Death penalty in PS2 [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 06:25 PM

Gotta say no on this one, IMO.

First, with the reduced TTK, death is going to be pretty common, methinks. With a FPS type game, I'd hate to have to play 'slower' to avoid some sort of possible penalty because playing faster might result in some sort of penalty. That doesn't add 'fun' to the gameplay. Second, the inherent penalty is that while you are dead and returning to battle you aren't killing the other side (nor gathering up XP), and it takes some amount of playtime to get back into the battle. Those things alone are enough penalty IMO.

Well it should be balanced with average TTK. But it should be there to prevent abuse imo. Well it won't be fun for engineers/defenders either if someone who I just killed 10 times i.e. simply respawns and charges at you again so I don't have time to repair base turret/or plant mines or something like that.

Why would that prevent you from playing faster? You'd just have to have more skill no to get killed in the process. The second thing isn't a penalty at all, also exactly proves my point - why wait for medic to heal you when you can go get killed and have a full health respawn nearby? This could make medic class utterly useless.

Stardouser

2012-05-09, 06:27 PM

Increasing the spawn timer per spawn location is fine really. If you spawn at one galaxy and die within a minute increase your spawn timer for that location by 5 seconds up to a maximum of 20 seconds. Very sane system.

Disclaimer: I do not want a penalty, and the respawn timer should be a standard 15 seconds regardless if squad spawn, galaxy spawn or base spawn, the following comments are only applicable in the event that SOE for some reason insists on having one:

20 second max is OK, but I think it should not happen until your 3rd death within 60 seconds. Basically it will add a few seconds to spawns on assaults that have reached the door camping stage and that's OK.

By the way, this issue brings us back to something I hope we learn at E3: We know there's going to be squad spawn and galaxy spawn, but will you be able to spawn on these places(and owned bases) without physically traveling to them first? ie, log in and choose your spawn point immediately?

headcrab13

2012-05-09, 06:28 PM

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 06:34 PM

I definitely liked Planetside's increasing spawn timer, but it could get frustrating when you were getting spawn camped.

The concept is good, but they just need to fine-tune situations where you're forced to die repeatedly or maybe make the max spawn time shorter than it was before.

That timer sound nice, this really shouldn't be an arena few instants respawn style game. I remember they (devs) said spawn camping should be less problematic then it was in PS1 with more spawn places and methods as options.

CuddlyChud

2012-05-09, 06:39 PM

I think that death in Planetside often isn't a consequence of your actions. With so many people fighting, its equal parts luck and skill whether or not you die. I think death penalties are just more frustrating than useful. Plus it was always frustrating when you had 20 people just clustered outside a gen or bd afraid to charge in. The real penalty for death is simply that you respawn away from the action and need to make your way back.

Also, in Planetside 1 I felt like the death penalty system wasn't easily understandable, so it never entered my mind when I was thinking about whether or not to risk my neck.

IMMentat

2012-05-09, 06:40 PM

I like the spawn waves they do in other games, every object that can spawn players could be tied to a count-down-clock of varying duration, longer on mobile units, bases would get one of the shorter cycle times. but i'm talking 10 seconds versus 30 here, nothing extreme.

It would reduce the usual conga line running to the fight, and make is to that reinforcements would arrive in more meaningful numbers.

Another thing to consider are friendly revives, planetside allowed you to be revived as long as you didnt get forced back to sanc (about 60? seconds I think), will PS2 have an equally generous revive window?

IMMentat

2012-05-09, 06:43 PM

And if to many people try to spawn at once, the "tubes" could double spawn folks side by side, or in formations.

By the way, anyone know if there will be friendly clipping in PS2? its a mixed bag, to much and griefers will stand in doorways blocking ppl in, not enough and we'll be fighting amorphous blobs instead of an enemy army.

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 06:53 PM

I think that death in Planetside often isn't a consequence of your actions. With so many people fighting, its equal parts luck and skill whether or not you die. I think death penalties are just more frustrating than useful.

