFK. The commander has the added role of allocating team resources to where it is needed, whether it be structures or player equipment. Where does RFK fit into this when tRES drops already fulfills this role?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the old system of ns1 marine comm allocating res only adds difficulty to new comms but not competitive plays and veterans. if the optimal is to spend more res on the best, why dun you just make it the simple way making pubs a better life?
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And now you bring the fact that people who complain about RFK are people who don't benefit from it? Well excuse me if I don't focus my game solely on getting kills and earning pRES. I'll turn that around and say that people who want RFK are people with the mentality of “I'm good and I deserve a reward.†Like a spoiled child who already has everything, yet wants more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and hence risk taking shouldnt be rewarded. having the ability to take up larger responsiblity and jobs shouldnt be rewarded in both gaming world and the real world.
<!--quoteo(post=2026511:date=Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM:name=PimpToad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PimpToad @ Nov 17 2012, 11:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not arguing that no res gain in death is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for removing it from the game as the only punishment in death should be waiting for respawn. This bad mechanic should not be used to justify RFK in any shape or form.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it is even worse. the winning wouldn't even bother to engage unless rts attacked resulting in 2-minute map control establishment game into hard turtles until a optimal combo. and hence, see above. 5-3 rts, i have moar so i turtle hard with phase gates dun lose anything and i will win after one whole hour.
There's so many things wrong with this statement. And so many ways it take this statement. Basically bashing the newer players for their 'big egos but suck' probably won't make newer players want to stick around. You know, players that will be the lifeblood of the game. Unless all the good pro vet players start openly donating to the game.
I do have a question. How will RFK not make the game more passive? Because here's my view/understanding. We should never die right? Being dead prevents us from getting money. So by playing safe and turtly we can keep up on the RES. Add RFK to the mix now. Okay, now I don't want to die because I won't be getting money AND the guy that killed me will get RES. Better play even safer.
That and I hate the fact of RFK rewards the guys with high KD. I tend to end the game with low and bad KD, but I tend to help the team in other ways, such as scouting, destroying/building things, and other team based actions in a team based game. I just find it an odd idea to reward the either skillful or lucky rambo but the guy playing the game the way they probably meant for it to be played gets nothing.
Also, and this is a really stupid question. How hard would it be for someone to make a server and mod the game to do this, as a test of sorts?
And you can't tell me that sometimes what one would call skillful mastery of the game another would call 'that lucky insane rambo'.
People always want as much as they can get with putting in as little effort as possible, disregarding the effort others put in. It's a fact of life.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So by playing safe and turtly we can keep up on the RES. Add RFK to the mix now. Okay, now I don't want to die because I won't be getting money AND the guy that killed me will get RES. Better play even safer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point is to get rid of no res while dead. If you turtle, you won't win. NS2 is about map control. It's about making good plays. Good plays get you resources and map control. If you are part of the team that makes these plays, you will find yourself getting resources either way.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That and I hate the fact of RFK rewards the guys with high KD. I tend to end the game with low and bad KD, but I tend to help the team in other ways, such as scouting, destroying/building things, and other team based actions in a team based game. I just find it an odd idea to reward the either skillful or lucky rambo but the guy playing the game the way they probably meant for it to be played gets nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you play well in any way that helps your team your k/d <b>ratio</b> should technically be high, unless you only kill res nodes, in which case the enemy team is losing resources anyway, and you lose nothing while dead because that system should be gone. But with resource loss while dead you lose out while doing that, if they can balance RFP (resource for points) this could help those types of players better. Either way if you are the type that passively helps your team you will gain more res because you lose none while dead. If you die and your killer gains 1 res or the commander gets that much for example, you have to ask was your scouting worth that much for your team? If the answer is yes then the system is working. Yes it rewards skilful players, but it also rewards those who stick together as you gain kills with your team as well. So as long as you are helpful in some way, RFK will help you a lot more than no gain while dead in every situation. As long as you don't have an ego like I said and expect to be as privileged as those who know how to win the game for their team you should not have a problem with RFK.
<!--quoteo(post=2026570:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM:name=MerlinCross)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MerlinCross @ Nov 17 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, and this is a really stupid question. How hard would it be for someone to make a server and mod the game to do this, as a test of sorts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that hard but I highly doubt it would do anything to change other people's opinions about RFK.
