• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Need Penalty for Death

asfhgwt said:
I haven't played long, but where is the penalty for getting killed? Everyone just re-spawns after a 15-second delay, so effectively everyone does whatever they want. There is no incentive to be cautious and stay alive. There is no teamwork or realistic tactics. Players just jump into tanks and kill one, then get killed themselves. No one cares a whit about their scores -- I know I don't -- so RO is just like every other game of its ilk: do your own thing, die, do it again. Sorry, but this is not fun.

I have been thinking of this too. A game or map where you can not just run around like some suicide bomber would be nice to try out.

On the 15 second delay, what is the point of the delay, just let us back in.
 
Upvote 0
The trouble is (as it has been and will continue to be) twofold:

1.) What one player's specific desires are regarding the approriate level of realism are not and should not be the barometer for how the game is designed. Ultimately, the devs have to find a balance point between listening to the community and ignoring it.

2.) It's a computer game. Thus, you will NEVER see real or even realistic suppression and tactical gameplay. There are real psychological reasons for this. For starters, no matter how harsh your in-game death penalty is, it ain't the same. If you screw up in the game, you don't really die. Thus, you have no reason to depend on your teammates, work together, or do anything other than just screw around unless you choose to do otherwise. Likewise, it's pretty hard to trust some random voice or name you see in a team list unless you play with them regularly. Can it happen? Sure. But building that kind of trust and cooperation between strangers without any real necessity to do so is the problem.

And because you'll never really die in the game, there IS no necessity to work together. Put simply, when you play this game, there is no "need". You don't NEED to win. you don't NEED to score even. The game is just that -- a game. A diversion. Something people do to occupy their time for a bit and then they'll move on. It cannot approximate warfare because warfare involves real need -- the need to survive, the need to take a particular poisition, the need for covering fire, the need to keep your head and ass down so they don't get shot off.

None of that can or will exist in a computer game. Ever. Nor should they.


My advice to those who get sick of ramboing:

- Join a clan. Play with regular teammates who know the drill, who help each other, and who offer real teammwork.

- Join a gaming community. It's less formal than a clan, but at least you play with the same guys often.

- Write a mutator. The core game is unlikely to change as far as death penalties go. You may, however, make a kickass mutator that some server will run which will become popular with a core group of people, and which thereby gives you exactly what you want without involving the devs.


But you won't change players' behavior in game by adding in tons of penalties, except perhaps to piss off and drive away people who might otherwise be inclined to CHOOSE to play (or who already do play) the way you want them to.
 
Upvote 0
Here, Solo has provided us with perfect examples of at least 2 of the generic, tired, and pointless counter-arguments I listed on page 8 of this thread.

3. Making the game any more realistic, no matter what- or how slight- the change, is going to definitely make the game less fun.

4. There is no way to make it perfectly realistic, so why try to improve the realism at all?

Thank you for adding nothing to this discussion.
 
Upvote 0
Wow... you're kinda' bitter eh'? I mean, sure, his mentality can be summed up into your "3 and 4" there. I don't think that's to say he didn't add anything though. He gave his perspective, and while I don't agree at all with him, it's still valid and pushes the debate along.

Chill out a bit. You don't have to slash at everyone who doesn't agree with you. Also, just because a "talking point" is repeated, doesn't mean it's any less valid. The reason why the "pointless counter-arguments" are commonly used is because the represent the "ONLY" counter-argument against a more realistic approach to RO; not saying they are very good ones but that is an opposing mindset we have to present our case against.

{WP}Paas
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, I might have been a bit snippy. I know the thread is kinda long now, but if people would bother to read it before posting, we might actually get somewhere.

A piece of good news: I read in another thread that the Afrika Corps mod that is upcoming is supposed to include a non-reinforced S&D-style game which is the most realistic style I'm familiar with. Maybe RO will take a hint and make some other game styles, too.
 
Upvote 0
Lighten up, man. I wasn't attacking you. I actually have bothered to read and contribute to this thread and it is basically going around in circles at this point. You say you want to make people play more realistically. I say they won't due to certain psychological factors and that changing the game will punish more people than it will help.

Actually, I tend to play the game the way you do, except in situations where my team absolutely REFUSES to get off their ass and push forward and SOMEONE has to do it or we lose the map. But I also just don't see how penalizing death itself is going to improve teamplay. You're making a leap that I don't think a lot of the players who are truly problem players will make.

