I still believe that removing RFK and support abilities from Pres, and moving RFK and support abilities to Tres, will solve many, if not most, of the issues. It's a simple change, and the simplest solution.
<!--quoteo(post=1856942:date=Jun 28 2011, 07:25 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 28 2011, 07:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still believe that removing RFK and support abilities from Pres, and moving RFK and support abilities to Tres, will solve many, if not most, of the issues. It's a simple change, and the simplest solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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 June 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1856942:date=Jun 28 2011, 11:25 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 28 2011, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still believe that removing RFK and support abilities from Pres, and moving RFK and support abilities to Tres, will solve many, if not most, of the issues. It's a simple change, and the simplest solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this has been covered 100 times and i believe the issue is: incentive. reward the player. so why not give res to both P and T using RFK? no one likes playing games where individual skill has no impact (COD supply crates, Mario Party dice, etc) .. we need to encourage skillful AND teamwork play styles.
personally I like idea of RFK ? and will like to see distribution like: >> PRes +1 skulk, +2 gorge, +3 lerk, +4 fade, +5 onos +1 LMG, +2 SG, +3 Flame/GL, +4 minigun +1 in advance for JP / HA
>> TRes +1 each class killed +1 each building destroyed +3 tech point building CC/Hive destroyed
<!--quoteo(post=1857308:date=Jun 30 2011, 09:50 AM:name=ZycaR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZycaR @ Jun 30 2011, 09:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->+1 LMG, +2 SG, +3 Flame/GL, +4 minigun<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can see denial tactics arising. If you know you're going to die, drop your weapon so that the enemy can't get as many resources.
Seems like it'd be better to reward resources for killing Marines and destroying weapons separately, but you'd need to be able to destroy weapons on the ground (by attacking it, obviously).
<!--quoteo(post=1857386:date=Jun 30 2011, 03:33 PM:name=Papayas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Papayas @ Jun 30 2011, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857386"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There should be a spawn protection kind of thing.
Not like being invincible for 5 seconds after you spawn but something like the person who killed you doesn't get any Res if they spawn kill.
This would prevent lame spawn killing but not actually attempting to attack the base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be pointless. Besides, you don't get res for killing eggs.
It's as much a problem for marines as it ever was, IPs are a really stupid spawning system from a marine perspective, especially as you have to put them next to the CC which means they're usually very exposed.
Aliens are much better off, you get to see the room before you spawn, and you get a much better spawn capacity and distribution by default simply by having a hive.
<!--quoteo(post=1857338:date=Jun 30 2011, 12:39 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 30 2011, 12:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... If you know you're going to die, drop your weapon so that the enemy can't get as many resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm this sounds tricky, need reconsider.
Maybe the amount of resources (from marines) will be calculated as: = maximum from latest buy weapon and weapon what marine holds when he die.
I think this will cover 99% of cases.
The case, when marine pick weapon and throw it away before die will not be handled. But RFK will get happy alien, which kills original buyer of weapon :D
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2011
Edit: I was mistaken. RFK actually only rewards Personal Resources.
It just occurred to me that Personal Resource determines each team's combat capacities (for purchasing weapons, lifeforms, enhancements, as well as med packs). Whereas more Team Resource help accelerate higher tech research, and fortifies territory (Hydra is an exception).
<!--quoteo(post=1857484:date=Jul 1 2011, 12:52 PM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 1 2011, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I am not mistaken, RFK only rewards Team Resources. In many public games I've played, the dominating team (especially Kharaa) often has difficulty capitalizing excess TRes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is partly becuase it is time consuming to get more RTs. The alien resource towers have low hp and die easily to pretty much everything.
Spreading the DI its time consuming, hopefully gorges will help assist the spread of DI in the next build.
<!--quoteo(post=1857484:date=Jul 1 2011, 04:52 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 1 2011, 04:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I am not mistaken, RFK only rewards Team Resources. In many public games I've played, the dominating team (especially Kharaa) often has difficulty capitalizing excess TRes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are mistaken, RFK is 100% personal resources. RFK is what means decent marines always have shotguns, which is kind of rough for aliens.
