<!--quoteo(post=1995413:date=Oct 23 2012, 07:43 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 23 2012, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Soz bro. I don't play games to get special treatment from a digital entity. I play games to have fun and be challenged. I don't see much challenge in being made better for being better. Kinda defeats the point in being better at all, don't you think?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1995416:date=Oct 23 2012, 12:48 AM:name=Koven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koven @ Oct 23 2012, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please do not think that you can tell people what is and what is not enough for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good players would steamroll even more the bad players ( with quicker better tech ) and the worst of all it would raise anger against bad players for "feeding" the other team. With RFK not only bad players would be frustrated they would also blamed by the good players of their team for dyign too often.
Ouh, this topic again. You should warn people by adding "RFK" to the title. This topic has been debated, tried, tested, tweaked and finally rejected, all in the last 9 (!) years. So we don't need to theory-craft if the snowball effect for very good players exist or not. Or if bad players profit from RFK or being damaged. We know all this from having RFK in NS1 AND in the NS2 beta. Comming to exactly this conclusions (updated list of an already posted version in the last RFK-thread):
<u>Res For Kills:</u> This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive. <b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul> <b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)
<!--quoteo(post=1995481:date=Oct 23 2012, 11:23 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Oct 23 2012, 11:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ouh, this topic again. You should warn people by adding "RFK" to the title. This topic has been debated, tried, tested, tweaked and finally rejected, all in the last 9 (!) years. So we don't need to theory-craft if the snowball effect for very good players exist or not. Or if bad players profit from RFK or being damaged. We know all this from having RFK in NS1 AND in the NS2 beta. Comming to exactly this conclusions (updated list of an already posted version in the last RFK-thread):
<u>Res For Kills:</u> This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive. <b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul> <b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't agree with most of the negative points.
EDIT: You sound like it has really been tested in the beta - it was in some patches and it was just the same model like in NS1, the performance was bad and balance not good. There was never a real motivation to try it out seriously, with tweaks to the system etc.
Whether or not RFK is added back into the game (at this point it looks pretty much likely it won't return), that's fine. BUT, the system we have now makes no sense for the aliens team in regards to not receiving res when you're dead & waiting to respawn. It promotes play which is less risky which directly equals to less fun (for people who realize this mechanic is in the game).
Here's one situation: marines are incoming to your hive, you'll have the highest res on the team at 44 res and your team need a fade to have a chance at thwarting the attack.
You can take a chance with your skulk and delay/kill the marines from getting a phase, but at the same time you're likely to get one shotted by a shotgun and delaying the fade, so the only option would be to go somewhere safe and wait, this is not fun.
This may be a bad example but what I'm trying to say is you should not be punished by not receiving res by risking dying by attacking marines are playing the game - it's wrong that the AFKer in the hive has the most res and has contributed nothing the to game.
So to suggest something, so this isn't just a rant - Aliens gain a buff to pres generated for 10/15 seconds after getting a kill (the final amount gained would be determined on the team rts, but would essentially equal +0.1 / 2.0 res (I pulled these numbers from my ass, would need balancing). This would possibly promote more hit and run guerrilla warfare.
Or add this mechanic onto Hypermutation so it would be a valid tac to get to this first so aliens generate more res over the course of the game.
The problem with no res when dead is that there is no redeeming factor. As you said, its reward for being cautious, but without an upper bound. In terms of res flow, the most efficient course of action is to take no action at all. I mean, in the end, you can only lose, right?
The counter balance is some notion of "territory" or team "progression" that you need to protect. However no player can really know the value of this abstract concept, and therefore can't really make an educated decision on whether or not to take the risk. Basically at the moment its just a punishment for dying. It doesn't change what you do at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1995517:date=Oct 23 2012, 01:37 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Oct 23 2012, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995517"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is fine, because I remember RFK in NS1 and I basically just ran around like mad because I wanted the Onos...
