Has a system of diminishing returns been discussed for RFK yet?
Something like in 1 life, first 2 kills are worth 1 Pres, the next 3 are worth .75 P.res, and after that, all kills are worth .5 Pres
This lets players who go 1:1 KDR still get a decent ammount of Pres, while still letting 20:0 players get a decent boost, but not enough to earn a free lifeform/JPshotgun on death.
Varying RFK ammounts might also help stagger tech explosions a bit as well.
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but there are far to many pages to this thread for me to feel confidant I read them all.
(maybe its time to open up a Balance Mod 2.0 thread?)
down side to diminishing returns is the ability to abuse... I kill 2 people, type kill myself, spawn with full health, go back kill 2 more people....
now this wouldn't work with a fade since no fade is going to type kill, but a fade who is 50-1 doesn't care if he has 60 or 100 res, he has enough for another fade
When a team runs out of pres its pretty much GG in most scenarios. The team that is winning has plenty of pres to spent and the resource flow for the losing team is simply not fast enough to allow you to replenish. This is not a bad thing since the winning team should have a decisive advantage but if the losing team manages to hold out and win some engagements - RFK would allow them to get the extra pres they need to make a possible comeback. That one extra shotgun and/or fade can make the world of difference.
down side to diminishing returns is the ability to abuse... I kill 2 people, type kill myself, spawn with full health, go back kill 2 more people....
now this wouldn't work with a fade since no fade is going to type kill, but a fade who is 50-1 doesn't care if he has 60 or 100 res, he has enough for another fade
I don't think this would be an issue. If a player was doing this, he would be effectively removeing a player from his team, meaning that the enemy would be at an advantage, and the time spent dead (I believe) would make killing yourself to reset the diminishing returns less than optimal in both Pres gain and map control.
As a similar note; some people said that marines would start typing "kill" to regain their armor when armories stopped repairing it.... I have yet to see a single marine do this in a real game. It is just simply more effective to remain alive and fight till the end.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@sewlek
While I still dislike the new cyst level for that it doesnt learn newbies how to place cysts, I will say your recent mod changes made it atleast work.
* I can no longer reproduce the inability to cyst in various places.
* I can fine place cysts again.
* Ill asume the other stuff you fixed is working as intended as I couldnt test that in a 1 person listenserver.
Well done.
2 points however I hope you will look into.
* can you put a range circle on non active cysts so its more easy to gamble there distance? Sometimes fine placement feels off due to it JUST being outside range, while fine placement is now fine.
* please look into implementing a mod menu with tabs or something so the dreaded list isnt so long.
Something I'm noticing is that people keep saying that RFK will help with comebacks... Let me just say that, in the current game, the only team that has a chance for a comeback is the marines. Marine turtles happen relatively often and, yes, RFK could help with a comeback. However, if that is one of the major reasons for RFK, then it needs to be possible for aliens to comeback as well (and I think that this needs to be worked on regardless of RFK or anything). ATM, as long as the marines don't royally screw up, the aliens have no chance of a comeback (or even a turtle) and RFK will do absolutely nothing for them.
As others have stated, I think that RFP is a much better system (although I still don't like it) since it's not just the crazy 50/0 fade or SGer that really benefits.
The argument that RFK would help a losing team doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the winning team would benefit from RFK more than the losing team? Simply because they have map control and so they can dictate when fights happen or don't happen? It sounds more like snowballing help for the winning team to me.
Worst case, people would hold back instead of risking something or go kill an RT deep in enemy territory, to "not give the enemy resources" (even if it's so little that it doesn't really matter). I don't think encouraging defensive play is a good idea. Sacrificing a Marine or Skulk is part of the game and should be rewarded (when meaningful), not punished. Especially new players are already afraid to die too much, instead of getting things done.
Personally I'm against RFanything, simply because it is an incentive to do anything else but teamwork. Be it kills, score, ... - people will just whore (if this word gets censored, it rhymes with "store") whatever it is instead of doing what they think is right without second thought. Same argument as against players stats.