Well that and if you have 3 extractors (which you should) you get 3 res every 8 seconds, which translates to 5x8s = 15 res, so you can afford a shotgun every 40 seconds.
RFK has very little to do with anything really. Even killing a fade only gets you 3 res max, which is another 8 seconds off the clock, woop de doo.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1857624:date=Jul 2 2011, 10:01 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 2 2011, 10:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857624"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well that and if you have 3 extractors (which you should) you get 3 res every 8 seconds, which translates to 5x8s = 15 res, so you can afford a shotgun every 40 seconds.
RFK has very little to do with anything really. Even killing a fade only gets you 3 res max, which is another 8 seconds off the clock, woop de doo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, that was quartered in 178, I think. So with three extractors, you get a shotgun every 2 minutes, and a GL/FT every four minutes.
<!--quoteo(post=1857187:date=Jun 30 2011, 05:10 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jun 30 2011, 05:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1856942:date=Jun 29 2011, 02:25 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 29 2011, 02:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I still believe that removing RFK and support abilities from Pres, and moving RFK and support abilities to Tres, will solve many, if not most, of the issues. It's a simple change, and the simplest solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this has been covered 100 times and i believe the issue is: incentive. reward the player. so why not give res to both P and T using RFK? no one likes playing games where individual skill has no impact (COD supply crates, Mario Party dice, etc) .. we need to encourage skillful AND teamwork play styles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I strongly believe that "score", "kill" and "win" are enough incentive.
Chris always likes to over-generalise to say that "nothing is wrong; don't fix it". I prefer to see things as "this could be improved; improve it".
Lack of PRFK would lead to PR becoming, even if only slightly, more scarce; therefore high-cost equipment/lifeforms become, even if only slightly, less frequent and more precious.
The whole idea of TRFK+TRTS (as a change from the current situation) began with someone saying "RFK should go to the same place that your medpacks/ammo comes from". I can agree with that logic.
<!--quoteo(post=1857479:date=Jul 1 2011, 07:33 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 1 2011, 07:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you get to see the room before you spawn,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that marines should have vision from the IP a few seconds before spawning, and they should spawn in the orientation they were facing last.
<b>Proposal:</b> What about adding an increase in pRES gain while you're a commander. Lets say normal rate times 3.
<b>Arguments against:</b> Now the argument against it might be that "Oh well then if you need res you just go sit in a comm chair/hive".
<b>Answer:</b> Well consider the consequence of doing that - You will be forced to do 1 of 2 things. Either 1, you become completely useless to the rest of your team and just sit and farm res, which will still take a bit of time, and so your team suffers for it. Or 2, you spend your time farming that res wisely by helping the main commander with whatever hes doing until you're ready to go again. I mean, isn't it the point to encourage more commanders to help one another anyway? Not to mention for doing so, you get rewarded with extra res, seems a nice incentive.
Next argument against it could be "Commanders will just be cycled then to build up res, or get people out in the field who have a lot of pRES and thus have a greater advantage".
<b>Answer:</b> Again I point your attention to the consequences of doing that: The idea with increased pRES is so a commander can better support his team with weapons, ammo, medkits and whatever else requires pRES from the commander. If you cycle commanders you will never get that benefit, you will just get a few people with a lot of pRES, which isn't helping the rest of the team. Secondly, cycling commanders isn't really very viable unless somehow you have a team consisting entirely of equally good commanders, all with the same plan and perfect overview of what the previous commander did. The result of all that combined, is that the team suffers.
Boosting the pRES gain while in comm chair/hive, while not overdoing it, could in my opinion serve to balance things out a bit more.
<b>Conclusion notes: </b> This was an idea I got while reading this thread and I didn't see anyone mention it. My apologies if I missed someone doing that - I fully understand this is a very basic idea and needs more details, but its very simple and I can't see any *immediate* problems with it when thinking about it. Plese, I urge you to shoot my idea down so that perhaps good ideas can come from it.
