if reinforcement pools stay shared among your team.

  • 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/

Slyk

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 17, 2006
1,277
10
0
www.after-hourz.com
Two suggestions/tweaks to the idea:
1. Limited number of spawns per role. This puts a premium on support roles, such as MGs surviving and of SLs taking care of themselves and having team member support each others positions.
2. Penalty spawns. The faster you die/the shorter your life, the longer the 'penalty time' that is added to the spawn wave. Maybe it's only a couple seconds but it slows down the maddening marauder who just runs blindly from death to death.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Two suggestions/tweaks to the idea:
1. Limited number of spawns per role. This puts a premium on support roles, such as MGs surviving and of SLs taking care of themselves and having team member support each others positions.
2. Penalty spawns. The faster you die/the shorter your life, the longer the 'penalty time' that is added to the spawn wave. Maybe it's only a couple seconds but it slows down the maddening marauder who just runs blindly from death to death.


Penalty spawns is something that I think could work really well. But it might not be liked by a lot of players.

I personally don't really like limited roles on public servers unless its on a per player basis. If the sniper can only spawn 10 times, the first sniper will just be the sniper for those 10 times even if he dies quickly and then when he runs out he'll grab something else. Resulting in a team without a sniper due to one person wasting all of the guns.

(But again in general for public play I'm against global reinf pools as it gives grievers too much power to ruin someone's game. I'm actually a big support of a global reinf pool and limited weaponry with clanplay for instance).
 
Last edited:

FlyXwire

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
589
65
0
Would it be too much to ask you to password your server, and play amongst yourselves if you find public servers so ruinous?
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Would it be too much to ask of you to actually read my posts and what i'm saying rather than implying and assuming statements that aren't in line with my thoughts or sayings.

I like stability in systems, so everything is balanced even after there is a disturbance like an some griever. I want to limit the damage a griever can do.
 
Last edited:

MaxxRedux

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 8, 2010
9
0
0
the problem is that those wasteful players will be out of the game too fast if they deplete a smaller pool of reinforcements just for themselves. so it may end up having a completely unbalanced team by the middle of the round and your team gets steamrolled just by numbers, because 4 guys depleted their lives too fast.

If I'm a careful player and I know I'm not gonna die much, my reinforcement pool will not be used, and would be a waste for the team, as I'd rather give it to the crazies to hold the frontline for a while longer.

:IS2:

Interesting point. If everybody is careful then you end the game with extra lives and possibly not sufficiently adventureous play. There's no guarantee the crazies who might be a necessary part of a fighting mix are going to turn up and ruin the game. It might turn out that one side has all the teamplayers and reduces the crazy mix on the other side to the point that nobody does anything for 75% of the game time. In effect this gives you suppression by wiping out the more aggressive and/or inept on a whole team. At which point you may wish you had some aggressive people on your team even if they burn up too many lives as a rule.
 

Fedorov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 8, 2005
5,726
2,774
0
Would it be too much to ask of you to actually read my posts and what i'm saying rather than implying and assuming statements that aren't in line with my thoughts or sayings.

I like stability in systems, so everything is balanced even after there is a disturbance like an some griever. I want to limit the damage a griever can do.

Like it or not, an aggressive suicidal attacker is not a griever, is a way of playing.

Ok, he is making the team lose reinforcements every time he dies, but if he can take out from 2 to 6 enemy players in every run, then he is making the enemy team lose more than yours.

Yes, he is taking reinforcements from your pool, but the trade off is that he keeps the enemy disrupted and make them unable to launch a proper attack

Why punish him? Its just another way of playing, and it can be beneficial to the team.
 
Last edited:

FlyXwire

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
589
65
0
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching you insist what this thread was all about.

Euhm I'm not suggesting enforcing any behaviour on the player, I'm suggesting to make people aware of the effect of reinforcements.
But then huh?

Penalty spawns is something that I think could work really well.
And now what?

I like stability in systems, so everything is balanced even after there is a disturbance like an some griever.
In another thread about reinforcement alternatives you suggest being able to control this?

I would rather in that case have the bad performing MG replaced by someone else on the team, than punishing the entire team for something only one person is responsible for.

[URL="http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45962"][URL="http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45962"][URL="http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45962"][URL="http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45962"][url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45962[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

That's quite a stretch from just suggesting "to make people aware of the effect of reinforcements".

I like stability in systems, so everything is balanced, even after there is a disturbance like an some griever.

Even after some griefer? Like all the time, so there's penalties for non-performing players, and to be able to punish players by removing them from their chosen weapon classes?

Sure I read your posts, and you're all about wanting to enforce behavior on players in the name of making people "aware", or the "stability" of the systems, and so everything is "balanced".

You're free to do whatever you can with your RO2 server, but don't try to pass this thread off as just trying to suggest to make people aware of the effect of reinforcements, you're ideas are very much about manufacturing player control.

(maybe you should read your own postings)
 

fiftyone

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 6, 2006
5,451
284
0
The idea is sound enough Zet's...

But the bad performer phrase worries me, I like to carry a satchel charge with me, this means I always have some form of objective (blow the door's etc), apart from the main objective, capping or whatever.

Occupational hazard means that I am more often killed than kill, (I try to get to my objective/stay alive)! Does this make me a "bad performer".

I always give warnings when I lay a charge but there is often some team mates that get hurt.

Does this make me a "bad performer"...

Keep em coming.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
@ Flyx please stop quoting parts out of their original context.

For instance my post about that I would rather want the mg pushed out of the mg slot, was a response to the suggestion of limiting the MG classes. If you limit the MG class to only 10 mgs during the match, then what you see is not that everybody is carefully using the mg. You'll see one person using the 10 mg's and then switching class leaving the team with no machine guns left. Which is why in that case limiting the class on a per player basis would be better. My personal preference is rather that there isn't a direct class limit but that to respawn with a rare class costs some of your individual reinforcement points.