People on here say that people will not attack making the game less fun, but this is not how it happens in game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not a matter of people not attacking. I am perfectly aware that the best option is to not attack at all, but I still do. The problem I see is that it doesn't accomplish its goal. I assume the goal of no res while dead is to create some sort of value system for ones life, and to question whether or not attacking is the best option. It is ultimately meant to altar the perception of the skulk being a suicide attacker, and promote hit and run tactics, and as I said, it doesn't accomplish this goal. This is because on the one hand, people have the res they will lose while they are dead. A shaky number which can only really be attributed a rough average. On the other hand, a player must consider the territory they may lose if they don't take action, and assign a value to it. This value is even shakier than the previous, and is completely unknowable.
Thus players are asked to make a decision based on two choices they know almost nothing about, essentially reducing the weighting of each choice to zero, as they cancel each other out. Thus you are left with players making the exact same decision they would have made anyway, however there hangs this arbitrary punishment over their head. Players should never be punished for their action, there should only be incentives to encourage diverse choices.
What about: <ul><li>RFK is split among the team while the one with the last hit gets a bonus.</li><li>Amount of RFK depends on the worth of the victim: -> No res for LMG/Skulk, little res (3-5) for mid tier, some res for oni/exos (6-10)</li></ul>
<!--quoteo(post=1995531:date=Oct 23 2012, 02:08 PM:name=bERt0r)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bERt0r @ Oct 23 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about: <ul><li>RFK is split among the team while the one with the last hit gets a bonus.</li><li>Amount of RFK depends on the worth of the victim: -> No res for LMG/Skulk, little res (3-5) for mid tier, some res for oni/exos (6-10)</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't this put a little to much emphasis on a single event? I mean, losing an Onos is already a big enough blow, you don't need to add insult to injury by speeding up the production of the next Exo.
Assuming you get 10 res for an onos kill and you play in a 6v6. The 10 res is split among the team (pres), for example 1 res for each member + 4 for the one who fragged. You'd have to kill a lot of oni to get an exo. I wouldn't give teamres for kills so the research still has to be financed by resnodes and build timings would stay the same. RFK should have more of a cosmetic character, rewarding players instead of being an important balance factor.
<!--quoteo(post=1995523:date=Oct 23 2012, 12:55 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 23 2012, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not a matter of people not attacking. I am perfectly aware that the best option is to not attack at all, but I still do. The problem I see is that it doesn't accomplish its goal. I assume the goal of no res while dead is to create some sort of value system for ones life, and to question whether or not attacking is the best option. It is ultimately meant to altar the perception of the skulk being a suicide attacker, and promote hit and run tactics, and as I said, it doesn't accomplish this goal. This is because on the one hand, people have the res they will lose while they are dead. A shaky number which can only really be attributed a rough average. On the other hand, a player must consider the territory they may lose if they don't take action, and assign a value to it. This value is even shakier than the previous, and is completely unknowable.
Thus players are asked to make a decision based on two choices they know almost nothing about, essentially reducing the weighting of each choice to zero, as they cancel each other out. Thus you are left with players making the exact same decision they would have made anyway, however there hangs this arbitrary punishment over their head. Players should never be punished for their action, there should only be incentives to encourage diverse choices.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I mean was, people don't think about it like that. They just attack.
I don't see players in competitive games not attacking one another because they might miss out on res, so you are even less likely to see it in public games. It may happen at some level, but not when you need to defend and/or take territory to gain resources.
If there is an issue of players not seeing that they are losing out on res, then that just needs to be shown. Such as a +1 with a line through it everytime you are awarded res when you are dead.
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
Nice list necro! I know there is more to add to it too after years of debate.
Simply put: there are too many downsides to ever use RFK over another alternative. (but as I said before and as necro repeated these mechanics seek to treat the symptoms, not the cause - improper soft RPS implementations - solve the cause and you wont need them.)
Biggest problem with that list is that every single point goes back to the same basic issue, which is that bad players suffer more under a RFK style system...
Promoting turtling has slight merit to it, but honestly does the ability to recap weapons for 30 seconds after death and be healed to full health by an armory in 7 seconds not promote that even more then a small RFK?