The real penalty for death is simply that you respawn away from the action and need to make your way back.

I agree it up to luck sometimes, that's why number of death per time unit before it occurs should be well tested before implementing it. But still I'm not convinced there should be none. Maybe in short terms it could be frustrating to arena shooter players but in long run it would lead to more tactical gameplay experience and less headless charging into enemy areas.

With all the various means of respawn mentioned I doubt that will be punishing enough.

I like the spawn waves they do in other games, every object that can spawn players could be tied to a count-down-clock of varying duration, longer on mobile units, bases would get one of the shorter cycle times. but i'm talking 10 seconds versus 30 here, nothing extreme.

It would reduce the usual conga line running to the fight, and make is to that reinforcements would arrive in more meaningful numbers.

This would be problematic if group based since one very inept/reckless member would mean serious limiting factor for the entire team. Take Team Death-matches in Tribes since death count is group based - one player who dies very often can decide an entire outcomes of a match between two otherwise equally strong teams

Brusi

2012-05-09, 07:11 PM

The devs have stated that they are trying to remove elements that slow down gameplay, so i doubt that there will be any penalties for fast gameplay in PS2. People generally react badly to punishment anyway...

I think what really needs to be looked at harder, are ways to make waiting for a rez a more enticing option than respawning and running back into the fight. Additionally, making staying alive for longer more rewarding.

Anyway here are a couple of ideas:

Negative:

• Spawned with 1hp less health every time you died within a minute of being spawned from the same spawn point
• Run speed slowed slightly after rebirthing frequently from the same location (like 5 times in 5 mins or something)
• XP debuff, until you can spawn and stay alive for longer than 1 min

These would all suck royally... but may perhaps have the desired effect of having the player choose a different tactic rather than zerging, or wait to accept a rez if the area is clear Without directly slowing down gameplay by adding a longer spawn timer.

Better ideas:

Give temporary buffs to anyone who is rezzed. This could even be decided via the attending medic’s skills in the medic skill tree. Things like:

• Give buffs to HP
• Temporary Invulnerability
• Run Speed
• Damage buff
• XP buff

I honestly don't see any problems with an enemy getting slaughtered, then tapping out and running back to get slaughtered again. However, one carrot that sometimes works is rewarding killstreaks. Perhaps you get a little xp boost if you kill 5 people without getting killed yourself?

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 07:29 PM

Kurtz

2012-05-09, 07:29 PM

The frequency of your deaths has caused a latency in your respawn. (or something like that)

Brusi

2012-05-09, 07:50 PM

Some nice ideas Brusi, however I disagree on kill streaks since they only reward classic soldier classes. What about medics and engineers? They will certainly have less streaks than average combat orientated classes.

So you think as a medic you won't be killing people? This is an FPS game... Much more so than the original.

The idea is to try and make those who would be zerg rushing in for kills to reconsider spamming the respawn button though, right? I think idea that if they wait for a rez, they can continue their killstreak would have that effect. Knowing they have killed 3 guys and that they should fall back, heal up and grab some more ammo if they want to continue that streak rather than suicide charging with their knife so that they can come back with full HP and Ammo also has the desired effect.

I'm not a huge fan of killstreaks, i would just be surprised if the devs hadn't already planned on implementing them.

It's easy enough to add rez-streaks to medic class or something anyway, but considering anyone playing in a support role would probably not be spamming their respawns at the enemy anyway, it just seems unneccesary.

Xyntech

2012-05-09, 07:59 PM

Most important is that waiting for a rez should NEVER make it take longer for you to spawn.

The fact that the spawn timer didn't start counting down until AFTER you released in the first game is criminally incompetent.

The moment you die, your respawn timer should start counting down. Once it hits zero, you should be able to instantly spawn wherever you choose, or you can wait around and not spawn for a while even after it hits zero.