Good players argue for it because it enhances the game experience as the OP said, RFK makes the game fun. It is SO unrewarding to be totally carrying your team as a skulk and lose out on lifeforms first and lose the ability to influence the game over a team of newb marines just because there is no RFK. Instead, all that effort is expended and you lose to a team of NS2-only newbie marines just because the alien comm/team was incompetent.
This is actually an important point. Losing as aliens is a LOT LESS FUN than losing as marines. As marines, you get a rifle and can camp and pick off aliens as they try and take your base out which is quite hard for them early in the game. As an alien, if you're on the losing end because your team has no comm/bad comm then you get a skulk with no upgrades and have to really struggle to kill w3/a3 marines and when you do you get no reward for it. If you did get RFK then you could take an early lifeform and practice skill that way and have a bit of fun. Without RFK you're basically a skulk until the game is already over.
Aliens NEED RFK to make the game enjoyable when losing, marines less so. Just to be clear, I'm talking about PRES like NS1.
As a first step, no res when dead really needs to be eliminated. It is the most stupid game play mechanic I have ever seen. It rewards completely the opposite type of play from what should be rewarded.
<u>Res For Kills:</u>
This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive.
<b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul>
<b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li><li>In the design doc it reads, that if there is a clash in interest between the RTS and the FPS part, the FPS part wins. Because more people are playing the FPS part. This is a good point. But it also leads to the situation, that the RTS part has less value to the outcome of the game than the FPS part. While RFK does little to improve the FPS part, it damages the value of the strategic decisions (in favor of the value of personal skill) and therefor damages the value of the RTS part, without the real need to do so.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)
RFK would make RT's less important, which would botch up the RTS side of the game... not to mention it would reward camping instead of exploring the map and applying pressure - which is usually not a good way to get frags unless you're vastly superior to the other players on the server. reward boring play? no thanks.
it's an idea akin to rewarding resource for kills in starcraft etc. this is not dota or counterstrike, you spend your pres in NS2 and it's for the opposition to take it away - not for you to ignore the objective and chalk up cheap/lame frags and make a profit every time.
maybe this should be a suggestion for a mod like combat or something.
[*]It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)
[*]By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.
[/list]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I strongly disagree with all your points, but these two the most.
Games need to have a "skill depth" between good and bad players. This incentives getting better at a game and ensures its longevity. If players can just jump in and be good, they can get into the game fast but quickly move on to a new challenge. Games which do not reward time invested in getting better do not last long.
There should always be a difference between good and bad players. The only people arguing against this are bad players. Bad players' opinions should not be given much weight.
As I said, RFK for marines is less good than having RFK for aliens. It takes far more skill to get kills as aliens than it does marines. Therefore, this should be rewarded in the game. Death as aliens SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE PENALISED.
In NS2, a "turtling" (such a bad expression) marine team loses anyway due to lack of a 2nd CC so it's not as if this is a viable strategy.
Games need to have a "skill depth" between good and bad players. This incentives getting better at a game and ensures its longevity. If players can just jump in and be good, they can get into the game fast but quickly move on to a new challenge. Games which do not reward time invested in getting better do not last long.
There should always be a difference between good and bad players. The only people arguing against this are bad players. Bad players' opinions should not be given much weight.
As I said, RFK for marines is less good than having RFK for aliens. It takes far more skill to get kills as aliens than it does marines. Therefore, this should be rewarded in the game. Death as aliens SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE PENALISED.
In NS2, a "turtling" (such a bad expression) marine team loses anyway due to lack of a 2nd CC so it's not as if this is a viable strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
giving skilled players an arbitrary bonus != skill depth... unless you like the critical strike reward system in tf2. it's an arbitrary bonus because it's a reward for something which is almost insignificant to the overall strategy.
as you said, RFK is indeed punishing people for dying. this in effect would cause people to become more cautious and lame in their playstyle. they don't want to give the other team easy resources, and they will use every sly strategy they know to steal cheap frags.
to be honest, i can't see any situation where RFK would not totally ruin the game.