Not to mention that the basics for his argument assume that the RFK amount would be considerable, most people that suggest it for NS2 (including myself) i think want an amount that is quite small (im talking .5 pres per kill or LESS). This amount is enough to break up lifeforms like no pres when dead, reward good play over camping in base, and not be significant enough to give massive advantages to good players. Honestly if you managed to get 100 kills with a single fade I highly doubt that you wouldnt be able to afford 2 new fades at that point already without the RFK.
Lets remove Resource Towers and Harvesters and JUST use RFK!!!
Oh wait its already been done, if you want RFK go play Combat... Then have a nice rage at the new person on your team for Feeding the other team EXP... Then you will realize why RFK is bad.
Edit: For the Record I dislike RFD as well, same issue.
I don't see how some people can be so vocally against the RFK system and be totally okay with the terrible RFD (no res while dead) system that's in the game currently. The RFD system has so many more negative aspects than RFK would.
<!--quoteo(post=1995740:date=Oct 23 2012, 10:06 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Oct 23 2012, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not to mention that the basics for his argument assume that the RFK amount would be considerable, most people that suggest it for NS2 (including myself) i think want an amount that is quite small (im talking .5 pres per kill or LESS). This amount is enough to break up lifeforms like no pres when dead, reward good play over camping in base, and not be significant enough to give massive advantages to good players. Honestly if you managed to get 100 kills with a single fade I highly doubt that you wouldnt be able to afford 2 new fades at that point already without the RFK.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the amount is enough to be noticeable, then it is too much. If it is enough to be less than noticeable, then why is it in the game?
<!--quoteo(post=1995743:date=Oct 23 2012, 09:09 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Oct 23 2012, 09:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how some people can be so vocally against the RFK system and be totally okay with the terrible RFD (no res while dead) system that's in the game currently. The RFD system has so many more negative aspects than RFK would.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This.
<!--quoteo(post=1995765:date=Oct 24 2012, 08:16 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 24 2012, 08:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the amount is enough to be noticeable, then it is too much. If it is enough to be less than noticeable, then why is it in the game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People are talking about an additional system that adds very subtle depth by allowing good players to reduce the timings on lifeforms by reasonable ammounts (say 30 seconds to a minute on a fade depending on kills). So really, the answer to your dilemna is yes it is noticeable, but only in the context of very tight min/maxing which you see only in competitive 6 v 6. Is 45ish seconds 'too much'? Even without rfk you'll see good players get lifeforms earlier than new players simply because they evolve at 30/50/75 pres on the dot. The whole comparison between good and bad players in the context of a well tweaked rfk system is largely irrelevant.
Considering we have the ability to drop tres lifeform eggs, a <b>pres fade</b> (not tres fade) coming out 40ish seconds earlier than normal pres fade (assuming someone gets like 20 kills in 5 minutes) isn't exactly as game breaking as you make it sound. Why are people opposed to slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of good play being rewarded, but not slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of a tres strategy?
On the topic of snowballing, xdragon has rightly pointed out good players don't exactly benefit from rfk post-lifeform and spend less pres on marine weapons overall anyway. The 'snowballing effect' is an example of a seemingly intuitive conclusion that is actually quite flawed.
<!--quoteo(post=1995040:date=Oct 22 2012, 01:49 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Oct 22 2012, 01:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1995040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because this discussion hasn't happened a hundred times on here, or anything...
RFK snowballs good players into unstoppable killing machine and mudslides bad ones into active hindrances to their team. If you want resources, complete the objective of keeping your damn towers alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue with the current system that MANY people have pointed out is that it promotes cautious play. Why play risky if by dying in combat you lose rez? You guys talk as if bad players don't get snowballed on? Let me ask you this. Do bad players spend more time dead than good players ? Why yes they do, by quite a large margin. To the extent that I've seen RIDICULOUS gaps in rez between alien players and its not due to purchased life forms.