Meanwhile, a medic should be able to try to revive you the ENTIRE time you are dead. The time they should stop being able to try to revive you is the exact moment you spawn somewhere else.

Medics should also be able to see how much of a respawn timer someone has left, in case they notice that a lot of players are punching out the moment it hits zero. That way they can focus more on players who either have some time left to go, or who are still waiting around even after their timers hit zero.

A button to easily call for a medic like in TF2 may be a good thing as well. Another way to decide who to prioritize when healing and rezzing a bunch of random players. Maybe the standard voice macros would be good enough, but this particular one should give the hurt/dead player an icon to indicate they have called for a medic as well.

I'm kind of against penalties for spawning, but if they improve some aspect of balance, I would consider them. As long as they are more subtle like some of Brusi's suggestions, and don't take you out of the fight longer like an increased spawn time.

I also like the idea that you can reduce penalties by spawning at a different spawn point. It would make it even more beneficial to have control of several spawn rooms and have several Galaxies deployed in an area.

NCLynx

2012-05-09, 08:00 PM

In a game where death is almost more common than anything else, why would you want to penalize it? Sure for everyone kill someone gets that's a death on someones part too but not every death gave a kill.

Those god damn trees... Although that's PS1. Still though, why penalize people for dying when it's one of the two most main aspects of the game. (Kill or be killed)

Graywolves

2012-05-09, 08:09 PM

The purpose of a death penalty is similar to the purpose of one in any other MMO.

If there is no death penalty there is no reason to put effort in to playing better or trying harder. There are many players who will bash their heads against the wall and fail repeatedly until they have a reason to play with more caution.

This is of course a double-edged sword as veterans will recall many times when players were stacked at the backdoor but no one was pushing.

Personally. I enjoy punishing poor play. But I'm not going to say that's good for the game. (Success in the gaming market appears to be in being as casual friendly as possible too.)

Brusi

2012-05-09, 08:25 PM

Exhibit 1: World of Warcraft VS Everquest

CuddlyChud

2012-05-09, 08:26 PM

I don't think adding a death penalty is going to make players suddenly better. If you weren't doing well without that sort of penalty, i don't see why you would do better with one. No one likes to die in a video game. It's not like without a death penalty suddenly death is enjoyable. Rather, people who bash their heads against the wall repeatedly probably just aren't that good at staying alive, and that's the best there gonna do regardless. A death penalty like this just makes it more frustrating, especially when you die due to chance.

Stardouser

2012-05-09, 08:28 PM

MMOFPS =/= MMORPG; a death penalty only discourages aggressive play and encourages camping and/or taking shots from long range and fleeing(guerilla warfare). The enemy is what you should be fighting, not the respawn timer.

SteinB

2012-05-09, 08:32 PM

Unless they have some refund mechanic there will be the penalty of wasting the resources you paid for any consumables you had purchased: grenades etc. Also possibly implants depending on how their timer works.

WorldOfForms

2012-05-09, 08:58 PM

One of PS1's biggest problems was how obscure and unfriendly it was to new players. PS2 needs to grab people right away so they stick around and end up paying money or at least make the game massive for the people who do spend money.

Death penalties make the game unfriendly. Hell, if anything people should get deathstreak bonuses.

We don't have to worry about punishing poor play - the nature of PlanetSide does that fine by itself. The scale of the battles naturally reward smart play, while dumb play gets you killed repeatedly, which is punishment enough.

Plus, as people have pointed out, resources will mean that smart play matters, or you'll be wasting precious resources.

The Kush

2012-05-09, 09:07 PM

Stardouser

2012-05-09, 09:14 PM

I liked the timer in planetside 1. If your dying like a b**** you need to sit down in time out and think for a second why your dying so much. Either that or step up and improve your game. All these kids complaining about the death timer must have died a lot haha I never got it.

Maybe you're dying because you're defending a base against overwhelming odds? The timer must be standardized, the enemy is the enemy, not the timer.

