The player life

(tokamak) #1

Yes, yes very broad and general subject. But worth talking about as I think this is currently the biggest flaw in the game.

A player life is meaningless, worthless.

Some people see respawning as a legit gameplay mechanic. A player life is to get as much done as possible but preferably in a very short time span so you can rinse and repeat.

I vehemently disagree with this notion. I want to see players cling on to their lives and see dead as a truly undesirable thing. I want them to utter profanity under their breath when they’re waiting to respawn and go after the bastard that ruined their day.

A player life needs to mean more. The stakes need to be raised. This also changes the combat dynamic in profound ways. There will be less rushing around. It wouldn’t stop rushing around, but it will only be done when it’s important, when the stakes are high. Players could still sacrifice themselves but at least the sacrifice would mean something as it would often include saving multiple other lives or taking at least a few enemies with you (and with the increased weight of death that would mean a lot more than it would now).

When death means more, players will work harder at staying alive. Covering fire and ducking for grenades makes more sense. Backing each other up makes more sense, and supporting as well as seeking out support will make more sense.

Player life has NOTHING to do with lethality. Player life didn’t mean a whole lot more in Brink but it took longer to kill people. Player life in CS and R6 is HUGE and it takes one or two shots to kill.

There are a couple of ways to increase the weight of life has in the game:

- Decrease movement speed. This way it takes longer to become effective and dying will be a real pain because of the increased travel time. I will assume that this will be the least preferential route because the speed is something typical to ET and along with the travel time it would also affect combat. I’m already hearing many forum-goers bristling at this suggestion so I’m moving on to the next:

- Increase spawn time. Increased spawn time leaves combat mechanics intact and is a straight forward way of making life more meaningful. The problem is that the pain of dying comes from being out of the game more often. I personally play like a Hindu cow on adderal and can easily follow 20 minute Raven Shield match my buddies are playing out while I died in the first minute. But long spawn times are the antithesis to casual gamers. People get bored and start switching channels. Personally I would be fine with this, but in the interest of the game, this isn’t the right approach either.

- Player growth during life. This is the most interesting route. COD employs it with their killstreaks but I think the way they handle it is crude. Killstreaks in that game basically mean getting an automatic weapon (drone, gunship) that makes a bunch of kills for you. It’s free kills on top of kills. TF2 gave it to the demoman with the Eyelander and other items that incrementally make the player more powerful with every kill he makes. It’s elegant, it adds depth and it really makes players fear for their lives because it would mean undone effort on their part.

I think DB needs to take a similar route. Players should have the ability to invest in their current spawn life by contributing to the overall goal. This doesn’t need to be just about killing spree but I can imagine they’re an important part.

It could be something added on top of the current game. A soldier gains more hp with every kill he makes. A medic gets faster med-packs with every health pack that is being used by team-members, and extra max hp for every revive he makes. The engineer is harder due to the split roles (s)he has. A turret could increase in armour with every kill, or give hp to the engineer, mines could be easier to drop or an engineer could start generating more health while constructing an objective.

Anyway, the gist is that it’s not just kills, it’s about doing quantifiable things that are relevant to your class and contribute to the team. When there’s a small bonus handed out for each time a player does such an action he gains a bonus that is lost upon respawning.

This means that combat speed can stay intact, respawn times can stay intact (and only need to be adjusted according to map balance). It means that players can chose between a high quantity of throw-away lives if they chose so, OR a low quantity of high quality lives.

And all in all it means players will have to build on and care about. It means that they will start facing tougher decisions as the consequences of the risks will be more profound.

I’d really like to see such a lay added to the game. It’s going to change the way combat is fought, which it desperately needs, and it’s going to bring a more addictive emotional element to the game, which it also desperately needs.

(stealth6) #2

I don’t mind the sound of a character having an ability that is increased over time, but applying it to all characters is a bit too far imo.

You should be worried about the objectives not your life. When you die you loose your position / progress on the objective. Players are already too worried about their precious K:D they should just throw themselves at the enemy. Far too often I have to initiate as a medic, while my team hangs back and tries to fire off some pot shots. (Newsflash I can revive you, you can’t revive me! :D)

EDIT: The only thing I agree on is spawntimes, but not so you value your life more. Instead so the team forms waves instead of a trickle.