You seem to believe the following:

1.) Players who rambo have no fear of death.
2.) Players who fear death will work together to avoid being killed.
3.) Ergo, making death have more of a sting will lead players who rambo to work together to avoid being killed.

I agree with one and two, but I don't think three follows necessarily. It's kind of like the old logical flaw of "All martians wear green sneakers, ergo all people wearing green sneakers are martians."

I think that yes, players who work together do so because (a) they fear death in game, and (b) they enjoy working together with others. Players who rambo feel neither (a) nor (b), by definition (that's what makes them rambo style players). Increasing the death penalty will not turn rambo players into players who will work together because neither (a) nor (b) will result from increasing the death penalty FOR RAMBO PLAYERS. All it will do is piss them off and make them leave the game.

At the same time, though, players who AREN'T rambo players, players who ALREADY work together when they can and who fear death, would ALSO become pissed off as a result of a drastically increased death penalty. Put simple, I don't think taking the "stick" approach to encouraging teamwork is going to actually succeed.

I would argue that you're slightly better off taking a "carrot" approach instead and REWARDING players for using good teamwork. Maybe through some change in the point system, maybe through slightly improved avatar performance (IE: to model morale similar to how we model suppression and fatigue), or something else. But a system that simply punishes everyone across the board will end up failing in its goals and succeeding only at pissing off the playerbase, or at least developing only a seriously niche following.

If you disagree, make a mutator that lets servers run One Life games where when you die, that's it. Game over. That's about as serious a death penalty as I can think of in-game. Although actually, given how people play counterstrike, I suspect you'll still see rambo-like behavior. But hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Solo4114 said:
If you disagree, make a mutator that lets servers run One Life games where when you die, that's it. Game over. That's about as serious a death penalty as I can think of in-game. Although actually, given how people play counterstrike, I suspect you'll still see rambo-like behavior. But hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong.

I don't think anyone is pushing for that level of extreme; anyone logical at least. Nor' is Counter-Strike a good measurement for anything. Sure, rounds are quick and you only get one life, but the mechanics of combat are completely flawed and outrageously innaccurate. You would have been better of comparing it to "Americas Army". Although, that game isn't very high on the reality totem pole either.

I agree with you for the most part. While I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in respawn times, I also don't think it would really accomplish what it set out to do. The best we can hope for if we are going to push a realistic direction is to eleminate the the small "reasonable" flaws that limit realism:

1. "Tip-o-Head shooting"
2. "Kill Reports"
3. "Insta switching into, and around vehicles"
4. "Allowing "Motion Blur" to be turned off" or "At least make the dimming effect worth a damn"
5. "Remove the "Score Screen" until the end of the round, or just show players and their repsectable classes on your side"

That's a start... Even with these changes though you will still have your 12yr old on his father's account who's going to blitz into death and love every minute of it; fact of life really. Yet, the incentive to do so will be completely gone. You won't know if your suicide nade worked, you won't know know if you have managed to silence and MG from over 200m, etc. etc.

{WP}Paas
 
Upvote 0
{WP}Paas said:
1. "Tip-o-Head shooting"
2. "Kill Reports"
3. "Insta switching into, and around vehicles"
4. "Allowing "Motion Blur" to be turned off" or "At least make the dimming effect worth a damn"
5. "Remove the "Score Screen" until the end of the round, or just show players and their repsectable classes on your side"
1. i do not know what that is?
2. i for me, i like and do not like this ideay... win im playing wath my gaming community..its sooo mach more fun knowing that i just killed Solo agine and git to raze him on TS about it(all in good fun of couse)... but thin all so i like the ideay of not killing al lthe time if u rilly killed the one on the uther side of the wall...... but all so i think it may it so more ppl will not move up.. and just sit and hide .. wach ppl do WAY to mach as it is... u cant win esay(if ur attking) win ur team just sit's arond... aver time i win as attker its b/c my team is all was moveing up togater...
3."Insta switching.. around vehicles" this can/ will make a big differnts... and i like to see it add... make one man tanking harder.. but thin agine u have to trust ur guner wach is ALL was fun....right....the non Insta switching into may look cool.. but not rilly add mach to the game play... i love to see it but not going to change mach
4.what is wrong wath Motion Blur? im sorry but i do not see u pont on that one?
5. this ideay i rilly like... great ideay.. cant see any thing bad about it and it can add somthing to the game play.. not mach but litte things add up:)

i cant rilly think of any thing more to add to this that have not bin sade... i think the game play and ponts need to be canged if any thing rilly is going to cang... mabey thats just me.....
 
