Why can't respawns cost res?
Ichimaruu
Join Date: 2012-08-02 Member: 154614Members
Join Date: 2012-08-02 Member: 154614Members
I was wondering this the other day, I thought it might encourage teams to think more about engagements. Right now, everyone rushes around randomly and the commentator doesn't know where the ###### to put the 'camera'. If it costed res to spawn players, it would be much more strategic; attacks would have to be planned out and it would put more focus on build orders and niche rush builds/all-ins. Add the fact that this will cause late-game to be a lot more rare and not happen every single game.
So why am i thinking about this? I've played starcraft 2 for a while now, comparing the 2 games on an esport level; you don't see commentators skipping over battles in sc2, the camera stays focused on the battle, and this is because generally a player will not send units off by themselves or in very small groups - it would just be cost inefficient to sacrifice them like that. In natural selection 2, players can NOT play defensive, especially on the marine side. You have to push, for extractors. How else is there to gain an advantage over your opponent? There is none, it's literally a game of who has the most map control. Now we take res on respawn in to account - suddenly new tactics come in to play, should you play defensive and gain the advantage by draining your opponents resources? Should you play an exciting cheese build; aka rush and if it fails you lose the game? (Exciting builds like 2rax rush, proxy starport, 6pool all make the game a lot more entertaining to watch, I think natural selection 2 needs more of this diversity).
Using the new mechanic, taking a harvestor will be much more challenging. I doubt every harvestor on the map would be taken till the late-game since it would be cost inefficient to send 1 marine/skulk to get a harvestor in the off-chance that they die and cause a negative investment. Teams would have to be a lot more careful and skulks would have to 'skulk around' a lot more, using the ceiling and hiding in gaps for the perfect ambush. So essentially it will add more for a caster to be excited about.
Another reason I think this would be a great addition, is I believe it would resolve current balance issues. Right now it's clear that Aliens have the advantage, with marines getting a slight advantage in the early-midgame. Now add this mechanic; since marines have the better early game, more resources are cut from the Alien commanders pool. Meaning upgrades are delayed.
opinions? am i retarded?
edit: I mean commander res, also I get the feeling I've just posted this in the wrong section, if a mod could move I would be grateful.
edit: It could also be an option to have it in a different game mode for example: 'casual' and 'competitive' similar to CS:GO
So why am i thinking about this? I've played starcraft 2 for a while now, comparing the 2 games on an esport level; you don't see commentators skipping over battles in sc2, the camera stays focused on the battle, and this is because generally a player will not send units off by themselves or in very small groups - it would just be cost inefficient to sacrifice them like that. In natural selection 2, players can NOT play defensive, especially on the marine side. You have to push, for extractors. How else is there to gain an advantage over your opponent? There is none, it's literally a game of who has the most map control. Now we take res on respawn in to account - suddenly new tactics come in to play, should you play defensive and gain the advantage by draining your opponents resources? Should you play an exciting cheese build; aka rush and if it fails you lose the game? (Exciting builds like 2rax rush, proxy starport, 6pool all make the game a lot more entertaining to watch, I think natural selection 2 needs more of this diversity).
Using the new mechanic, taking a harvestor will be much more challenging. I doubt every harvestor on the map would be taken till the late-game since it would be cost inefficient to send 1 marine/skulk to get a harvestor in the off-chance that they die and cause a negative investment. Teams would have to be a lot more careful and skulks would have to 'skulk around' a lot more, using the ceiling and hiding in gaps for the perfect ambush. So essentially it will add more for a caster to be excited about.
Another reason I think this would be a great addition, is I believe it would resolve current balance issues. Right now it's clear that Aliens have the advantage, with marines getting a slight advantage in the early-midgame. Now add this mechanic; since marines have the better early game, more resources are cut from the Alien commanders pool. Meaning upgrades are delayed.
opinions? am i retarded?
edit: I mean commander res, also I get the feeling I've just posted this in the wrong section, if a mod could move I would be grateful.
edit: It could also be an option to have it in a different game mode for example: 'casual' and 'competitive' similar to CS:GO
Comments
I would rather see some form of resources gained for kills. It would give the team that is winning fights an advantage like the current mechanic, but it wouldnt cripple the losing team so hard.
I would rather see some form of resources gained for kills. It would give the team that is winning fights an advantage like the current mechanic, but it wouldnt cripple the losing team so hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I didn't specify; I didn't mean pres, I meant commander res (whatever it's called)
I don't think gaining pres for kills is a good idea, if you're team is getting a good KD you're inherently ahead via more map control
I don't think gaining pres for kills is a good idea, if you're team is getting a good KD you're inherently ahead via more map control<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, and if youre dying, youre already behind on the map control/resource tower count, and then you lose even more. Imo rewarding the better team rather than penalyzing(dunno if thats even a word) the already losing team, is in general a better idea. You can already see the cripling effect when you dont gain pres while dead. Especially on the alien side because as a skulk theres a big chance of dying during ambushes versus good marines. Of course gaining resforkills will get the winning team ahead(just like the current mechanic), but it wont directly cripple the losing team. If they would gain res even when dead, it would give them the chance of getting out lifeforms/equipment to save the day, even if theyre dying a lot, but atleast holding on in the game.