Well, I personally don't think your answers are adequate responses to the arguments against. Some people <b>will</b> choose to be completely useless to the rest of the team and farm PR. What would you help the commander with that doesn't involve spending the PR you're trying to farm? Cycling (by a semi-organised team) <b>will</b> be encouraged, even if it shouldn't be. Cycling just takes one or more of your players out of the field for no good reason, and causes the other problems you outlined. The difficulty of pulling it off well woould discourage people from doing it, but the possibility shouldn't even be there. Increased PR still does not address the main issue: scaling with the size of the team. The point of 'encouraging more commanders' is imo a bad decision. They add nothing useful to the game (unless you have very large games: player count and map size) while creating all sorts of complexities (esp. issues) not present (or less pronounced) in a single commander system. There are better solutions to the problem(s). Any solution to the problem(s) that causes a change to the overall resource flow depending on <b>player occupancy</b> of the command chair is generally clunky, and a bad idea (whether that is your 3x PR rate idea, or others' 0x PR rate idea, or others' Third Resource being "charged up" idea).
I'll just quote what I've said before: <!--quoteo(post=1855585:date=Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the criteria we have to work with is: 1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game 2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game) 3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game) 4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform 5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1857821:date=Jul 4 2011, 04:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 4 2011, 04:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857821"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, I personally don't think your answers are adequate responses to the arguments against. Some people <b>will</b> choose to be completely useless to the rest of the team and farm PR. What would you help the commander with that doesn't involve spending the PR you're trying to farm? Cycling (by a semi-organised team) <b>will</b> be encouraged, even if it shouldn't be. Cycling just takes one or more of your players out of the field for no good reason, and causes the other problems you outlined. The difficulty of pulling it off well woould discourage people from doing it, but the possibility shouldn't even be there. Increased PR still does not address the main issue: scaling with the size of the team. The point of 'encouraging more commanders' is imo a bad decision. They add nothing useful to the game (unless you have very large games: player count and map size) while creating all sorts of complexities (esp. issues) not present (or less pronounced) in a single commander system. There are better solutions to the problem(s). Any solution to the problem(s) that causes a change to the overall resource flow depending on <b>player occupancy</b> of the command chair is generally clunky, and a bad idea (whether that is your 3x PR rate idea, or others' 0x PR rate idea, or others' Third Resource being "charged up" idea).
I'll just quote what I've said before:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm..Well, I had hoped for something a little more ..constructive, but fair enough, you don't think my idea works. I'm just having a hard time seeing the point you're making I guess, and you're of course in your right to have an opinion :)
I just think that while my idea may not be entirely perfect, I think it could be adapted to work somehow. Will work this out later and post again.
My point is that it should meet the criteria that I quoted (essentially paraphrased from Charlie's posts, and 'common sense'), and that resource flow that is modified by occupancy of the command chair* is an inherently "broken" system. *e.g. - 3x PR gained by the commander - No PR gained by the commander (instead shifting the support costs to TR) - Energy being charged up per command chair (changes how a command chair gains energy) - A third resource being charged up per command chair (practically the same as above, but maintains original function of energy, in addition)
I think the biggest thing is that all resources and expenditures should be scalable (with team size) in some way...
What I would suggest, is to move RFK and support costs to TR; no PRFK. The theory is that RFK is inherently scalable. Perhaps sentries could be made more expensive, but moved back to PR (but linked to the commander that placed them, in much the same way as a gorge's hydra operates), to give the commander something to spend his PR on (other than purchasing spare weapons for his poorer marines).