The argument that RFK would help a losing team doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the winning team would benefit from RFK more than the losing team? Simply because they have map control and so they can dictate when fights happen or don't happen? It sounds more like snowballing help for the winning team to me.
Worst case, people would hold back instead of risking something or go kill an RT deep in enemy territory, to "not give the enemy resources" (even if it's so little that it doesn't really matter). I don't think encouraging defensive play is a good idea. Sacrificing a Marine or Skulk is part of the game and should be rewarded (when meaningful), not punished. Especially new players are already afraid to die too much, instead of getting things done.
Personally I'm against RFanything, simply because it is an incentive to do anything else but teamwork. Be it kills, score, ... - people will just whore whatever it is instead of doing what they think is right without second thought. Same argument as against players stats.
I honor your opinion, but keep in mind this is Balance TEST, so it is mainly to test new stuff. Imho RFK doesn't work in the way it was intended. So lets give RFP a chance and see how that works
@elodea Read sweleks note why he introduced the RFK System.
As others have stated, I think that RFP is a much better system (although I still don't like it) since it's not just the crazy 50/0 fade or SGer that really benefits.
This is not true and unjustly colours rfk as an elitist mechanic - rfk actually helps the newb fade more than the pro fade. As with your example, the 50/0 fade has nothing to spend his rfk pres on. He could have 0 or 100 pres, it makes no difference. Only the newb fade who dies benefits from this added rfk cushion.
As you can see, the 'skill bias' of rfk only comes into effect when the skill levels between teams are already somewhat even enough to result in the death of the 'pro fade'. And so this often repeated arguement in my opinion is kind of a red herring.
I agree a res for point, res for action kind of system is most likely better than rfk though.
the 50/0 fade has nothing to spend his rfk pres on. He could have 0 or 100 pres, it makes no difference. Only the newb fade who dies benefits from this added rfk cushion.
I hadn't considered that aspect of it.
Though, if nothing else, rfk would still be insurance for the pro fade. The suddenly dead pro fade (on 50/1) can go fade again much sooner than the suddenly dead newb fade.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited August 2013
@mouse
The thing to always remember about RFK is that its a double edged sword.
Basically, there are just as many upsides that can be found as downsides, and It will help just as much as it will hurt.
Its either ineffective at making big positive impacts in what it's trying to accomplish (tech explosions) or it comes with severe downsides (extreme slippery slopes and heros and timings etc)
I used to support it way back when, but after debating it to death in those days i found there are just better solutions than RFK - or at the very least, enough downsides to justify other alternatives to solving problems that would in someway benefit with the inclusion of RFK.
If the upsides and the downsides balance out, then I think the more abstract "game feel" comes out in favor of RFK/RFP. Having a real tangible reward for each time you succeed at something feels good. It feels better than when it's just "I know my team is in a better position now because of that kill." And in practice, I don't think the other guy getting res when you die feels bad for you, because it doesn't affect you very much on a personal level.
That good feeling of reward encourages more ramboing.. which is bad.
DO YOU SEE??
lol..
It doesn't balance out if you can use another solution that isn't riddled with downsides like RFK is...
That's why I favor RFP. But I don't think it's really that much of a problem. People who want to rambo already rambo, team players won't be corrupted by a few PRes here and there.
If anything it will punish ramboing more since rambo players tend to be picked out way more than players that are actually playing solid. Its the same be it a skilled player or not. A skilled player playing rambo has a higher chance of dieing than when grouped up with others. That is a fact.
Currently teams can do constant suicide rushes on resource towers without being punished at all for it, it creates more of a grind fest if anything rather than rewarding coordinated play. Some kind of RFK system makes each engagement more meaningful and for a tactical shooter I think its a very good thing.