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 09:28 PM

So you think as a medic you won't be killing people? This is an FPS game... Much more so than the original..

Yes but definitely way less then pure combat classes. Also I don't like healing buffing your stats suggestion since it open a door for exploits. FF + healing buffs = cheap exploit. Rewards if any should be multiplier to xp for staying alive for let's say 30 mins... but still there would have to be penalties for staying alive too short in a row. Simply put dying too often (let's say 20 times in 5 mins) is either reflects severe stupidity or conscious exploiting of game rules (or lack of them) and should be discouraged via penalties.

A death penalty like this just makes it more frustrating, especially when you die due to chance.

I sincerely doubt you'll die 20 times in a row by chance.

In a game where death is almost more common than anything else, why would you want to penalize it? Sure for everyone kill someone gets that's a death on someones part too but not every death gave a kill.

Those god damn trees... Although that's PS1. Still though, why penalize people for dying when it's one of the two most main aspects of the game. (Kill or be killed) .

Actually it wouldn't be dying itself that is penalized rather the playstyle which can lead you to getting killed 20 times in 5 mins. Please read what I wrote in my opening post prior to replying.

One of PS1's biggest problems was how obscure and unfriendly it was to new players.

That is very easy to solve - give a temporary perk/chip to newcomers which allows for more higher death per time ratio without any penalties during the first hours ingame.

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 09:34 PM

death penalty only discourages aggressive play and encourages camping and/or taking shots from long range and fleeing(guerilla warfare). The enemy is what you should be fighting, not the respawn timer.

Disagreed. Aggressive gameplay is always rewarded via higher xp gain. Anyway timer should be set that way it wouldn't be annoying yet would prevent zerg tactics from being too successful. Death penalty discourages stupid play in first place.

The Kush

2012-05-09, 09:37 PM

Maybe you're dying because you're defending a base against overwhelming odds? The timer must be standardized, the enemy is the enemy, not the timer.

No excuses. The losers lose the winners win.

Immigrant

2012-05-09, 09:40 PM

Maybe you're dying because you're defending a base against overwhelming odds? The timer must be standardized, the enemy is the enemy, not the timer.

You must realize that this works both ways. If you respawn faster/with no penalties so will your attackers, this is a lame excuse. Since usually defenders have the upper hand - access to turrets, and other previously set defenses DP should work almost always in their favor.

Stardouser

2012-05-09, 09:49 PM

Disagreed. Aggressive gameplay is always rewarded via higher xp gain. Anyway timer should be set that way it wouldn't be annoying yet would prevent zerg tactics from being too successful. Death penalty discourages stupid play in first place.

Yet it is discouraged by an undesirable increase in spawn timer.

You must realize that this works both ways. If you respawn faster/with no penalties so will your attackers, this is a lame excuse. Since usually defenders have the upper hand - access to turrets, and other previously set defenses DP should work almost always in their favor.

If it's so equal, then it's simply an irritation. Volume of deaths can easily result from playing the objectives instead of playing for KDR. Death penalties are wrong, the wasted resources are the only possible good way of doing this. Punishing based on volume of deaths only punishes players willing to risk themselves to put their bodies on the capture point.

Pyreal

2012-05-09, 09:49 PM

Being removed from the action is all the penalty there needs to be.

Also, as to the mechanic to entice a player to wait for a rez, I think a better question is: What is there to entice a Medic to rez someone? Where is the worth to him to risk the danger and time?

NCLynx

2012-05-09, 09:53 PM

Actually it wouldn't be dying itself that is penalized rather the playstyle which can lead you to getting killed 20 times in 5 mins. Please read what I wrote in my opening post prior to replying.

That's what I get for jumping the gun; however, my answer remains the same. For now anyway, this is another one of those questions where I feel we'll be able to more accurately judge in beta.

ArbitraryDemise

2012-05-09, 10:07 PM

Let me pre-face this by saying that this game will have many, many arbitrary deaths.