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
edited July 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1857829:date=Jul 3 2011, 10:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 3 2011, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857829"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps sentries could be made more expensive, but moved back to PR (but linked to the commander that placed them, in much the same way as a gorge's hydra operates), to give the commander something to spend his PR on (other than purchasing spare weapons for his poorer marines).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not a bad idea (buy turrets with p.res). this would limit sentry spam for sure, and promotes in bigger games to build a second comm chair (so another guy can hop in, waste <b>his </b>res for sentries instead of wasting valuable team res which should've been used for upgrades.
on the other hand, personal res income + weapon/equipment cost will be balanced on individal players, which allows relatively even equiped players independant of team size (a fix for the problem in NS1). so if a comm is restricted to drop only stuff which could've been obtained by a field player aswell, it would completely remove the necessity of cycling commanders. if you need for any structure / unit p.res (only obtainable in commander mode) it will automatically promote cycling.
-> in public games after a few months of playing people might find out that its best to build 2 CCs, one for permanent comm, one for "sentry spam cycling comms". i dont say this will happen for sure, but it could and i dont want such a game play :D
i most comfortable with the following seperation: personal res: influences directly your fps experience (life form, weapons, etc) team res: <u>limitation</u> for expanding, upgrading, and comm controled units
edit: i noticed that on this topic no "official" response came so far. maybe uwe anyway wants to stick with the current model and our 6 pages long discussion is useless :D some response would be nice, just to know if they are still taking suggestions or everything is already decided
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 July 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1857752:date=Jul 3 2011, 01:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 3 2011, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857752"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I strongly believe that "score", "kill" and "win" are enough incentive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you strongly believe that. because there are plenty of people who strongly believe in being personally rewarded for skill too. (see: every modern FPS with unlocks)
<ul><li>"score" means jack ###### as it does nothing and adds to nothing, its an arbitrary number that has zero game play consequence. no one looks at this??</li><li>"kills" mean nothing to the individual when you a) receive nothing personally and b) are playing a team game. (Who cares about how many kills one has in a CTF game?)</li><li>"win" once again has to do with the team and not the individual.</li></ul>
<b><i>not everyone who plays actually "cares" about their team winning if their contributions are simply area denial and building the commander's strategic placements.</i></b> bad company 2 is a perfect example of team play mixed with individual reward incentives. hell, even the roles are intertwined and forced to encourage teamwork. (even the least supportive role, the assault, must drop ammo for everyone if he is to drop ammo for himself)
this is a FPS first and foremost, as stated by charlie. treat it as such and give a little incentive to the individual for being a skilled player. skilled playerbases lead to clans lead to competitive matches lead to longevity of game. (see: NS1) remove RFK. fine. but you better replace it with some reward using "score" or something else, else the individual is just a pawn at the comm's disposal.
<!--quoteo(post=1857966:date=Jul 5 2011, 04:44 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 5 2011, 04:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857966"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm glad you strongly believe that. because there are plenty of people who strongly believe in being personally rewarded for skill too. (see: every modern FPS with unlocks)
<ul><li>"score" means jack ###### as it does nothing and adds to nothing, its an arbitrary number that has zero game play consequence. no one looks at this??</li><li>"kills" mean nothing to the individual when you a) receive nothing personally and b) are playing a team game. (Who cares about how many kills one has in a CTF game?)</li><li>"win" once again has to do with the team and not the individual.</li></ul>
<b><i>not everyone who plays actually "cares" about their team winning if their contributions are simply area denial and building the commander's strategic placements.</i></b> bad company 2 is a perfect example of team play mixed with individual reward incentives. hell, even the roles are intertwined and forced to encourage teamwork. (even the least supportive role, the assault, must drop ammo for everyone if he is to drop ammo for himself)
this is a FPS first and foremost, as stated by charlie. treat it as such and give a little incentive to the individual for being a skilled player. skilled playerbases lead to clans lead to competitive matches lead to longevity of game. (see: NS1) remove RFK. fine. but you better replace it with some reward using "score" or something else, else the individual is just a pawn at the comm's disposal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you play NS2 at all, before they introduced RFK? So why is <b>P</b>RFK such an <b>essential</b> feature now?