Upvote 0
Harry S. Truman said:
In a game where dying is common, even among good players, it's a retartded idea to have any penalties associated with it.

So you think there should be no penalty at all for death? Like, when you die, it just says "You just died" on the screen, but you get to keep on playing as if nothing at all happened?

Why do I even respond to some of these posts?

Having to respawn is a penalty for death. Not much of one, but it is a penalty. Maybe dying would be LESS COMMON if people tried harder to avoid it!

BTW, it's retarded to spell retarded the wrong way.
 
Upvote 0
{WP}Paas said:
I don't think anyone is pushing for that level of extreme; anyone logical at least. Nor' is Counter-Strike a good measurement for anything. Sure, rounds are quick and you only get one life, but the mechanics of combat are completely flawed and outrageously innaccurate. You would have been better of comparing it to "Americas Army". Although, that game isn't very high on the reality totem pole either.

I agree with you for the most part. While I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in respawn times, I also don't think it would really accomplish what it set out to do. The best we can hope for if we are going to push a realistic direction is to eleminate the the small "reasonable" flaws that limit realism:

1. "Tip-o-Head shooting"
2. "Kill Reports"
3. "Insta switching into, and around vehicles"
4. "Allowing "Motion Blur" to be turned off" or "At least make the dimming effect worth a damn"
5. "Remove the "Score Screen" until the end of the round, or just show players and their repsectable classes on your side"

That's a start... Even with these changes though you will still have your 12yr old on his father's account who's going to blitz into death and love every minute of it; fact of life really. Yet, the incentive to do so will be completely gone. You won't know if your suicide nade worked, you won't know know if you have managed to silence and MG from over 200m, etc. etc.

{WP}Paas

See, those are all great suggestions and I agree with them wholeheartedly. All would be welcome additions to the game. I freely admit that I turn off motion blur in favor of the less punishing dimming effect, but I wouldn't mind if it increased in how much it dims the screen. I also wholeheartedly agree with no personal scores until the end of the match and no kill messages. These seem like relatively small things to add, also, so they'd be worth the development time, even if they were just added as server variables.

Like you said, it won't stop Jimmy Smacktard from racing around like a lunatic, but it'll make it incrementally harder for him to do it successfully, while the players who already play cautiously and play smart won't feel the sting.
 
Upvote 0
Nifel said:
The penalties of Death are already in the game, and they work very well.

- For each time you die your team reinforcements go down. So if you die more, on the average, than your enemy, chances are you will lose due to that. That is even more true on maps where you have to rush the enemy, like on odessa, you die alot more and if you can't do it fast enough you will lose due to the same reasons.

- When capping, stay alive and you take the objective. Die and chances are you won't take it in time and your cap-squad will we wiped out.

- If you have a good position and die, it will take time for you to get back and when you finally get there the enemy might have overrun it since you are not there to hold them back.

There are more reasons not to die I am sure, but these 3 points are more than enough for me not wanting to die. You don't really need more than that.

I totally agree on these three points, the system works well the way it is now. It is sooo boring having to run the entire way to the objective, just to get killed again for playing Rambo. Also, if there are mature players they'll be carefull not to grind down the reinforcements to much by dying. I don't know how many times my team has lost due to running out of reinforcements... so there are plenty of reasons to try staying alive, but at the same time going for the cap zones.
 
Upvote 0
asfhgwt said:
I haven't played long, but where is the penalty for getting killed? Everyone just re-spawns after a 15-second delay, so effectively everyone does whatever they want. There is no incentive to be cautious and stay alive. There is no teamwork or realistic tactics. Players just jump into tanks and kill one, then get killed themselves. No one cares a whit about their scores -- I know I don't -- so RO is just like every other game of its ilk: do your own thing, die, do it again. Sorry, but this is not fun.
As if we don't already have enough trouble getting people to advance on assault maps.
 