Im not suggesting enforcing any behaviour on the player, I'm suggesting to make people aware of the effects of reinforcements. Penalty spawns were a suggestion from someone else, and they simply are indeed proven to work really well. But as I said directly behind the part you quoted, which you cut off, was that generally penalty systems are rather annoying. Because they are generally considered annoying I'm not suggesting it. I prefer to keep power in the players their own hands, while making things simple and uncomplicated, and stable against grieving attempts.

Again Flyx please read what I'm saying and look at the complete posts and do not try to quote individual sections out of my posts. As text without it's context makes no sense, and can be placed like you're doing in a contradicting order.

@ Federov

As I've stated multiple times I think different classes should be able to play differently. And the individual respawn limits do not have to be super low or super high it would be up to the mapper to define the reinforcement amounts on a per cap basis. It doesn't restrict the player unless the mapper explicitly notes it down. Finding the right amount for a cap zone is a matter of balancing by the mapper.

Next to that some classes are supposed to die more than others, a simple system similar to a "class" shop where you basically pay reinforcement "money" to spawn as your class could allow for this. So a sniper costs more reinf points than a smg.

By using individual reinforcements you do not restrict a player to be able to aggressively attack or not, you leave the option open for the player to decide what to do. But he'll have to weight the benefits and consequences for his own actions. While leaving the path free for other team mates to basically give someone a life of himself (for a bonus of like +10 points to encourage it).

Exactly like you said I find someone that got a kill/death ratio of 3 , with 30 kills and 10 deaths better than someone with a kill/death ratio of 10 with only 10 kills and 1 death. Which is exactly why whenever the term kill/death ratio comes up I say that I would personally prefer a (Score/Minute)*(Score/death) ratio. As the quantity of kills matters as well if the enemy can respawn.

Kill/Death is important because its important to stay alive. Kill/Minute is important because its important to kill in sufficient quantities. And of course using scores instead of pure kills because next to killing things like capturing and aiding team mates are important.

@fifty

In my sentence when i said bad performer, it was purely about someone that died too much using a certain class that got a limited amount of re-spawns (like say if the sniper can only respawn 4 times). Even if you're a super killer with a mg, if there are 10 mg lives on the server and you use all of them in the first 5 minutes so the other 25 minutes there aren't any mgs then you're a bad performer. Even if you managed to kill every player for those first 5 minutes and capped 2 zones in the progress, losing the mg for those other 25 minutes is being worse off.

Again personally I prefer something different from limiting respawn amounts per class, I prefer individual reinforcements where a player got say 6 reinforcements for cap zone one. Here he can play as a sniper at the cost of 3 reinforcement points per spawn or pick to play as a smg for 1 reinforcement point per spawn. So rare weapons are expensive to spawn with but the team as a general entity never runs out of total weaponry. So individual players would need to weigh whether the exclusivity of the sniper is worth it, resulting in more rotation of classes so more people will get a shot at it.
 
Last edited:

Reise

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
2,689
851
0
Maine, US
I think the effect and importance of reinforcements will become quite clear when people realize the campaign relies on their ability to manage and conserve them.

IMO the proposed ideas are nice but complex, and mostly unnecessary right now. Apos made a great thread outlining the campaign mode and how reinforcements have an effect on campaign Combat Power, which in turn affects an army's ability to attack or defend. http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45395

People will know right away how their deaths are important to the campaign. A notification to see the exact effect they're having would be good, but everything else suggested here just sounds bloated and unnecessary.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
People will know right away how their deaths are important to the campaign. A notification to see the exact effect they're having would be good, but everything else suggested here just sounds bloated and unnecessary.

People will know and make use in competitive gaming, but not in public gaming. The suggestions here make it easier for the player rather than make it more complex.
 

FlyXwire

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
589
65
0
Excellent, I find it good to know you're now against these spawning penalties that Slyk suggested above.

Now in full context:

If one single person with the MG wastes all the MG's the entire team is ****ed, because of one persons action. Dunno if that is desirable. I would rather in that case have the bad performing MG replaced by someone else on the team, than punishing the entire team for something only one person is responsible for.

It's now good to understand that messing with other gamer's legitimate opportunities really shouldn't be for you to decide, so this suggestion of having "the bad performing MG replaced by someone else on the team" is now out.

What you mentioned about griefers, and stability, and liking balanced systems.....best leave that out of the conversation too, as it just confuses your main point.

Now your original suggestion is about: I'm suggesting to make people aware of the effects of reinforcements.

OK, I guess you have, what about it?
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Its not a suggestion of replacing bad performing MG with someone else and never was.

I don't like systems that automatically take an action against a player. I would rather have a player be free to do what he wants to do. But has to bear the consequences of his actions. But I don't like systems either where a team that doesn't know each other , can loose because of one person.

And that is why I like individual reinforcements, as it got a lot of opportunities of giving people feedback on their own actions.

This thread as the initial post states is not about individual reinforcements. But about at least making it more clear to players what the reinforcements entail and showing how important they are.

That would be better than how it is now, although is still open for exploitation.
 

FlyXwire

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
589
65
0
I don't like systems that automatically take an action against a player. I would rather have a player be free to do what he wants to do. But has to bear the consequences of his actions. But I don't like systems either where a team that doesn't know each other , can loose because of one person.
Clearly, and again, nothing about "reinforcement awareness" will stop a team from losing because of one person.
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
Clearly, and again, nothing about "reinforcement awareness" will stop a team from losing because of one person.

Indeed which is why i prefer individual reinforcements. But by implying on people their morale, points and stats. You can get some more people to try and play for reinforcements. Anything in the correct direction is a good thing.