Everyone will get the benefits from this, not only the experienced players. The issue with experienced players playing with players that are not good enough to compete is a separate issue and can be connected to every mechanic in the game. For example experienced marines with a shotgun or jetpack are much more effective with them than newer players, does that mean we should make everything equal so everyone could use it for the same effectiveness?
I think instead of focusing on the good player argument players should be focused on actual gameplay arguments. RFK has a lot of positives, probably some negatives as well. The focus should be bringing these facts to light.
If anything it will punish ramboing more since rambo players tend to be picked out way more than players that are actually playing solid. Its the same be it a skilled player or not. A skilled player playing rambo has a higher chance of dieing than when grouped up with others. That is a fact.
Currently teams can do constant suicide rushes on resource towers without being punished at all for it, it creates more of a grind fest if anything rather than rewarding coordinated play. Some kind of RFK system makes each engagement more meaningful and for a tactical shooter I think its a very good thing.
Everyone will get the benefits from this, not only the experienced players. The issue with experienced players playing with players that are not good enough to compete is a separate issue and can be connected to every mechanic in the game. For example experienced marines with a shotgun or jetpack are much more effective with them than newer players, does that mean we should make everything equal so everyone could use it for the same effectiveness?
I think instead of focusing on the good player argument players should be focused on actual gameplay arguments. RFK has a lot of positives, probably some negatives as well. The focus should be bringing these facts to light.
I think you are looking at this from the point of a competitive player. In Pubs anyone can rambo and dominate, it is really easy. In scrimms.... not so much.
I think you are looking at this from the point of a competitive player. In Pubs anyone can rambo and dominate, it is really easy. In scrimms.... not so much.
It is true that most people can dominate games alone but it always depends how experienced the other players you are playing with. If you are playing public with a lot of high end players it would probably be harder for you to go solo out of postition and still dominate. But if your skill is sufficient and way over the average on the server you would be able to do it.
That does not change the fact that a solo rambo player is easier to pick out rather than a group of marines. Be it public or competitive, its much harder to engage marines when they have strength in numbers.
RFP gives marines a great buff at first 5 min (our first fade was welcomed by 2 shotguns xd)
New tatics: gorge farm res for fast onus meanwhile one rine does the same for exo ...
Roundlegth stays the same, just more stuff at battlefield
1 round was won by aliens & 1 by marines
Skulk rush into base is now mostly imposible.
rfk creates a conflict of interest between individual goals and team goals
this isn't an issue in competitive play, because team goals will always take precedence
1) To win the game, you must kill the hives/ccs. 2) To kill the hives/ccs, you must kill the enemy players. 3) a. To kill the enemy players, you must get tres and map advantage in order to atleast match their RTS conferred power. b. To get tres and map advantage, you must kill enemy players
Please point out the conflict of interest for me. How do you win the game without killing players?
As for ramboing, grissi already summed that up quite nicely.
What is the problem that RFK is trying to be a solution for?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OvYDQvWmC7O9D-ILTMOTNTb6zQoRUOcByRYpYafW4y8/edit?pli=1
1) Better reward individual play. Help prevent over-extending and over-aggressiveness as a viable low risk, high reward gamble. Same kind of idea as rfd, but without the baggage.
2) Reduce tech explosion somewhat
3) More ability to comeback. That is, you can still come back from lost RTS game if you can kill the other team lots and outplay them FPS wise.
4) Remove tres eggs and tres drops which are problematic but addressed late game tres sinks. Replacing with rfk allows tres abilities (medpack, enzyme, etc.) to indirectly convert into pres through kills. More elegant than the straight tres to pres conversion button we had in early bt. None of the problems tres eggs have.
If RFK is implemented to solve that problem then the entire res model would have to be reworked to accomodate it. For one thing Aliens have to rely solely on RFK completely independent from RT pres production. Why? All RFK does (with current res model) is speed up Fade appearance even more in pub games. Guess who will get Fades first? So the people who can most likely dominate with Fade will be able to get Fade even faster while Fades will still appear even earlier thanks to RFK.