I dont know about costing tres to respawn. I feel it will again make it just criple the losing team even more. I think it would be better to gain tres for kills, rather than lose it for dying. Both mechanics will reward the winning team. The other mechanic just doesnt directly criple the losing team.
Gaining tres for kills rather than losing tres for deaths is essentially the same thing and 'cripples' the losing team the same amount, so i don't really understand where you're coming from with that argument. However if you're gaining tres for kills that means the game will go in to lategame a sooner rather than later, which is the only real difference I see when choosing between the two mechanics.
Also yes, it would cripple the losing team, but it also gives them an opportunity to get back in; by playing defensive. Which can't happen in the current build. It would emphasise more on player <b>skill and strategy</b>. Using pres in my opinion is just a dumbed down version on of my idea, it makes no change in the early game since you can't obtain new weapons or new evolutions anyway and will make no change to the current stale 'metagame'
There's hardly any diversity right now, but using the new mechanic; taking a harvestor will be much more challenging. I doubt every harvestor on the map would be taken since it would be cost inefficient to send 1 marine/skulk to get a harvestor in the off-chance that they die and cause a negative investment. Teams would have to be a lot more careful and skulks would have to 'skulk around' a lot more, using the ceiling and hiding in gaps for the perfect ambush.
If you gain tres for killing you research faster, enemy can research as before.
If you lose tres for dying you research slower, enemy can research as before.
I feel your enemy losing his resources rather than you gaining them, gives a bigger advantage. I think losing resources for dying has a much larger snowballing effect than gaining them for killing. Could of course be worth a try, but atleast from my experiences with the current pres mechanic, i would choose gain pres4kill rather than not gaining pres while dead.
If you lose tres for dying you research slower, enemy can research as before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll explain why what you said is exactly the same:
Let's talk about the first one:
You are researching faster, enemy slower
Okay, so in essence <b>your enemy is researching slower.</b>
Now the sencond:
You are researching slower, enemy is the same.
<b>you are researching slower</b>
The only difference here is as I said, the game pushes on to the lategame stages more quickly when you gain tres for kills. Lategame should be exciting, maybe it shouldn't happen a lot. Then it would be more exciting to start seeing fades, to start seeing onos'. Also there's no apparent reason why a commander should gain res for you killing someone. Whereas there's a good reason that res should be spent to operate the IP to respawn you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Congrats are thinking of a terrible way to reduce fun and casualness of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want casual, go grab a Wii. PC gamers have proven they like challenge, that's one of the reasons Dark Souls was chosen to be ported, that's one of the reasons esports is so big. Unknown Worlds has already expressed support for moving the game in to an esport setting which is a great way to improve the longevity of a title.
Except with your system the commander would continuously find that there is not enough tres for the upgrades he was saving for because Leroy Jenkins keeps dieing. Plus it would make it really easy for one ###### to grief their hole team.
So no, it is not the same.
You misunderstood what I meant there, I was talking about the difference between gaining res from kills or losing res from deaths. Which is the same.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except with your system the commander would continuously find that there is not enough tres for the upgrades he was saving for because Leroy Jenkins keeps dieing. Plus it would make it really easy for one ###### to grief their hole team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, that's why it would be great as an esport - and this happens in DotA/LoL a LOT; 1 player can ###### your team over. If you've ever played a moba game you'll know exactly what I mean. But this encourages players to join a team and start competing in leagues and on ladders.
As for public games if this happens it's completely the commanders fault - else the player has no brain or is trolling and should be kicked from the game.
I agree there needs to be a resolute way of balancing the game so that a 5-0 whipe of the entire team early game doesn't cause the game to be over; but if you think about it, it would make for some very fast paced games. Something we don't see in competitive Natural Selection 2 right now. Look at CS for example, a series that is massive in esports. In CS, games generally don't last that long. Which is entirely fine. Despite this, I think if the Aliens don't all rush headlong on - and even if they do - there will almost never be an occasion when the entire team dies without getting a single kill, hell, even if it happens that just means one team is better than the other. It clearly defines skill, it's like putting a high ELO player against a low ELO player... the game <i>should</i> be over before it's started. It makes sure that experienced players have a better chance in the game. It actually tiers skill and raises the skill ceiling.
Really? Can you direct me to a representative of these "PC Gamers?" If they're such an organised and defined group that you can make such claims with such authority, surely there's somebody somewhere who is an expert on the sub-culture of the "PC Gamer," or at least has some documented evidence to support your claims.