NS2 doesn't have to be like other games, in fact it's already nothing like other games - yes, you can now buy your own weapons (which is similar to other games, like CS for example). But seeing as NS2 has an over-arching RTS element, the availability of your weapons is best linked to your map control (it already is, but removing PRFK emphasises this, while at the same time removing the inherent <i>slippery slope</i>) rather than the traditional FPS method of player kills. Certainly, the game should first and foremost be an FPS, I wholeheartedly agree; but in my mind that means balancing the game so that two equally-skilled opponents have an equal chance of defeating one another, not <b>simply</b> giving better players even better weapons.
I don't believe that PRFK is a necessary incentive beyond the other incentives, and I'm sure that if PRFK were removed, you'd learn to let it go.
In fact, I think that the biggest change that needs to occur is purely informational. The players on the field should start receiving more information that is linked to the over-arching RTS aspect (the maps are a start - other things might be the Number of Resource Nodes and Number of Tech Nodes capped, PR/TR income, highlighted positions of key items like the ARC, etc.) that will get them more involved in the Team/RTS aspect, and make them realise that they're playing not just an FPS, but an RTS.
I know this is going to sound stupid, but what is RFK?
I think a boost to the commanders rate of acquiring Personal Res is a good idea, but how about you make it only for the first 4 or so minutes of a game? Personal Res could get more strategic as the game progresses.
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1858021:date=Jul 4 2011, 09:11 PM:name=Hurracane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hurracane @ Jul 4 2011, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know this is going to sound stupid, but what is RFK?
I think a boost to the commanders rate of acquiring Personal Res is a good idea, but how about you make it only for the first 4 or so minutes of a game? Personal Res could get more strategic as the game progresses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> RFK means Resource From(For?) Kill. Currently the reward for each player-kill is (at random) 1 to 3 Personal Resources.
Comments
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->+1<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
this has been covered 100 times and i believe the issue is: incentive. reward the player. so why not give res to both P and T using RFK?
no one likes playing games where individual skill has no impact (COD supply crates, Mario Party dice, etc) .. we need to encourage skillful AND teamwork play styles.
and will like to see distribution like:
>> PRes
+1 skulk, +2 gorge, +3 lerk, +4 fade, +5 onos
+1 LMG, +2 SG, +3 Flame/GL, +4 minigun
+1 in advance for JP / HA
>> TRes
+1 each class killed
+1 each building destroyed
+3 tech point building CC/Hive destroyed
I can see denial tactics arising. If you know you're going to die, drop your weapon so that the enemy can't get as many resources.
Seems like it'd be better to reward resources for killing Marines and destroying weapons separately, but you'd need to be able to destroy weapons on the ground (by attacking it, obviously).
Not like being invincible for 5 seconds after you spawn but something like the person who killed you doesn't get any Res if they spawn kill.
This would prevent lame spawn killing but not actually attempting to attack the base.
Not like being invincible for 5 seconds after you spawn but something like the person who killed you doesn't get any Res if they spawn kill.
This would prevent lame spawn killing but not actually attempting to attack the base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be pointless. Besides, you don't get res for killing eggs.
Aliens are much better off, you get to see the room before you spawn, and you get a much better spawn capacity and distribution by default simply by having a hive.
Maybe the amount of resources (from marines) will be calculated as:
= maximum from latest buy weapon and weapon what marine holds when he die.
I think this will cover 99% of cases.
The case, when marine pick weapon and throw it away before die will not be handled. But RFK will get happy alien, which kills original buyer of weapon :D
BTW: spawn protection discussion is Off Topic
It just occurred to me that Personal Resource determines each team's combat capacities (for purchasing weapons, lifeforms, enhancements, as well as med packs). Whereas more Team Resource help accelerate higher tech research, and fortifies territory (Hydra is an exception).
I think this is partly becuase it is time consuming to get more RTs. The alien resource towers have low hp and die easily to pretty much everything.
Spreading the DI its time consuming, hopefully gorges will help assist the spread of DI in the next build.