I know that some measure needs to be implemented thanks to the issue brought up with removing no resource while dead (which is generally agreed upon to be a dumb mechanic), but RFK with RT pres production ain't it. Sure RFK by itself will fix this issue no problem, but all that does is make the game even more difficult for average pub and new players (which seem to be a general trend around here).
The fundamental issue still lies with the current resource system and a band-aid solution such as RFK won't fix it. I mean who would have thought having all aliens gain resource all at the same time will cause problems like Fade balls? Nope not me!
rfk creates a conflict of interest between individual goals and team goals
this isn't an issue in competitive play, because team goals will always take precedence
1) To win the game, you must kill the hives/ccs. 2) To kill the hives/ccs, you must kill the enemy players. 3) a. To kill the enemy players, you must get tres and map advantage in order to atleast match their RTS conferred power. b. To get tres and map advantage, you must kill enemy players
Please point out the conflict of interest for me. How do you win the game without killing players?
Structures cost money. Players don't.
Players respawn for free. Structures don't.
Structures help the good players on the enemy team. Killing a bad player does very little in comparison.
There are lots of choices in this game. RFK encourages some choices over others.
What's best for your team isn't always best for your pres, and now players will have to make the choice
rfk creates a conflict of interest between individual goals and team goals
this isn't an issue in competitive play, because team goals will always take precedence
1) To win the game, you must kill the hives/ccs. 2) To kill the hives/ccs, you must kill the enemy players. 3) a. To kill the enemy players, you must get tres and map advantage in order to atleast match their RTS conferred power. b. To get tres and map advantage, you must kill enemy players
Please point out the conflict of interest for me. How do you win the game without killing players?
Structures cost money. Players don't.
Players respawn for free. Structures don't.
Structures help the good players on the enemy team. Killing a bad player does very little in comparison.
There are lots of choices in this game. RFK encourages some choices over others.
What's best for your team isn't always best for your pres, and now players will have to make the choice
I'm sorry. I really tried my best to make sense of what you are saying here several times over, especially the first part, but it remained beyond my understanding. Here are some questions I have for you that I hope you could perhaps clarify.
Yes, what is best for the team is not always best for your pres: if you are not spending your pres, that is obviously not good for your team. But we're not talking about pres in general are we? We're talking about pres from killing other players.
So, how is killing other players a bad choice to encourage? How does this work to the detriment of the team? Does this not encourage players to work together to maximise their chances of rfk and minimise their chances of giving away rfk? Does this not encourage commanders to pay more attention to how they are directing and supporting each and every player in their team?
Is discouraging players from killing other players bad for the team? Because this is effectively what you are suggesting when you say that rfk is worse than no rfk.
Comments
What if 4th hive unlocks 3 chambers (1 viel, 1 spur and 1 shell). Now we have 4 of each working...
4 viels -
--100% cloak
-- increase aura range
4 she'll
-- faster regen
--more cara
4 spurs
-- higher celerity
--- more adren
Something like in 1 life, first 2 kills are worth 1 Pres, the next 3 are worth .75 P.res, and after that, all kills are worth .5 Pres
This lets players who go 1:1 KDR still get a decent ammount of Pres, while still letting 20:0 players get a decent boost, but not enough to earn a free lifeform/JPshotgun on death.
Varying RFK ammounts might also help stagger tech explosions a bit as well.
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but there are far to many pages to this thread for me to feel confidant I read them all.
(maybe its time to open up a Balance Mod 2.0 thread?)
now this wouldn't work with a fade since no fade is going to type kill, but a fade who is 50-1 doesn't care if he has 60 or 100 res, he has enough for another fade
I don't think this would be an issue. If a player was doing this, he would be effectively removeing a player from his team, meaning that the enemy would be at an advantage, and the time spent dead (I believe) would make killing yourself to reset the diminishing returns less than optimal in both Pres gain and map control.