That aside, there're differences between hardcore vs. casual, complicated vs. simple, realistic vs. stylised, intuitive vs. confusing, fun vs. stressful, and "good" vs. "bad." Additional challenge does not automatically equal more hardcore, which also does not automatically equal more "good" or even necessarily more fun.
By closing something off to a more "casual" market, you're limiting the amount of players that might be able to access and enjoy the game. Commander is more challenging than playing a ground unit, so there's extra challenge there for players that are confident and want to give a go at leading a team while newer players can make mistakes with relatively little negative impact on the experience of others. If we implemented something that punished a team for each player death then I don't think it'd encourage more "strategic and skillful" use of teamwork so much as it'd just create a community like the infamous DotA one, where if one person messes up too badly it'll start to really become detrimental to the rest of the team, eventually causing frustration and anger and general bad will.
One big difference between SC2 and NS2 is that the commander is not equal to a SC2 player. All the units in NS2 are human players with their own willpower. If a player isn't having fun doing something, or disagrees with their commander's decisions, they're free to go off and do things on their own, such as back-ending an enemy base while the commander (and the rest of the server) are distracted defending another base. No matter how much a commander tries to be strategic or skillful, they don't have any direct control over other players short of beaconing them back to base. There's no way to prevent this without cracking down on the willpower of individual players, which goes against the whole point of having a FPS/RTS hybrid.
Maybe it could be a gametype for clan matches or something to add an extra layer of challenge, but it really shouldn't be standard for all public matches.
As for the casual/hardcore discussion, you can look at world of warcraft, it's subscription number shows pretty clearly that the pc gamers want casual easy content. At their height they were 11-12 million subscribers or so, then they made it more accessible, and easier to play. They lost 2-3 million players, but the rest stayed, and they still have around 9 million players paying every month. So while there is a big crowd for esports, and competitive play, there is an even bigger casual crowd, who likes to have accessible games.
I hope that the promised tutorials and tooltips and hints are added, but that the skill level stays more or less as it is now. You can excell in some classes, and there are ways for skilled people to play better than people who just picked up the game.
This game is not designed to cater exclusively to competitive players, as much as competitive players like to believe they are the only ones that matter that is just not the case.
<!--quoteo(post=1959592:date=Aug 9 2012, 01:50 AM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 01:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959592"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for public games if this happens it's completely the commanders fault - else the player has no brain or is trolling and should be kicked from the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would create a huge barrier to entry for new players, they would not be allowed to just join a game and learn to play as their team would rage and kick them off. Yeah great system there buddy.
I agree there needs to be a resolute way of balancing the game so that a 5-0 whipe of the entire team early game doesn't cause the game to be over (maybe increase the base res); but if you think about it, it would make for some very fast paced games. Something we don't see in competitive Natural Selection 2 right now. Look at CS for example, a series that is massive in esports. In CS, games generally don't last that long. Which is entirely fine. Despite this, I think if the Aliens don't all rush headlong on - and even if they do - there will almost never be an occasion when the entire team dies without getting a single kill, hell, even if it happens that just means one team is better than the other. It clearly defines skill, it's like putting a high ELO player against a low ELO player... the game <i>should</i> be over before it's started. It makes sure that experienced players have a better chance in the game. It actually tiers skill and raises the skill ceiling.
<!--quoteo(post=1959596:date=Aug 9 2012, 08:10 AM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 9 2012, 08:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959596"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really? Can you direct me to a representative of these "PC Gamers?" If they're such an organised and defined group that you can make such claims with such authority, surely there's somebody somewhere who is an expert on the sub-culture of the "PC Gamer," or at least has some documented evidence to support your claims.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can make claims with authority because it's a fact. Esport is growing exponentially right now, so there's plently of evidence to support my claims.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That aside, there're differences between hardcore vs. casual, complicated vs. simple, realistic vs. stylised, intuitive vs. confusing, fun vs. stressful, and "good" vs. "bad." Additional challenge does not automatically equal more hardcore, which also does not automatically equal more "good" or even necessarily more fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More good doesn't make sense, it would however make the game a lot more diverse, that's the point I'm trying to put across.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By closing something off to a more "casual" market, you're limiting the amount of players that might be able to access and enjoy the game. Commander is more challenging than playing a ground unit, so there's extra challenge there for players that are confident and want to give a go at leading a team while newer players can make mistakes with relatively little negative impact on the experience of others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now, the commander position is not challenging. In fact, if we implement the change the commander position may very well get easier in terms of player control. Since they won't all wander off by themselves. It will open up new strategies and broaden the range of builds, thus making the skill cap higher.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we implemented something that punished a team for each player death then I don't think it'd encourage more "strategic and skillful" use of teamwork so much as it'd just create a community like the infamous DotA one, where if one person messes up too badly it'll start to really become detrimental to the rest of the team, eventually causing frustration and anger and general bad will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it would definitely encourage more strategic and skilful play, there's literally no argument to make in that regard. The DotA community will always be worse than NS2, since when they play public games they are conscious of their ladder rankings whereas in NS2 there is no ladder.