[QUOTE=tokamak;415581]There was a considerable cost to dying in ET. And please recognise that I’m not here to change the speed of the game. I personally think it’s too fast but I don’t mind if it stays like this. What I do mind is the frantic short lifes. The gameplay feels ad hoc right now and thats what I want to change because W:ET felt anything but ad hoc.
So, if everyone can keep moving about as fast as they like but then can make up for themselves how much the value their life, isn’t that a good way to have best of both worlds?[/QUOTE]
I think that losing control of an area can be an adequate penalty for death. Of course, deaths always throw a wrench in a team’s coordination on offense. You say that there wasn’t a penalty for death in Brink…but I disagree. After taking over the objective area, the more players that the offense had alive directly corresponds to how long the offense can expect to hold onto the area before the defense reclaims it. Every time someone is killed on route to the objective, it hurts the offense’s coordination…which accounts for lost time on the clock while before trying to regroup. There is a penalty to death in any FPS I have played, but we disagree on how severe it should be.
I don’t like the shortness of life very much, but I would want that to change by increasing health… I wouldn’t want that to change by trying to allow for more cautious playstyles. Of course, even in non-tactical, arena-style games a player can hang back, and play a sort of Safety role on defense, jump in and out of the fray to stay alive…but that is different, I think. I honestly don’t really like it when developers try to allow aggressive and cautious (camping) playstyles to co-exist because I’ve never felt that those kind of games felt right…they don’t really capture what is great about either style of play. I prefer that a game knows its identity and pursues it relentlessly, even at the risk of alienating some players.