I think you are mistaken, RFK is 100% personal resources. RFK is what means decent marines always have shotguns, which is kind of rough for aliens.
RFK has very little to do with anything really. Even killing a fade only gets you 3 res max, which is another 8 seconds off the clock, woop de doo.
RFK has very little to do with anything really. Even killing a fade only gets you 3 res max, which is another 8 seconds off the clock, woop de doo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, that was quartered in 178, I think. So with three extractors, you get a shotgun every 2 minutes, and a GL/FT every four minutes.
I still believe that removing RFK and support abilities from Pres, and moving RFK and support abilities to Tres, will solve many, if not most, of the issues. It's a simple change, and the simplest solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this has been covered 100 times and i believe the issue is: incentive. reward the player. so why not give res to both P and T using RFK?
no one likes playing games where individual skill has no impact (COD supply crates, Mario Party dice, etc) .. we need to encourage skillful AND teamwork play styles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I strongly believe that "score", "kill" and "win" are enough incentive.
Chris always likes to over-generalise to say that "nothing is wrong; don't fix it".
I prefer to see things as "this could be improved; improve it".
Lack of PRFK would lead to PR becoming, even if only slightly, more scarce; therefore high-cost equipment/lifeforms become, even if only slightly, less frequent and more precious.
The whole idea of TRFK+TRTS (as a change from the current situation) began with someone saying "RFK should go to the same place that your medpacks/ammo comes from". I can agree with that logic.
<!--quoteo(post=1857479:date=Jul 1 2011, 07:33 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 1 2011, 07:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you get to see the room before you spawn,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that marines should have vision from the IP a few seconds before spawning, and they should spawn in the orientation they were facing last.
What about adding an increase in pRES gain while you're a commander. Lets say normal rate times 3.
<b>Arguments against:</b>
Now the argument against it might be that "Oh well then if you need res you just go sit in a comm chair/hive".
<b>Answer:</b> Well consider the consequence of doing that - You will be forced to do 1 of 2 things. Either 1, you become completely useless to the rest of your team and just sit and farm res, which will still take a bit of time, and so your team suffers for it. Or 2, you spend your time farming that res wisely by helping the main commander with whatever hes doing until you're ready to go again. I mean, isn't it the point to encourage more commanders to help one another anyway? Not to mention for doing so, you get rewarded with extra res, seems a nice incentive.
Next argument against it could be "Commanders will just be cycled then to build up res, or get people out in the field who have a lot of pRES and thus have a greater advantage".
<b>Answer:</b> Again I point your attention to the consequences of doing that:
The idea with increased pRES is so a commander can better support his team with weapons, ammo, medkits and whatever else requires pRES from the commander. If you cycle commanders you will never get that benefit, you will just get a few people with a lot of pRES, which isn't helping the rest of the team. Secondly, cycling commanders isn't really very viable unless somehow you have a team consisting entirely of equally good commanders, all with the same plan and perfect overview of what the previous commander did.
The result of all that combined, is that the team suffers.
Boosting the pRES gain while in comm chair/hive, while not overdoing it, could in my opinion serve to balance things out a bit more.
<b>Conclusion notes:
</b>
This was an idea I got while reading this thread and I didn't see anyone mention it. My apologies if I missed someone doing that - I fully understand this is a very basic idea and needs more details, but its very simple and I can't see any *immediate* problems with it when thinking about it.
Plese, I urge you to shoot my idea down so that perhaps good ideas can come from it.
Some people <b>will</b> choose to be completely useless to the rest of the team and farm PR.
What would you help the commander with that doesn't involve spending the PR you're trying to farm?
Cycling (by a semi-organised team) <b>will</b> be encouraged, even if it shouldn't be. Cycling just takes one or more of your players out of the field for no good reason, and causes the other problems you outlined. The difficulty of pulling it off well woould discourage people from doing it, but the possibility shouldn't even be there.
Increased PR still does not address the main issue: scaling with the size of the team.