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One big difference between SC2 and NS2 is that the commander is not equal to a SC2 player. All the units in NS2 are human players with their own willpower. If a player isn't having fun doing something, or disagrees with their commander's decisions, they're free to go off and do things on their own, such as back-ending an enemy base while the commander (and the rest of the server) are distracted defending another base. No matter how much a commander tries to be strategic or skillful, they don't have any direct control over other players short of beaconing them back to base. There's no way to prevent this without cracking down on the willpower of individual players, which goes against the whole point of having a FPS/RTS hybrid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, so it's up to the player whether it is a good decision or not, I see no problem with that at all. If it's a good player he will generally make a cost effective attack. If a commander uses his microphone (Which even now it's advisable to have a commander with a mic) it shouldn't be any trouble to have the player turn around anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe it could be a gametype for clan matches or something to add an extra layer of challenge, but it really shouldn't be standard for all public matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I <i>definately</i> agree with, and thought about for a bit myself. Just like in the new CS:GO you have a 'casual' and 'competitive' mode. I'll edit my OP to include it, thanks for reminding me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the casual/hardcore discussion, you can look at world of warcraft, it's subscription number shows pretty clearly that the pc gamers want casual easy content. At their height they were 11-12 million subscribers or so, then they made it more accessible, and easier to play. They lost 2-3 million players, but the rest stayed, and they still have around 9 million players paying every month. So while there is a big crowd for esports, and competitive play, there is an even bigger casual crowd, who likes to have accessible games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this just emphasises my point, as soon as they made the game 'more accessible, and easier to play' the number of subscribers dropped, dramatically.
I don't know guys, I get exactly what you mean with the new players I respect that; but I just get the feeling like a few months down the line there will be 1 set build for each commander to use and it will be labelled the 'best' build and everyone will use it with the current mechanics and it would be really sad to see a game with such potential go that way.
E-sports may be growing, but that's a completely unrelated fact to the one you put forth, which was "PC Gamers" prefer a more hardcore challenge and "Casual Gamers" should not be on the PC, but rather the Wii.
From what I've seen, E-sports has been growing rather slowly, suffering a bad decline a while back. There's not much going on with Quake for a while now, and while CS:S is still competitive it's not really as publicised, at least not that I've seen. The most e-sporty games I see these days are really the DotA-likes (or really only LoL and DotA 2, and possibly Awesomenaughts?) and SC2, and not a whole lot else. (EDIT: Oh, and possibly CS:GO might bring back counter strike, but I've seen varied opinions.)
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More good doesn't make sense, it would however make the game a lot more diverse, that's the point I'm trying to put across.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you define diverse in this context? =S I see it mostly used as either "variety" or "wider (appeal)." It doesn't really add "variety" to the game as such, and if anything narrows the appeal to a more competitive market.
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right now, the commander position is not challenging. In fact, if we implement the change the commander position may very well get easier in terms of player control. Since they won't all wander off by themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think "shouldn't" and "won't" wander off by themselves are important distinctions here. Perhaps in a competitive clan match this would be the case, but nobody in a public server will do what they don't personally wish to do. And a competitive clan likely already have their strategies and communication worked out that they don't need a punishment to keep them in check.
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it would definitely encourage more strategic and skilful play, there's literally no argument to make in that regard. The DotA community will always be worse than NS2, since when they play public games they are conscious of their ladder rankings whereas in NS2 there is no ladder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if you can prove that ladder rankings are the cause of all DotA-like community rage or not. I wouldn't think so, as so many different games seem to suffer from the same community problems, so it seems more like the mechanics of the game. I know plenty of players that just play without concern for any sort of leaderboards, and they still rage when somebody on their team messes up the match for them. Players don't like to lose/be held back in a huge way by the incompetence/inexperience of others, whether it goes on their permanant record or otherwise.
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, so it's up to the player whether it is a good decision or not, I see no problem with that at all. If it's a good player he will generally make a cost effective attack. If a commander uses his microphone (Which even now it's advisable to have a commander with a mic) it shouldn't be any trouble to have the player turn around anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this different to how it is now? A player will decide if they want to do what the commander asks of them, and friendly commander communication can help persuade a player to work with the commander. So why do they need to hurt the team if they die too many times in some effort to enforce sticking together in groups and doing what the commander says?
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This I <i>definately</i> agree with, and thought about for a bit myself. Just like in the new CS:GO you have a 'casual' and 'competitive' mode. I'll edit my OP to include it, thanks for reminding me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know why more games don't split rulesets amongst public and competitive play like this. Some people argued that it's stupid to have two separate rulesets, and that a game should be the same throughout, but really many tournaments and competitive games blacklist certain cards or techniques or figthers/characters in other games, while not modding them out of the game to prevent friends and casual players from messing about with them in quick, low-stress matches. Even if balancing two separate rulesets is more difficult that balancing one, it's far easier than trying to find some "happy medium" between pleasing those that just want to have an easy, relaxing game, and those that want more restrictions on certain sections of the game to create a more difficult experience to emphasise strategy or skill in teamplay matches, etc...