Everyone keeps bringing up this idea of snowballing as a counterargument to RFK, that it punishes new players to drastically to be implemented. The problem with this logic is that new players are already slammed because they are already down resources. They are the ones playing aggressive going for kills and ignoring objectives. Meanwhile, the good players sit by rez nodes, make siege pushes and accumulate a far greater amount of rez.
I have changed my idea for RFK based off many comments here. Instead of giving RFK I think it should give Rez for being in combat. Like I mentioned before it should not be based off a "Last Hit Mechanic" but instead a proximity to the kill. Is an onos not more effective with a gorge right next to him ? Instead this promotes TEAM PLAY. Instead of having newer players running off all by themself to die immediately it rewards them for sticking in PAIRS or Threesomes because they benefit more from eachother. This in turn will greatly benefit pub players mind sets as team players and even possibly close the gap between what is seen in a competitive game vs in a pub game (Not saying that it will be anywhere near the caliber, but it could be a nice side effect).
The current system instead promotes passive game play and slow sieges which punish aggressive game play from Aliens because they are forced to defend Hives. As an example I'd like to bring up a massive reform League of Legends did. At the end of season one they noticed that the passivity of bot lane, a straight farm lane, was incredibly dull to watch and participate in for players as well. To counter this they massively nerfed the sustain the support could give to a carry. This in turn created a much more dynamic bot lane that wasn't punished for making risks knowing that it could just be healed. This change was HUGE, game changing, but necessary. It helped reward the players for skill and risk and created a much better game balance for spectators and players alike.
I know League of Legends and Natural Selection 2 are completely different games. However that is a clear example of developers noticing a forced passivity due to game mechanics that ultimately hurt the players ability to be aggressive and the spectators enjoyment of the game.
This discussion has brought up a lot of important factors with the RFK problem. I hope that people who read this thread will consider the idea of Rez For Team Based Combat and give me insight on why it would/wouldn't work and any changes you think would need to be made.
I'd like to point out that the no res while dead affects aliens far more than marines.
Aliens go into a repeated 12 second countdowns if there are no eggs and stay dead for longer.
Marines spawn regardless and have a small window to obtain res compared to aliens when their spawn is rushed. Granted it's a small window but it's there.
I am particularly proud of Xenocide being nerfed so that you cant bite whilst xeno is active <u><b>AND</b></u> the fact that Xenocide leaves you dead (not gaining any resources) when the <u><b>only reason you are using xenocide in the firstplace</b></u> is because its the end of the game and you <b><u>cant afford any other lifeforms.</u></b>
surely its easy enough to make a mod to do what you're after -- I don't like the idea of rez for kills personally, but its not like its an impossibility with the allowance of mods --- setup a server with the game how you want it to be and go nuts! if it's good people will join you
Comments
What?
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not think that you can tell people what does and doesn't make sense.
Read that again. Then read your post :-) .
Good players would steamroll even more the bad players ( with quicker better tech )
and the worst of all it would raise anger against bad players for "feeding" the other team.
With RFK not only bad players would be frustrated they would also blamed by the good players of their team for dyign too often.
<u>Res For Kills:</u>
This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive.
<b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul>
<b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)
<u>Res For Kills:</u>
This has been discussed to death several times. The outcome was every-time, that there are simply more negative aspects than positive.