Upvote 0
The problem with getting people to advance on assault maps (a problem that I rarely see happening, personally) is a result of the game design/ objective being flawed. People want to win. If they understand how to win, they will do that.

If that involves hiding, they will hide. If that involves advancing in a realistic, team-based, tactical way, they will do that.

Change the system and you change the way people play. Period.
 
Upvote 0
lATENT_c said:
a problem that I rarely see happening, personally

then you probably switch to the winning side all the time because i realy dont see how you can miss it. when the defending even somewhat outmatches the attacking team the attacking side grinds to a halt and more then half the team starts holding back.

the only reason it dusn't happen more is that most experianced players prefer playing attack.
 
Upvote 0
lATENT_c said:
The problem with getting people to advance on assault maps (a problem that I rarely see happening, personally) is a result of the game design/ objective being flawed. People want to win. If they understand how to win, they will do that.

If that involves hiding, they will hide. If that involves advancing in a realistic, team-based, tactical way, they will do that.

Change the system and you change the way people play. Period.

Your conclusion flows from your premise, but your premise is flawed.

You say people want to win, and if they know how, that's what they'll do. That's your premise. I disagree with this.

I think people want to have fun first and foremost. The activities that they find fun, however, may differ from person to person.

For some people, fun = winning first and foremost. Thus, all actions that they take in game will focus on doing what is required for their team to win.

For other people, getting a high score = fun, regardless of who wins or loses. In some games this gets taken to the extreme where people "scorewhore" their way to the top of the list -- repeating whatever action is necessary to get more points. Luckily, the people who like getting points and the people who want their team to win have coinciding mechanisms for acheiving their different goals. You get a high score by helping your team win (capping points, resupplying MGs, killing enemies). You win by doing basically the same thing, but capping points most of all (hence the fact that it gets the most points). If all you want is points, you'll go and cap positions to get them, and your team will win.

For other people, getting kills (not points, just kills) is what they find fun. There's a subset of folks like this who also care primarily about their K/D ratio. For them, the points are incidental. Winning is incidental. ALL that matters is getting a kill (and not dying), or at least that matters to them MORE than other things. The longer you stay alive, the more kills you can get. These are the people who hang back, EVEN WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE that you have to capture points to win. They simply don't care about winning -- they care about killing. The explosion of a tank or a death message is what spurs them on.

Finally, you have the "other" folks. For them, they want to be able to get kills, etc. but want to do it FAST. RO is not fast. It's deliberate. There are moments where things move quickly, but RO's pace is much slower than most other FPS games out there. Then there's the folks who derive fun from ruining other people's games. These are the hackers, cheaters, TKers, etc.


The game already rewards what it takes to win. Get your ass in the cap zone. Kill the enemy. The enemy has a tougher time when you provide covering fire for teammates, and you tend to win more when you work as a team. The thing is, adding in rewards will only work for the people who desire points, or wins. The peopel who just want kills or just want to run around and shoot their guns or throw grenades (without even killing anyone) won't care. Unless you add in something like "Staying within 10m of your commander reduces the effect of suppression and makes your aim more steady", you can't really reward teamwork. Plus, there's always ways people will find to play the game the way you don't want them to play. Let's say they added the "morale boost" thing I mentioned -- what's to stop the commander and everyone else from STILL ramboing around? Or from hanging back on their asses sniping away while the clock ticks down?

Regardless, the point here hasn't been about REWARDS, but rather about PENALTIES. It's fine to add in all manner of rewards. I'm for that, assuming it won't kill game performance. But adding in PENALTIES doesn't equal adding a reward. They're two drastically different things. If you penalize someone, it doesn't encourage them to do something. It DISCOURAGES them from doing the thing they did right before the penalty was imposed.

If your dog sniffs at the trashcan and every time he does you yell "NO!" or whack him with a rolled up newspaper, he won't sniff the trashcan. He will not, however, learn to roll over at the same time. This is why penalties won't solve the problem you have.


The game's point system and reward AND penalty mechanisms are about as good as they can get. There's already a mutator out there that removes death messages. I believe it only lets you see the list of people on the scoreboard, and not the number of points they have, but I may be wrong. These things will help somewhat, but they won't REMOVE the things that tick you off about other folks in-game. The best advice I can give is get used to them and/or play on servers where there's a regular group of folks who get teamwork.
 
Upvote 0