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But this just emphasises my point, as soon as they made the game 'more accessible, and easier to play' the number of subscribers dropped, dramatically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arguably. Though if you look at it in terms of percentages, the dramatic drop was ~25% of the playerbase, leaving a solid 75% still playing. If WoW had taken the other direction, and made the game significantly more competitive and hardcore, whose to say there wouldn't have been a 50%-75% drop from the remaining players who preferred the more casual experience? In either case, there are far too many variables to definitively say why so many players decided to leave or stay, so correlation doesn't equal causation.
a) new players are discouraged and will be flamed (atm they loose pres, so it doesn't affect others. If they'd loose tres, as you suggest, they'd get flamed for it, people would f4 and servers with players with different skills will disband instantly)
b) the harder a team looses, the worse their chances to come back are.
c) the winning team will have no advantage themselves for doing good, so the game won't end earlier.
whereas with res for kill:
a) new players will be discouraged from giving the enemy too much res by dying, accomplishing your idea of forcing teamplay (the way it worked in NS1)
b) the team loosing hard can still comeback, since they loose nothing (their enemies gain!). And the good alien players can evolve to lerk or fade faster. Good marines can spend more money on weaponry.
c) if a team owns the other one hard, the game will end sooner.
Especially the last point for R4K is important, since if the marines get really owned in the beginning, the aliens cannot end the game fast. It still takes ages to be able to fade, and the pressuring aliens still loose pres when dying...
The only argument against R4K, that i understand, is that a player that goes 1-10 stats might be flamed. But i haven't had that happen all too often in NS1. Generally players are kind and try to help each other, by advising them that they give the other team an advantage by dying.
But to be honest, if i go 14-10 early game, and my mates with 1-3 or 6-2 or whatever stats, have 10 pres more than me, for doing nothing, it discourages me from fighting of marines... It feels like even though you are the carrier, you are punished hard for it.
The only argument against R4K, that i understand, is that a player that goes 1-10 stats might be flamed. But i haven't had that happen all too often in NS1. Generally players are kind and try to help each other, by advising them that they give the other team an advantage by dying.
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't seen many (any?) people flaming somebody else for dying too much yet, though I have seen quite a few complaints levelled at commanders. Well, not quite - for the most part the beta-community is fairly friendly, but I have seen a few people that are long-time hold-overs from NS1 that feel some sense of superiority to what they perceive as a match full of newcomers. You know, complaining about the new engine and how things were changed for the worse and the like, and then taking that frustration out on friendlies and enemies by verbally harassing them on their skill and strategy and the like. But they're rare, and maybe they were just having a bad day.
When it comes to commander, I think it just highlights the fact that a game can turn sour if one player doing badly can ruin the experience of the rest of the team. I've seen quite a few matches where players turn on their commander if they believe they weren't played exceptionally well, giving "you should have known better, don't be commander" type comments even when the complainer has no commanding experience themselves. If this pressure were put on every player, not just the commander, I think things would just go sour all over.
At least in the pub environment.
You're acting as if I offended you, I think casual gamers enjoy the Wii.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From what I've seen, E-sports has been growing rather slowly, suffering a bad decline a while back. There's not much going on with Quake for a while now, and while CS:S is still competitive it's not really as publicised, at least not that I've seen. The most e-sporty games I see these days are really the DotA-likes (or really only LoL and DotA 2, and possibly Awesomenaughts?) and SC2, and not a whole lot else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you've just listed a lot of highly successful games there. All of them having massive longevity. LoL/Dota/sc2 being entirely because of esports. Anyway, stick to the point please, I'm not trying to have a discussion about esports titles.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could you define diverse in this context? =S I see it mostly used as either "variety" or "wider (appeal)." It doesn't really add "variety" to the game as such, and if anything narrows the appeal to a more competitive market.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it will add a lot of variety, I've been wanting to discuss this more so here goes:
1. Rush builds will have a better chance of working, so more options will open up in that regard.
2. Defensive play will be an option. (This is pretty huge when you think about it)
3. Skulks will be rewarded more by ambushes and teamwork, as well as creeping around on the walls/ceiling.
4. Good strategy can bring teams back in to a game, and open up more options (ex. 5squad intercept on an Alien extractor early game to kill 1-2 skulks then rush tech)
5. Players won't have to rely on map control to win games. (However it will still help so will not take away the mechanic)
6. Sentry towers might get a better look-in, as their damage is actually detrimental to the opponent, we could see more offensive sentries etc
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know if you can prove that ladder rankings are the cause of all DotA-like community rage or not. I wouldn't think so, as so many different games seem to suffer from the same community problems, so it seems more like the mechanics of the game. I know plenty of players that just play without concern for any sort of leaderboards, and they still rage when somebody on their team messes up the match for them. Players don't like to lose/be held back in a huge way by the incompetence/inexperience of others, whether it goes on their permanant record or otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, it could be. Either way it is still tremendously popular.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is this different to how it is now? A player will decide if they want to do what the commander asks of them, and friendly commander communication can help persuade a player to work with the commander. So why do they need to hurt the team if they die too many times in some effort to enforce sticking together in groups and doing what the commander says?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How will a player die more from sticking in a group? That makes no sense. You're missing the point here. It will encourage more <i>strategic</i> play, but it won't enforce team play. Small harassment will still open opportunities for expanding to new resource locations.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why more games don't split rulesets amongst public and competitive play like this. Some people argued that it's stupid to have two separate rulesets, and that a game should be the same throughout, but really many tournaments and competitive games blacklist certain cards or techniques or figthers/characters in other games, while not modding them out of the game to prevent friends and casual players from messing about with them in quick, low-stress matches. Even if balancing two separate rulesets is more difficult that balancing one, it's far easier than trying to find some "happy medium" between pleasing those that just want to have an easy, relaxing game, and those that want more restrictions on certain sections of the game to create a more difficult experience to emphasise strategy or skill in teamplay matches, etc...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed
I will tell you first what mechanics I don't like in NS.
1.) I don't like when you can tell, that you have already lost the game but it drags on for several minutes.
2.) I don't like the occasionally happening marine-turtle. (Where the marines can manage it to defend their last base despite the aliens have the whole rest of the map.)
Why am I telling you that? Because RFK in NS1 led to more turtles and sooner decided games that dragged on. So looking at your idea: The first point is supported by the fact that your idea will increase the gap between the loosing and the winning team. There is no real difference in RFK and RFS (Res for spawn) <u>in this mechanic</u>. The gap in resources (=tech) simply gets greater because the losing team not only has less extractors but also less res because of dying. But because the winning team isn't getting more res they will start playing defensive until they got all the tech. Rushing the hive fast and ending the game would be to dangerous, so they will just sit it out until all tech is researched or they have a resource-gap that isn't counter-able anymore. You see, your idea would finally lead to a more stale gameplay and more games that are decided sooner but ending later.
To the second point. The marine turtles. In NS1 that got really bad with the introduction of RFK. The marines have the range advantage. This leads to a clear advantage in survivability. A marine can just sit in the main base and shoot at every incoming alien. The aliens (melee based) are forced to risk their lives in rushing into the base. In order to end the game they need to get into that base where every marine sits and waits to shoot an alien for 1res. Because there was no personal res in NS1 that led to a steady res income for the marines and dragged on this already lost games.
While your idea wouldn't help the losing team, it would have a similar effect. The aliens wouldn't want to rush the marine base as long as they need their res for research. They would let the game drag on until they got all the tech, only killing marines that leave the base.
Together with the already mentioned problem of rage against often dieing noobs, I can't see that your idea adds more pros as cons to the game. It has some of the same problems RFK has.
There were long discussions for RFK even thinking about p-res or t-res. (And also losing res for dieing, as you mentioned.) But at the end the cons overweighted the pros in every constellation.
But as i said, i think this wouldn't be such a big problem.
Concerning the comms getting flamed, even though it's OT, so let's focus on the resource loss when dying / resources for kill topic, it was always like this in ns1 (for the marines) and this will most likely happen every now and then. The problem is, that commanders can win or ruin the game. Once people get accustomed to the game and use the eject function, really bad comms should be ejected early, preventing this. Also there are many new players, that don't know the game. When they comm, usually they don't really know what they're doing. I think a tutorial would help, but once people get a bit experienced and help from players on the ground, this should solve itself.
You have to understand that it's really frustrating for players on the ground, if they have to wait for a resource tower for ages, or the comm starts building arcs as a first step :)
"dude wtf are you doing, stop dieing"
"erm mate, i've just joined after a long day of work. my aiming isn't on its top yet. give me a break! also, i've just been trying to save our extractor and had to face two skulks on my own because everyone seems to play team deathmatch and cares more for his kill-death-ratio instead of the objective..."
"kick this idiot, he makes us lose the game!"
- you have been banned from the server -
From what I understand: You want player deaths to cost team resources (what the commander uses to build and research).
<!--quoteo(post=1959627:date=Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Rush builds will have a better chance of working, so more options will open up in that regard.