<b>Positive</b><ul><li>Weakens the undesired tech explosion (tech explosion = Every player gets higher tier tech at the same time. But is only a treat for the symptom of missing RPS-mechanics.)</li><li>Creates an additional reward for the player who achieved the last hit on an enemy (Is only really positive if the scoring system is changed, so the player who did the most damage gets the kill. Also there was consensus, that the strategical reward for the team is already enough and encourages the team-play spirit.)</li><li>Most people hate predictable games. (That's when you can tell what team will win after only 5 minutes, but the game drags on for 15 or 30 minutes anyway.) One could argue, that RFK would speed up the winning of the already winning team, by giving them more p-res.</li></ul>
<b>Negative</b><ul><li>It further increases the distance between good and bad players. -> Snowballing (Extreme-example: a good player can rack up enough kills to go fade early and with the fade he is so powerful that this good player will never have to play skulk again in this round, because he always gets enough kills to buy a new fade.)</li><li>In a ranged-VS-melee game the ranged team has the option to defend / turtle and rack up kills without dieing. The melee team is always forced to get up close and risk death and therefor feeding the enemy team. (With a team where the default-alien is a suicide-runner, RFK is very biased to favor the other team. This effect is always been underestimated. Aliens simply have no choice to play defensive and at the same time racking up kills. Marines have this choice.)</li><li>It has the potential to create more hate towards bad players, because they hurt the team with dieing / feeding. (Has happened in NS1! And just look at the dota / lol community, where bad players can easily drag down the team.)</li><li>It increases the viability of turtle-strategies. Even if it is p-res-for-kill in NS2 instead of how it was in NS1, this will lead to more marine-base-turtles. Because a marine that is defending a base is highly effective in racking up kills (Remember, the aliens need to get into the base and risk their lifes to make damage.) He can not only heal at the armory in the shortest possible time, he is nearly assured to collect his weapon after dieing. And there is mostly more than one player in the base helping to shoot at aliens. Hive defending aliens doesn't have nearly the advantages a turtling marine team has.</li><li>By increasing the gap between good and bad players you didn't only get the mentioned snowballing for the good players, you also decrease the bad players chance of getting the better players down, because of the p-res-distance of this 2 kinds of players. Leading into a more frustrating experience for bad players (Additional to the frustration of dieing!) that in no way justifies the gained reward for the better player.</li><li>While the last positive point from the list above may be true, it comes with a cost. Most people like games with fair and skill-balanced teams, where you can't tell which team will win in the end. As mentioned, RFK will increase the difference between good and bad players. Therefor it is more difficult to get games where both teams are equally skilled, because even little differences in skill snowball fast, the longer the game plays. In the end it will decrease the probability of having exciting games with evenly skilled teams.</li><li>RFK has created the incentive for good players to screw team play and go rambo in NS1. This damages the teamplay-focused gameplay of the RTS part and even more badly teaches the players, that it is ok to go rambo and play for yourself, instead of focusing on incentives for teamplay.</li></ul>No claim that this lists are complete.
So: No, RFK would hurt the game more than it does for it. And for what? Ask yourself if you really need this additional reward on top of what you already got. And you will come to the conclusion, that it isn't simply worth it. The only kind of this incarnation I can see work, would be a researchable upgrade for the skulk (and only for them!). That allows skulks to "eat" dead marines to get 1pres. (The catch would be, that you would need to spend a short time at the marine corpse, so it comes with the cost of being vulnerable.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree with most of the negative points.
EDIT: You sound like it has really been tested in the beta - it was in some patches and it was just the same model like in NS1, the performance was bad and balance not good. There was never a real motivation to try it out seriously, with tweaks to the system etc.
with 10 kills, he gets only 1 more res
Here's one situation: marines are incoming to your hive, you'll have the highest res on the team at 44 res and your team need a fade to have a chance at thwarting the attack.
You can take a chance with your skulk and delay/kill the marines from getting a phase, but at the same time you're likely to get one shotted by a shotgun and delaying the fade, so the only option would be to go somewhere safe and wait, this is not fun.
This may be a bad example but what I'm trying to say is you should not be punished by not receiving res by risking dying by attacking marines are playing the game - it's wrong that the AFKer in the hive has the most res and has contributed nothing the to game.
So to suggest something, so this isn't just a rant - Aliens gain a buff to pres generated for 10/15 seconds after getting a kill (the final amount gained would be determined on the team rts, but would essentially equal +0.1 / 2.0 res (I pulled these numbers from my ass, would need balancing). This would possibly promote more hit and run guerrilla warfare.
Or add this mechanic onto Hypermutation so it would be a valid tac to get to this first so aliens generate more res over the course of the game.
Food for though.
