Change supply meter so that getting killed isn't an advantage

(Spendlove) #81

[QUOTE=*goo;377486]Pun intended?

:)[/QUOTE]

OMG no! It is too late to claim it now?

(tokamak) #82

[QUOTE=Humate;377479]Trivial in a pub game 12v12 :wink:
You’re not thinking in terms of team in a pub, youre thinking about how you benefit.
And even if you were thinking of team, you being away from the action on a respawn, isnt going to have a massive effect on the outcome as there are so many players to take your role in the meantime.[/QUOTE]

Yeah excuse me. I was. It’s even MORE trivial in a comp game because then you get to organise the selfkills through VOIP “alright guys, respawn in 3…2…1…”

(Crytiqal) #83

This ^ adds teamplay and tactical depth to a game.

(tokamak) #84

If you didn’t have the option to kill yourself (or better, if it rarely was worth doing so) you would have more coordinating to do. Team mates would need to consider the delays and the extra routes needed from where they ‘survived’ teams would have to keep in mind how best to bring these players back into the fray.

Getting that free reset however doesn’t require anything like that. There’s no burden, you just hop back in without you or your team putting in any effort. It’s such a lame simplistic mechanic.

(DarkangelUK) #85

Not sure if I missed something, but how did this discussion come about? I thought you couldn’t self kill in Brink. Didn’t the OP wan’t to punish the player even more for dying?

As for /kill in other games, I don’t think having it or removing it adds or removes tactics, it just causes players/teams to rethink their strategy. There are drawbacks to self killing as well, seems the positives are the only parts being focused on.

(tokamak) #86

Yes the essence of the discussion is giving player’s a lot to lose by each death. So much that little advantage is to be had by offing yourself on purpose by any means.

Of course games that already have /kill are a done deal. Set in stone. Taking it away would only mean that people would find other ways to efficiently kick the bucket.

(DarkangelUK) #87

It’s a fine line you’re treading, if you make death too much of a pain in the arse, then all you’re gonna do is promote camping and stunt forward progression. You’ll get even more stale mates than there already are as people simply won’t want to keep dying and be reverted back to a crap state just to get killed again. I can see that being more detrimental to the gameplay than simply getting your pips and ammo back to the top.

(INF3RN0) #88

Respawning belongs in a team game with spawn waves, while it doesn’t belong in a tactical demolition or tdm mode game. It’s not that hard to put two and two together… this feature, like many others, should have never been removed in the making of Brink. We are all aware by now that many of the “regretted” game design choices in Brink were discussed on the forum before hand? Should really stop trying to fix what was never broken…

(tokamak) #89

I don’t think camping has a lot to do with that, not if it’s put against the objective being the main goal. Camping is supported by how effective it is in and of itself. In other words, if there’s a good chance that you can take multiple foes with you while you die, then that’s still valid regardless of how valuable your life is, because the end result shifts with this. Simply put 3-1 is still a profit of 2. Games like R6 and CS demonstrate this. Losing your life is HUGE because there’s no return. And while there’s some camping, it’s not the only valid way to play, being pro-active and assertive pays off in a higher body-count before you die.

What happens less is people gambling. If there’s a small chance their death will pay off, then they’re less inclined to do it. It’s less rolling dice and more chess.

I’m just daydreaming now, I know Brink won’t ever see this, but regarding shooters as a whole: What would be especially great is that the value of your life accumulates the longer you stay alive, this would also offset dwindling resources like ammo and health. Fits the carrot over stick approach as well. COD has the killstreaks and although that effect is way to drastic for ET. Battlesense is brilliant, but it works on short intervals, you need something measured like battlesense, building up over time and giving you, or your team extra power throughout it.

It’s only an artefact we haven’t found a way around yet. Nothing more. It doesn’t have any intrinsic value of itself.

(INF3RN0) #90

[QUOTE=tokamak;377544]

It’s only an artefact we haven’t found a way around yet. Nothing more. It doesn’t have any intrinsic value of itself.[/QUOTE]

This really is purely your own personal preference. It has always served an incredibly important purpose for myself and many other people, perhaps your underestimating it’s true value. The strategical substance really shows in competitive matches, although I always use it in casual pub play as I would any other mechanic of the game.

(tokamak) #91

I know it’s been an important part of the gameplay, that’s what’s so regrettable about it.

(INF3RN0) #92

I find it compliments the game play more so than it is an important part of the game play. I recall the ideas about locking things in the hope of adding “tactical depth” nonsense in Brink and their implementation not turning out so well, which is why I like things that give players freedoms to interact and have control within the game as much as possible.

(tokamak) #93

I don’t see anything wrong with locking body-types. It’s the balance between them that’s lacking and having them locked makes it al the more obvious, but locking them down isn’t the issue at all.

(INF3RN0) #94

I was referring to character locks actually, which is the main issue since you are inclined to play in a very specific manner due to the “limited ability points across all classes”. That was meant to add something “tactically deep” by limiting things, correct? Body types are the most obvious imba of course.

(tokamak) #95

Oh right same thing for characters though there’s virtually no difference between the characters so I don’t even see how that’s a point. I wish there was more diversity there. That was just handled very, very poorly, and it’s something that can’t be attributed to lack of time or resources, this was simply bad design.

I had pretty big hopes for the way the RPG aspect would be handled.

(Crytiqal) #96

As we did with how the FPS aspect would be handled.

Guess we are both SOL :wink:

(tokamak) #97

At least they have some excuses for the core mechanics.