2. Defensive play will be an option. (This is pretty huge when you think about it)
3. Skulks will be rewarded more by ambushes and teamwork, as well as creeping around on the walls/ceiling.
4. Good strategy can bring teams back in to a game, and open up more options (ex. 5squad intercept on an Alien extractor early game to kill 1-2 skulks then rush tech)
5. Players won't have to rely on map control to win games. (However it will still help so will not take away the mechanic)
6. Sentry towers might get a better look-in, as their damage is actually detrimental to the opponent, we could see more offensive sentries etc
7. ... more resources are cut from the Alien commanders pool. Meaning upgrades are delayed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Define "rush builds" please. From the context it could be rushing upgrades for player "builds," rushing extractors to "build" across the map, or player "builds" that are designed to rush into the enemy base and cause early damage en masse (like a zerg rush).
2. Defensive play is already an option. Hell, sneaking around into the enemy base while they're busy attacking the boxed-in defenses of mine has won me a few matches. How does taking away resources from a team that is boxed in, constantly dying to an onslaught of enemies, help make their defensive strategy more viable?
3. Skulks wont be rewarded anything, at least if I'm understanding your model correctly. You say that a player dying costs tres (team/commander resources), right? A skulk is a player on the ground level of the game. They have no direct feedback from loss or gain of tres. A player is not "rewarded" by not doing damage to their team. That's simply the absence of punishment. If a player actually gained something, that would be a reward. As it stands, all it would do is sap the Commander's available resources without giving the Skulk any real feedback on this, meaning new players could die 20 times in a row and completely gimp the commander's ability to buy upgrades to support the team, all without even realising it.
4. Good strategy is good strategy, and is organised by a team regardless of the game. "Don't die so much, it costs us resources" doesn't promote good strategy any more than it already does. Can you prove that penalizing a team for player-deaths will directly result in increased use of strategy? Why are the two intrinsically tied into one another?
5. Players don't have to rely on map control to win games, though a huge chunk of matches do end this way. Though can you explain why costing resources to respawn will help a team to win without needing to control lots of resource points? Wouldn't it just emphasise the need to capture more resource points to counteract the extra loss of resources spent on player death?
6. This seems a bit of a stretch. Sentries are good for defense because they're cluttered amongst buildings and can cover multiple angles. If they're placed offensively on the front lines they'll be easier to pick off regardless of any new instilled fear in a player that their death will be detrimental to the team.
7. Perhaps, but it depends on how much tres it costs per death. A lot of this does. If skulks die at the rate they do now you won't just delay upgrades, you might annihilate them, as commanders shout angrily at their skulks to stop dying so he can research their upgrades, whilst the skulks are shout angrily at their commander saying if they had the upgrades they wouldn't be dying so much.
<!--quoteo(post=1959627:date=Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How will a player die more from sticking in a group? That makes no sense. You're missing the point here. It will encourage more <i>strategic</i> play, but it won't enforce team play. Small harassment will still open opportunities for expanding to new resource locations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They don't. I don't know where you got that from.
I said how will penalizing a team every time a player dies be any more effective encouragement for strategic play or use of teamwork than just establishing a good Commander/Player relationship. You've brought up e-sports a lot in your opening message, which implies you're concerned about matches which involve competitive play between clans. These players don't need any artificial nudge to encourage strategy or teamwork, because clans emphasize this already.
<!--quoteo(post=1959627:date=Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're acting as if I offended you, I think casual gamers enjoy the Wii.
...
Yes, you've just listed a lot of highly successful games there. All of them having massive longevity. LoL/Dota/sc2 being entirely because of esports. Anyway, stick to the point please, I'm not trying to have a discussion about esports titles.
...
I think it will add a lot of variety, I've been wanting to discuss this more so here goes:
...
Yep, it could be. Either way it is still tremendously popular.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
E-sport viability seems to be the very core reason fore you asserting this change to the game. You explain why the change will be beneficial with statements such as:
1. "Right now, everyone rushes around randomly and the commentator doesn't know where the ###### to put the 'camera'."
2. "I've played starcraft 2 for a while now, comparing the 2 games on an esport level; you don't see commentators skipping over battles in sc2, the camera stays focused on the battle, and this is because generally a player will not send units off by themselves or in very small groups - it would just be cost inefficient to sacrifice them like that."
3. "(Exciting builds like 2rax rush, proxy starport, 6pool all make the game a lot more entertaining to watch, I think natural selection 2 needs more of this diversity)."
4. "Teams would have to be a lot more careful and skulks would have to 'skulk around' a lot more, using the ceiling and hiding in gaps for the perfect ambush. So essentially it will add more for a caster to be excited about."
Your motivation for this entire thread seems to stem around making NS2 a more interesting game to spectate, to boost the E-sport entertainment factor. This IS part of the topic, because it's your reference frame and perspective on the game and outlining where your arguments are coming from.
Not all of us share this reference frame. That is why I find assertions such as "E-Sports prove PC Gamers are hardcore, competitive gamers, and Casual gamers play the Nintendo Wii" (Paraphrased, but that's what I've gotten out of your stance on this) to be so dangerous to this topic. It's pure rhetoric which basically is trying to normalise and centralise your stance - the competitive E-Sport enthusiast - and equate it with the "PC Gamer" in general, and, in doing so, try to prove that true NS2 Players also feel this way.