As a similar note; some people said that marines would start typing "kill" to regain their armor when armories stopped repairing it.... I have yet to see a single marine do this in a real game. It is just simply more effective to remain alive and fight till the end.
While I still dislike the new cyst level for that it doesnt learn newbies how to place cysts, I will say your recent mod changes made it atleast work.
* I can no longer reproduce the inability to cyst in various places.
* I can fine place cysts again.
* Ill asume the other stuff you fixed is working as intended as I couldnt test that in a 1 person listenserver.
Well done.
2 points however I hope you will look into.
* can you put a range circle on non active cysts so its more easy to gamble there distance? Sometimes fine placement feels off due to it JUST being outside range, while fine placement is now fine.
* please look into implementing a mod menu with tabs or something so the dreaded list isnt so long.
Thats.... odd. It did seem better. hmmm.
I even tested the same map & areas where I couldnt cyst before.
As others have stated, I think that RFP is a much better system (although I still don't like it) since it's not just the crazy 50/0 fade or SGer that really benefits.
Worst case, people would hold back instead of risking something or go kill an RT deep in enemy territory, to "not give the enemy resources" (even if it's so little that it doesn't really matter). I don't think encouraging defensive play is a good idea. Sacrificing a Marine or Skulk is part of the game and should be rewarded (when meaningful), not punished. Especially new players are already afraid to die too much, instead of getting things done.
Personally I'm against RFanything, simply because it is an incentive to do anything else but teamwork. Be it kills, score, ... - people will just whore (if this word gets censored, it rhymes with "store") whatever it is instead of doing what they think is right without second thought. Same argument as against players stats.
I honor your opinion, but keep in mind this is Balance TEST, so it is mainly to test new stuff. Imho RFK doesn't work in the way it was intended. So lets give RFP a chance and see how that works
@elodea Read sweleks note why he introduced the RFK System.
As you can see, the 'skill bias' of rfk only comes into effect when the skill levels between teams are already somewhat even enough to result in the death of the 'pro fade'. And so this often repeated arguement in my opinion is kind of a red herring.
I agree a res for point, res for action kind of system is most likely better than rfk though.
I hadn't considered that aspect of it.
Though, if nothing else, rfk would still be insurance for the pro fade. The suddenly dead pro fade (on 50/1) can go fade again much sooner than the suddenly dead newb fade.
The thing to always remember about RFK is that its a double edged sword.
Basically, there are just as many upsides that can be found as downsides, and It will help just as much as it will hurt.
Its either ineffective at making big positive impacts in what it's trying to accomplish (tech explosions) or it comes with severe downsides (extreme slippery slopes and heros and timings etc)
I used to support it way back when, but after debating it to death in those days i found there are just better solutions than RFK - or at the very least, enough downsides to justify other alternatives to solving problems that would in someway benefit with the inclusion of RFK.
DO YOU SEE??
lol..
It doesn't balance out if you can use another solution that isn't riddled with downsides like RFK is...
That's why I favor RFP. But I don't think it's really that much of a problem. People who want to rambo already rambo, team players won't be corrupted by a few PRes here and there.
Currently teams can do constant suicide rushes on resource towers without being punished at all for it, it creates more of a grind fest if anything rather than rewarding coordinated play. Some kind of RFK system makes each engagement more meaningful and for a tactical shooter I think its a very good thing.
Everyone will get the benefits from this, not only the experienced players. The issue with experienced players playing with players that are not good enough to compete is a separate issue and can be connected to every mechanic in the game. For example experienced marines with a shotgun or jetpack are much more effective with them than newer players, does that mean we should make everything equal so everyone could use it for the same effectiveness?
I think instead of focusing on the good player argument players should be focused on actual gameplay arguments. RFK has a lot of positives, probably some negatives as well. The focus should be bringing these facts to light.