(tokamak) #3

It would be a nice way to diversify it by indeed not leaving it to all characters. That’s preferable but currently we can’t really see what’s ahead.

You should be worried about the objectives not your life. When you die you loose your position / progress on the objective.

Currently that loss is to meagre. Increasing the weight of dying actually puts more pressure on the objectives.

(stealth6) #4

Trying to imagine what would happen if it was increased, but it’s not very easy to see all of the factors.

I think if you increase the penalty of death, defense would try to control choke points more instead of trying to be a rambo. This in turn would slow down attackers infantry advancements, but not really stop the EV since getting near the EV would be a high risk.

Attackers would also hang back a bit more and possibly group together more which is good, but on non-escort maps might often lead to a stalemate since the attackers just never muster up the courage to throw themselves in there.

So it would be a change in gameplay, but would it be a good one? I think it’s too hard to speculate the changes. The only thing I’m a fan of is changing the spawntimes and even that could have a dramatic effect.

(DarkangelUK) #5

The current design is putting little emphasis on the player life, especially defence. Spawns are too close to the objective, spawn times are too short, ammo is running out too quick so the fastest way to replenish is to kill yourself. I don’t think you need any fancy nonsense to boost this, you just need better fine tuning to make death a bigger inconvenience than it is.

(tokamak) #6

Okay so you’re with extended travel time then. Granted, that’s an option I didn’t name. I just think that the scope of the travel distance is very limited due to the small maps and the high speed. There isn’t much room to play here.

@Stealth6 yes those are likely scenarios. And personally I would prefer that.

(DarkangelUK) #7

I’m gonna throw this one out there again… the players are too big! You can’t increase the size of map easily but you can reduce the player models, this makes the maps slightly bigger for the player, run speed is the same but less distance is covered and this also increases the travel distance as well. Increase the jump height to fit with the reduce size which will also fix the sensation that you’re jumping with lead boots on.

(tokamak) #8

Relative run speed is what you mean. Say you would decrease the player size with 20% then the speed would also be decreased with 20% otherwise you get some really fast midgets shooting across the map.

I’m not really sure how I feel about the player size. I think the cluttered maps in combination with the high speed also makes it feel like we’re too big. They’re all tied to each other.

But even provided that this is the case, then that would still mean very little leverage on this issue. You can only decrease the size with a couple of percentages before things get ridiculous.

(DarkangelUK) #9

Well the player size is independent of my previous points, those still need to be fixed regardless… and yes relative run speed, you knew what I meant :tongue:

(warbie) #10

Nobody wants to get gibbed needlessly, but if you’re leading the charge the chances are you’re going to take a panzer in the face. If you see an engie go down you’re going to sacrifice yourself to make sure he stays down. If your push has failed you could either waste time and make your team weaker by hiding with half health or you could self kill to make another decent attempt. If RTCW/ET ever had a unique selling point it was this - that attacking is repeatedly crashing against a wall until it buckles under the pressure and that defending is desperately trying to hold the wall up. It involves lots of putting yourself in risk and lots of dying - and also the most involved and interesting teamplay I’ve seen in a fps. It’s not about valuing your life more, it’s about using it in the best way to achieve the objective for the team. And doing it over and over and over. The last thing we need is elements from other games that discourage this.

//edit - this is regarding the player growth part. Spawn times I agree on (although would rather this was done in conunction with making the combat last longer) and making the game slower is obviously crazy talk :slight_smile:

(Apoc) #11

If you make everyone slower its just going to ruin the game. Dynamic and fast paced movement makes sd games what they are. The movement in SD titles is what sets them apart. In etqw, if you had no ammo, and someone who couldnt aim or was generally bad started shootin at you, even close range, you could use your movement to stay alive until he had to reload then make your escape, or switch to a pistol and combine dodging with the odd headshot to take them down.

However, increased spawn times is needed, they are too short at the moment, not a massive increase, but 5 seconds is nothing, i find myself thinking i want to take a sip of my drink while playing, so run into a room and take out as many as i can then die. Take a sip. Already respawed.

The idea of time spent alive being a rewarded is nice. In etqw peoples egos and stat trackers seemed to make people not want to die as much. People didnt want to ruin their kd or want to end up as the team lemming on the scoreboard. Also, spawn times were alot longer and the game was so tactical that being dead was a waste of time when there were so many other things you could be doing.