I'll buy SC2 being so popular due to E-Sports, but not LoL and DotA. Unless you have a different definition of E-Sport to I, and you encompass unspectated, uncasted, competitive gaming in there as well. CoD, BF3, Skyrim, Saints Row: The Third, WoW, Left 4 Dead, TF2, etc... These are all popular (not always exclusive) PC games without famous or established E-Sport communities.
So yes, I do find it offensive that you would grab something as vague and inclusive as "Casual Gamers" and tell me they "like the Wii," after blowing somebody off for bringing up that Casual gamers might want to play NS2 and that they should get off the PC and "play the Wii." I'd like to see you back that up. Personally, I think it's mostly "Wii Gamers" that like the Wii. I know plenty of PC Casual Gamers. E-Sports may be the reason you play video games, but, no matter how popular it is in some video games, it's not the most populous gaming demographic, even on PC. It's fine to want to make a game more E-Sport friendly, though I'd prefer if it was in a split mode like CS: GO, but just remember that anybody that plays games on a PC is a "PC Gamer", not just the ones that play competitive games, and not everybody you're trying to convince here will be persuaded by that line of argument.
EDIT: But yes, we can pretend E-Sports, PC Gamers, Casual Gamers and sweeping generalizations never came up and focus solely on the idea. We can try and contextualise it in a mode designed strictly for E-Sports if it helps. It is important to know where your opposition is coming from on these matters, hence the pushing of the E-Sports and how not everybody cares so much for them, because otherwise it can be difficult to fully understand where your opponents are coming from and to help remain objective.
So, strictly on the idea of player-deaths costing tres. You list a lot of pros, but have you looked so much into the cons? And if that wasn't your idea, can you re-explain it in a sentence or two?
I dont know about costing tres to respawn. I feel it will again make it just criple the losing team even more. I think it would be better to gain tres for kills, rather than lose it for dying. Both mechanics will reward the winning team. The other mechanic just doesnt directly criple the losing team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
This is actually not true. It may appear to be the same net effect from a mathematical or engineering P.O.V., but any game designer will tell you that they are not the same effect.
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 03:33 AM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 03:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it would definitely encourage more strategic and skilful play, there's literally no argument to make in that regard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's an example of you using the same logic to draw another incorrect conclusion. You see, your proposal would <b>discourage</b> new players from play, experimenting and learning. This is not the same as <b>encouraging</b> skillful playing. While removing less-skilled players might increase the percentage of skilled play seen in games, it is not the same effect as encouraging new players to play more skillfully or strategically, for obvious reasons.
Similarly, while gaining res for a kill and losing res for a death may have similar net effects from a relative perspective, they do not accomplish the same goal.
I recommend you go back and look at the official patch release videos UWE has released over the months. The devs give some great commentary on their work for each patch. You won't gain a comprehensive understanding of game design, but you get a great insight into their decision-making process, and hopefully an understanding of why two different ideas that appear to have similar effects can be radically different when implemented.
<!--quoteo(post=1959601:date=Aug 9 2012, 03:33 AM:name=Ichimaruu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ichimaruu @ Aug 9 2012, 03:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1959601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can make claims with authority because it's a fact. Esport is growing exponentially right now, so there's plently of evidence to support my claims.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The growth of eSports is real, but it is also something that is oft exaggerated and overblown by eSports enthusiasts. As an eSports enthusiasts myself, I find it's important to be aware of the actual size and scale of eSports. eSports is increasing in audience and viewership, yes, but the playerbase, particularly in the west, is not that big, nor is it expanding at a particularly impressive rate.
Over the last few years we've seen an increase in the competitive popularity of Starcraft 2 and League of Legends, but at the same time we've seen a decline in the popularity of other games as viable eSports, such as Counter-Strike.
And by the way, if it is "a fact" and there is "plenty of evidence" to support your claim, it's more helpful to actually state your evidence and back up your argument than attempt to flippantly disregard a dissenting opinion. Otherwise you give the appearance of not having an answer to the point of contention.
But as i said, i think this wouldn't be such a big problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[thought from another thread] what if your pres went to another player on your team when you die? so the total pres per team wouldnt change, just the distribution. distribution was the main point of no res when dead, not starving the team for pres if they die while being aggressive.
good idea! i'll just park my skulk in a vent at the start of the round, go smoke a cigarette, and when i'm back, it's fade time! gimme gimme!
You can go sit in a vent (or hive) & smoke a cigarette now. but point taken. in theory you could have uber fade guy sit in a vent as a skulk & have everyone else go commit suicide repeatedly to bring out fade a little earlier. but having all your players dead is probably not a winning strategy.
hmm. was just trying to think of an alternative to the current total pres penalty. maybe it could go to the comm for egg purchase.