<b>The only difference between the systems is that you are either:
<i>Rewarded for taking a risk.
Rewarded for being cautious.</i></b>
In a team game like this, would you rather see 3 skulks attacking a marine? Or people ramboing to get as much res as possible?
I think it is fine.
The counter balance is some notion of "territory" or team "progression" that you need to protect. However no player can really know the value of this abstract concept, and therefore can't really make an educated decision on whether or not to take the risk. Basically at the moment its just a punishment for dying. It doesn't change what you do at all.
People on here say that people will not attack making the game less fun, but this is not how it happens in game.
People on here say that people will not attack making the game less fun, but this is not how it happens in game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not a matter of people not attacking. I am perfectly aware that the best option is to not attack at all, but I still do. The problem I see is that it doesn't accomplish its goal. I assume the goal of no res while dead is to create some sort of value system for ones life, and to question whether or not attacking is the best option. It is ultimately meant to altar the perception of the skulk being a suicide attacker, and promote hit and run tactics, and as I said, it doesn't accomplish this goal. This is because on the one hand, people have the res they will lose while they are dead. A shaky number which can only really be attributed a rough average. On the other hand, a player must consider the territory they may lose if they don't take action, and assign a value to it. This value is even shakier than the previous, and is completely unknowable.
Thus players are asked to make a decision based on two choices they know almost nothing about, essentially reducing the weighting of each choice to zero, as they cancel each other out. Thus you are left with players making the exact same decision they would have made anyway, however there hangs this arbitrary punishment over their head. Players should never be punished for their action, there should only be incentives to encourage diverse choices.
<ul><li>RFK is split among the team while the one with the last hit gets a bonus.</li><li>Amount of RFK depends on the worth of the victim: -> No res for LMG/Skulk, little res (3-5) for mid tier, some res for oni/exos (6-10)</li></ul>
<ul><li>RFK is split among the team while the one with the last hit gets a bonus.</li><li>Amount of RFK depends on the worth of the victim: -> No res for LMG/Skulk, little res (3-5) for mid tier, some res for oni/exos (6-10)</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't this put a little to much emphasis on a single event? I mean, losing an Onos is already a big enough blow, you don't need to add insult to injury by speeding up the production of the next Exo.
RFK should have more of a cosmetic character, rewarding players instead of being an important balance factor.
Thus players are asked to make a decision based on two choices they know almost nothing about, essentially reducing the weighting of each choice to zero, as they cancel each other out. Thus you are left with players making the exact same decision they would have made anyway, however there hangs this arbitrary punishment over their head. Players should never be punished for their action, there should only be incentives to encourage diverse choices.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I mean was, people don't think about it like that. They just attack.
I don't see players in competitive games not attacking one another because they might miss out on res, so you are even less likely to see it in public games. It may happen at some level, but not when you need to defend and/or take territory to gain resources.
If there is an issue of players not seeing that they are losing out on res, then that just needs to be shown. Such as a +1 with a line through it everytime you are awarded res when you are dead.
I know there is more to add to it too after years of debate.
Simply put: there are too many downsides to ever use RFK over another alternative. (but as I said before and as necro repeated these mechanics seek to treat the symptoms, not the cause - improper soft RPS implementations - solve the cause and you wont need them.)
Promoting turtling has slight merit to it, but honestly does the ability to recap weapons for 30 seconds after death and be healed to full health by an armory in 7 seconds not promote that even more then a small RFK?
Not to mention that the basics for his argument assume that the RFK amount would be considerable, most people that suggest it for NS2 (including myself) i think want an amount that is quite small (im talking .5 pres per kill or LESS). This amount is enough to break up lifeforms like no pres when dead, reward good play over camping in base, and not be significant enough to give massive advantages to good players. Honestly if you managed to get 100 kills with a single fade I highly doubt that you wouldnt be able to afford 2 new fades at that point already without the RFK.
Oh wait its already been done, if you want RFK go play Combat...
Then have a nice rage at the new person on your team for Feeding the other team EXP...
Then you will realize why RFK is bad.