I would say a combination of spawn time increase and some sort of incentive to stay alive. Not sure what…will have a think and get back to you.

(tangoliber) #12

I personally prefer there to be little penalty for death. In games that have steep penalties for death, caution is rewarded and aggressiveness is punished. It makes camping more effective and people start to cling to cover rather than strafe around in the streets. I don’t enjoy that sort of game. On the other hand, games with little penalty for death are not necessarily less skill-based, or less strategic… unless it is due to other reasons. Just my opinion.

(tokamak) #13

I want risks and aggressiveness to be rewarding. In the sense that it actually matters when you do a risky move. Right now everyone and their moms can be risky all the time due to the low cost. That means that just being frivolously risky is the core of the game.

You want the main game to consist of cautious players and then the odd wacko that completely disrupts this balance by being an absolute idiot with taking ridiculous risks.

A higher cost to life makes the players most of the time cautious and in return the real acts of valour will stand out to everyone who gets to witness it.

(DarkangelUK) #14

Which would all be covered if the spawn times and travel distances were increased.

(tangoliber) #15

[QUOTE=tokamak;415553]I want risks and aggressiveness to be rewarding. In the sense that it actually matters when you do a risky move. Right now everyone and their moms can be risky all the time due to the low cost. That means that just being frivolously risky is the core of the game.

You want the main game to consist of cautious players and then the odd wacko that completely disrupts this balance by being an absolute idiot with taking ridiculous risks.

A higher cost to life makes the players most of the time cautious and in return the real acts of valour will stand out to everyone who gets to witness it.[/QUOTE]

That’s not what I want…I personally prefer a game where everyone is moving and playing aggressively. I just find it more fun, and I find that it lowers the benefit to camping.

But people like/want different things. What you want is not wrong, just different…and I don’t want to try and influence the developers the tailor the game specifically to what I want. I just want to put my opinion down on the record, so that the developers can tell how much consensus a suggestion has or doesn’t have.

(tokamak) #16

Really? Do you like the way the game plays now or do you want more rushing around and situational deaths?

Right now it’s not just that you CAN be more risk-taking, you HAVE to be more risk-taking and rushing around. That is pushing one certain play-type on the game and it’s toxic for a game like this.

On the direction I’d like to see being taken, your way of playstyle is still relevant because respawning would still be a good thing, fresh life and fresh bullets. I just think that there needs to be something in it for the people who want to stay alive as well. It makes the gameplay more diverse and it makes people you stand out more.

(warbie) #17

I’m with you, tangoliber. There are elements I’m not happy with in DB at the moment, but the speed is certainly not one of them.

You played ET, tokamak - that was a constantly moving, strafe jumping, sticking my mp40 in your face circle strafing game!

(tangoliber) #18

Right now, I feel the game is a little too campy for my taste…mainly because of the lethality of the guns/low amount of health. I feel pretty good about spawn time and spawn distance though. The only reason I would support increasing the spawn time, is so that teams are more likely to spawn together. But I honestly need more time to know.

In the sort of aggressive, quasi-arena-style gameplay that I like, being able to stay alive is still valuable. But the difference is that players stay alive by being good duelers…not by playing cautiously. I like a game where you have to be aggressive to stay alive… You can pull back…or escape a bad situation… but you don’t need to cautiously check corners and constantly watch your back. You can sprint around the map without worrying about being instantly-killed because you walked into someone’s line of fire. If you do run into someone’s line of fire, they have an advantage, but only for the very beginning of the duel.

(tangoliber) #19

Yea, that’s what I like. :slight_smile:

(amazinglarry) #20

I don’t like dying in games, ever… and I’m definitely not dying in DB because I think it’s non-consequential, or because I think it’s fun. I simply die too easily. I hide behind cover, teammates, and don’t necessarily go Gallahading my way in, but still manage to die a fair amount.

My biggest complaint is when I do caught caught in the open and try to escape, I end up dying 5 feet after I’ve made the cover. I don’t know if it’s a lag issue or what, but I feel like the ‘escapability’ against players who can shoot is very, very low.

So, at least for me, I do what I can to stay alive as best as possible, but there’s no way objectives are going to be moved forward without a firefight, and SOMEBODY is going to die in a 1v1, plain and simple.