The point of 'encouraging more commanders' is imo a bad decision. They add nothing useful to the game (unless you have very large games: player count and map size) while creating all sorts of complexities (esp. issues) not present (or less pronounced) in a single commander system.
There are better solutions to the problem(s). Any solution to the problem(s) that causes a change to the overall resource flow depending on <b>player occupancy</b> of the command chair is generally clunky, and a bad idea (whether that is your 3x PR rate idea, or others' 0x PR rate idea, or others' Third Resource being "charged up" idea).
I'll just quote what I've said before:
<!--quoteo(post=1855585:date=Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the criteria we have to work with is:
1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game
2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game)
3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game)
4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform
5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people <b>will</b> choose to be completely useless to the rest of the team and farm PR.
What would you help the commander with that doesn't involve spending the PR you're trying to farm?
Cycling (by a semi-organised team) <b>will</b> be encouraged, even if it shouldn't be. Cycling just takes one or more of your players out of the field for no good reason, and causes the other problems you outlined. The difficulty of pulling it off well woould discourage people from doing it, but the possibility shouldn't even be there.
Increased PR still does not address the main issue: scaling with the size of the team.
The point of 'encouraging more commanders' is imo a bad decision. They add nothing useful to the game (unless you have very large games: player count and map size) while creating all sorts of complexities (esp. issues) not present (or less pronounced) in a single commander system.
There are better solutions to the problem(s). Any solution to the problem(s) that causes a change to the overall resource flow depending on <b>player occupancy</b> of the command chair is generally clunky, and a bad idea (whether that is your 3x PR rate idea, or others' 0x PR rate idea, or others' Third Resource being "charged up" idea).
I'll just quote what I've said before:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm..Well, I had hoped for something a little more ..constructive, but fair enough, you don't think my idea works. I'm just having a hard time seeing the point you're making I guess, and you're of course in your right to have an opinion :)
I just think that while my idea may not be entirely perfect, I think it could be adapted to work somehow. Will work this out later and post again.
*e.g.
- 3x PR gained by the commander
- No PR gained by the commander (instead shifting the support costs to TR)
- Energy being charged up per command chair (changes how a command chair gains energy)
- A third resource being charged up per command chair (practically the same as above, but maintains original function of energy, in addition)
I think the biggest thing is that all resources and expenditures should be scalable (with team size) in some way...
What I would suggest, is to move RFK and support costs to TR; no PRFK. The theory is that RFK is inherently scalable. Perhaps sentries could be made more expensive, but moved back to PR (but linked to the commander that placed them, in much the same way as a gorge's hydra operates), to give the commander something to spend his PR on (other than purchasing spare weapons for his poorer marines).
its not a bad idea (buy turrets with p.res). this would limit sentry spam for sure, and promotes in bigger games to build a second comm chair (so another guy can hop in, waste <b>his </b>res for sentries instead of wasting valuable team res which should've been used for upgrades.
on the other hand, personal res income + weapon/equipment cost will be balanced on individal players, which allows relatively even equiped players independant of team size
(a fix for the problem in NS1). so if a comm is restricted to drop only stuff which could've been obtained by a field player aswell, it would completely remove the necessity of
cycling commanders. if you need for any structure / unit p.res (only obtainable in commander mode) it will automatically promote cycling.