Edit: For the Record I dislike RFD as well, same issue.
If the amount is enough to be noticeable, then it is too much. If it is enough to be less than noticeable, then why is it in the game?
This.
People are talking about an additional system that adds very subtle depth by allowing good players to reduce the timings on lifeforms by reasonable ammounts (say 30 seconds to a minute on a fade depending on kills). So really, the answer to your dilemna is yes it is noticeable, but only in the context of very tight min/maxing which you see only in competitive 6 v 6. Is 45ish seconds 'too much'? Even without rfk you'll see good players get lifeforms earlier than new players simply because they evolve at 30/50/75 pres on the dot. The whole comparison between good and bad players in the context of a well tweaked rfk system is largely irrelevant.
Considering we have the ability to drop tres lifeform eggs, a <b>pres fade</b> (not tres fade) coming out 40ish seconds earlier than normal pres fade (assuming someone gets like 20 kills in 5 minutes) isn't exactly as game breaking as you make it sound. Why are people opposed to slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of good play being rewarded, but not slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of a tres strategy?
On the topic of snowballing, xdragon has rightly pointed out good players don't exactly benefit from rfk post-lifeform and spend less pres on marine weapons overall anyway. The 'snowballing effect' is an example of a seemingly intuitive conclusion that is actually quite flawed.
RFK snowballs good players into unstoppable killing machine and mudslides bad ones into active hindrances to their team. If you want resources, complete the objective of keeping your damn towers alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
win
Everyone keeps bringing up this idea of snowballing as a counterargument to RFK, that it punishes new players to drastically to be implemented. The problem with this logic is that new players are already slammed because they are already down resources. They are the ones playing aggressive going for kills and ignoring objectives. Meanwhile, the good players sit by rez nodes, make siege pushes and accumulate a far greater amount of rez.
I have changed my idea for RFK based off many comments here. Instead of giving RFK I think it should give Rez for being in combat. Like I mentioned before it should not be based off a "Last Hit Mechanic" but instead a proximity to the kill. Is an onos not more effective with a gorge right next to him ? Instead this promotes TEAM PLAY. Instead of having newer players running off all by themself to die immediately it rewards them for sticking in PAIRS or Threesomes because they benefit more from eachother. This in turn will greatly benefit pub players mind sets as team players and even possibly close the gap between what is seen in a competitive game vs in a pub game (Not saying that it will be anywhere near the caliber, but it could be a nice side effect).
The current system instead promotes passive game play and slow sieges which punish aggressive game play from Aliens because they are forced to defend Hives. As an example I'd like to bring up a massive reform League of Legends did. At the end of season one they noticed that the passivity of bot lane, a straight farm lane, was incredibly dull to watch and participate in for players as well. To counter this they massively nerfed the sustain the support could give to a carry. This in turn created a much more dynamic bot lane that wasn't punished for making risks knowing that it could just be healed. This change was HUGE, game changing, but necessary. It helped reward the players for skill and risk and created a much better game balance for spectators and players alike.
I know League of Legends and Natural Selection 2 are completely different games. However that is a clear example of developers noticing a forced passivity due to game mechanics that ultimately hurt the players ability to be aggressive and the spectators enjoyment of the game.
This discussion has brought up a lot of important factors with the RFK problem. I hope that people who read this thread will consider the idea of Rez For Team Based Combat and give me insight on why it would/wouldn't work and any changes you think would need to be made.
Thanks! :D I put a lot of time into this.
Aliens go into a repeated 12 second countdowns if there are no eggs and stay dead for longer.
Marines spawn regardless and have a small window to obtain res compared to aliens when their spawn is rushed.
Granted it's a small window but it's there.
I am particularly proud of Xenocide being nerfed so that you cant bite whilst xeno is active <u><b>AND</b></u> the fact that Xenocide leaves you dead (not gaining any resources) when the <u><b>only reason you are using xenocide in the firstplace</b></u> is because its the end of the game and you <b><u>cant afford any other lifeforms.</u></b>