I think you are looking at this from the point of a competitive player. In Pubs anyone can rambo and dominate, it is really easy. In scrimms.... not so much.
It is true that most people can dominate games alone but it always depends how experienced the other players you are playing with. If you are playing public with a lot of high end players it would probably be harder for you to go solo out of postition and still dominate. But if your skill is sufficient and way over the average on the server you would be able to do it.
That does not change the fact that a solo rambo player is easier to pick out rather than a group of marines. Be it public or competitive, its much harder to engage marines when they have strength in numbers.
Testing it now at my own server: Survival of the Fattest.
Edit so my notices after 2 rounds:
RFP gives marines a great buff at first 5 min (our first fade was welcomed by 2 shotguns xd)
New tatics: gorge farm res for fast onus meanwhile one rine does the same for exo ...
Roundlegth stays the same, just more stuff at battlefield
1 round was won by aliens & 1 by marines
Skulk rush into base is now mostly imposible.
Will see more tommorrow.
this isn't an issue in competitive play, because team goals will always take precedence
What is the problem that RFK is trying to be a solution for?
2) To kill the hives/ccs, you must kill the enemy players.
3)
a. To kill the enemy players, you must get tres and map advantage in order to atleast match their RTS conferred power.
b. To get tres and map advantage, you must kill enemy players
Please point out the conflict of interest for me. How do you win the game without killing players?
As for ramboing, grissi already summed that up quite nicely.
* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OvYDQvWmC7O9D-ILTMOTNTb6zQoRUOcByRYpYafW4y8/edit?pli=1
1) Better reward individual play. Help prevent over-extending and over-aggressiveness as a viable low risk, high reward gamble. Same kind of idea as rfd, but without the baggage.
2) Reduce tech explosion somewhat
3) More ability to comeback. That is, you can still come back from lost RTS game if you can kill the other team lots and outplay them FPS wise.
4) Remove tres eggs and tres drops which are problematic but addressed late game tres sinks. Replacing with rfk allows tres abilities (medpack, enzyme, etc.) to indirectly convert into pres through kills. More elegant than the straight tres to pres conversion button we had in early bt. None of the problems tres eggs have.
Marines are loosing at the moment more rounds because of e. g. early fade ball
If RFK is implemented to solve that problem then the entire res model would have to be reworked to accomodate it. For one thing Aliens have to rely solely on RFK completely independent from RT pres production. Why? All RFK does (with current res model) is speed up Fade appearance even more in pub games. Guess who will get Fades first? So the people who can most likely dominate with Fade will be able to get Fade even faster while Fades will still appear even earlier thanks to RFK.
I know that some measure needs to be implemented thanks to the issue brought up with removing no resource while dead (which is generally agreed upon to be a dumb mechanic), but RFK with RT pres production ain't it. Sure RFK by itself will fix this issue no problem, but all that does is make the game even more difficult for average pub and new players (which seem to be a general trend around here).
The fundamental issue still lies with the current resource system and a band-aid solution such as RFK won't fix it. I mean who would have thought having all aliens gain resource all at the same time will cause problems like Fade balls? Nope not me!
Structures cost money. Players don't.
Players respawn for free. Structures don't.
Structures help the good players on the enemy team. Killing a bad player does very little in comparison.
There are lots of choices in this game. RFK encourages some choices over others.
What's best for your team isn't always best for your pres, and now players will have to make the choice
Yes, what is best for the team is not always best for your pres: if you are not spending your pres, that is obviously not good for your team. But we're not talking about pres in general are we? We're talking about pres from killing other players.
So, how is killing other players a bad choice to encourage? How does this work to the detriment of the team? Does this not encourage players to work together to maximise their chances of rfk and minimise their chances of giving away rfk? Does this not encourage commanders to pay more attention to how they are directing and supporting each and every player in their team?
Is discouraging players from killing other players bad for the team? Because this is effectively what you are suggesting when you say that rfk is worse than no rfk.