-> in public games after a few months of playing people might find out that its best to build 2 CCs, one for permanent comm, one for "sentry spam cycling comms". i dont
say this will happen for sure, but it could and i dont want such a game play :D
i most comfortable with the following seperation:
personal res: influences directly your fps experience (life form, weapons, etc)
team res: <u>limitation</u> for expanding, upgrading, and comm controled units
edit: i noticed that on this topic no "official" response came so far. maybe uwe anyway wants to stick with the current model and our 6 pages long discussion
is useless :D some response would be nice, just to know if they are still taking suggestions or everything is already decided
I'm glad you strongly believe that. because there are plenty of people who strongly believe in being personally rewarded for skill too. (see: every modern FPS with unlocks)
<ul><li>"score" means jack ###### as it does nothing and adds to nothing, its an arbitrary number that has zero game play consequence. no one looks at this??</li><li>"kills" mean nothing to the individual when you a) receive nothing personally and b) are playing a team game. (Who cares about how many kills one has in a CTF game?)</li><li>"win" once again has to do with the team and not the individual.</li></ul>
<b><i>not everyone who plays actually "cares" about their team winning if their contributions are simply area denial and building the commander's strategic placements.</i></b>
bad company 2 is a perfect example of team play mixed with individual reward incentives. hell, even the roles are intertwined and forced to encourage teamwork. (even the least supportive role, the assault, must drop ammo for everyone if he is to drop ammo for himself)
this is a FPS first and foremost, as stated by charlie. treat it as such and give a little incentive to the individual for being a skilled player.
skilled playerbases lead to clans lead to competitive matches lead to longevity of game. (see: NS1)
remove RFK. fine. but you better replace it with some reward using "score" or something else, else the individual is just a pawn at the comm's disposal.
<ul><li>"score" means jack ###### as it does nothing and adds to nothing, its an arbitrary number that has zero game play consequence. no one looks at this??</li><li>"kills" mean nothing to the individual when you a) receive nothing personally and b) are playing a team game. (Who cares about how many kills one has in a CTF game?)</li><li>"win" once again has to do with the team and not the individual.</li></ul>
<b><i>not everyone who plays actually "cares" about their team winning if their contributions are simply area denial and building the commander's strategic placements.</i></b>
bad company 2 is a perfect example of team play mixed with individual reward incentives. hell, even the roles are intertwined and forced to encourage teamwork. (even the least supportive role, the assault, must drop ammo for everyone if he is to drop ammo for himself)
this is a FPS first and foremost, as stated by charlie. treat it as such and give a little incentive to the individual for being a skilled player.
skilled playerbases lead to clans lead to competitive matches lead to longevity of game. (see: NS1)
remove RFK. fine. but you better replace it with some reward using "score" or something else, else the individual is just a pawn at the comm's disposal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you play NS2 at all, before they introduced RFK? So why is <b>P</b>RFK such an <b>essential</b> feature now?
NS2 doesn't have to be like other games, in fact it's already nothing like other games - yes, you can now buy your own weapons (which is similar to other games, like CS for example). But seeing as NS2 has an over-arching RTS element, the availability of your weapons is best linked to your map control (it already is, but removing PRFK emphasises this, while at the same time removing the inherent <i>slippery slope</i>) rather than the traditional FPS method of player kills. Certainly, the game should first and foremost be an FPS, I wholeheartedly agree; but in my mind that means balancing the game so that two equally-skilled opponents have an equal chance of defeating one another, not <b>simply</b> giving better players even better weapons.
I don't believe that PRFK is a necessary incentive beyond the other incentives, and I'm sure that if PRFK were removed, you'd learn to let it go.
In fact, I think that the biggest change that needs to occur is purely informational. The players on the field should start receiving more information that is linked to the over-arching RTS aspect (the maps are a start - other things might be the Number of Resource Nodes and Number of Tech Nodes capped, PR/TR income, highlighted positions of key items like the ARC, etc.) that will get them more involved in the Team/RTS aspect, and make them realise that they're playing not just an FPS, but an RTS.
I think a boost to the commanders rate of acquiring Personal Res is a good idea, but how about you make it only for the first 4 or so minutes of a game? Personal Res could get more strategic as the game progresses.
Basically, you kill another player, and you (and/or your team) gain resources.
I think a boost to the commanders rate of acquiring Personal Res is a good idea, but how about you make it only for the first 4 or so minutes of a game? Personal Res could get more strategic as the game progresses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
RFK means Resource From(For?) Kill. Currently the reward for each player-kill is (at random) 1 to 3 Personal Resources.
oh, we have a candidate for an easy solution for the debate if we should get team res or personal res
we can just get both