Oh look, a sniper... boom, headshot, dead...
Oh look artillery... boom, bang... dead...
Oh look, being strafed by a mossie that came out of the sun... dead...

You never want to punish people for the random dice roll that deemed that an artillery shell would land on them. The only thing games should punish player's for is bad play.

Yet by the same token, good play is often shown via deaths being incurred by a player. After all there is only one way to push an objective. That method involves getting in there and shooting things that shoot back, and those things that shoot back are often times capable of some modicum of aim. Therefore, if you are playing for the objective you will die.

So, my question is: do you want to punish players for playing for the objectives?

A respawn delay seems so unimaginative to me. I would rather we all use our collective brain-cells to try and come up with a better way of rewarding people for playing for the objectives, while still making life, and the loss of life in this game meaningful.

Therefore, I propose... uh... I'll write this part of the post later.

laelgon

2012-05-09, 10:16 PM

To the people who say a death penalty is suitable for "bad" players and encourages people to play better, have you ever considered that some people are never going to be able to play at the same "skill" level as others. I've got a close friend who likes shooters, but due to some medical problems he simply can't react as fast as most people. He dies a lot more because of that, but still enjoys playing them. Please tell me how it's justified that on top of dying more often, he also gets to be penalized for it.

Dying a lot can be frustrating experience already, do you really want to make it more frustrating so that people stop playing?

Toppopia

2012-05-09, 10:19 PM

Pyreal

2012-05-09, 10:41 PM

I think the only thing we need is that everyone respawns at same time so that it becomes a sort of orderly assault rather than a chaotic 1 man runs in at a time. But some kind of delay would be nice so the defenders can catch a breather and prepare for the next assault.

But shouldn't that "orderly assault" be the result of teamwork, rather than a cycling spawn?

And there's always the fact that the first guy to die immediately after the cycle fires has to wait the longest.

Xyntech

2012-05-09, 10:54 PM

I agree that taking players out of action is bad enough.

As long as it isn't instant/nearly instant respawn, it doesn't need to get longer.

Let's say the respawn timer is 10 seconds (PS2 being faster paced than PS1). That's 10 seconds that you don't get to play.

If you die once every 10 minutes, that's 1/60th of the time you don't get to play. If you die once every 2 minutes, that's 1/12th of the time you aren't getting to play.

That seems like fair penalization to me. Want to play more of the time? Stop dying so much. That's not even counting whatever time it takes to run back to where the fighting is happening, which is playing, but may not be as fun, especially if it's what you are spending 99% of your time doing.

Increase it to 15 seconds to penalize that same player, and suddenly they are out of the fight 1/8th of the time. What's the point?

Some players will never learn to play better no matter how long the spawn timers get, while others will get better even if the spawn timers are always the same.

This idea that punishing death will encourage players to play better sounds very anecdotal to me.

Toppopia

2012-05-09, 11:23 PM

But shouldn't that "orderly assault" be the result of teamwork, rather than a cycling spawn?

And there's always the fact that the first guy to die immediately after the cycle fires has to wait the longest.

I doubt the majority of people that play this will be here for the teammwork, they will be all the BF3 and COD noobs that don't know the meaning of teammwork and will do their own thing, while the rest of us know what teammwork is so we will be organised, but not everyone will be.

Shade Millith

2012-05-10, 01:35 AM

I think there needs to be a really good reason to avoid death. I'm all for death penalty.

Brusi

2012-05-10, 01:48 AM

Did all of you guys miss this point? Did you all just keep reading past it?!

Unless they have some refund mechanic there will be the penalty of wasting the resources you paid for any consumables you had purchased: grenades etc. Also possibly implants depending on how their timer works.

I also agree death should be meaningful... I am just not sure that a death timer is the best solution, or the best thing for the game.

Hell! Even a death-timer like in the original Planetside minus the message that tells you that you are being penalised is a better solution that the than one that kicks sand in your face for getting your ass-kicked.

Death2All

2012-05-10, 02:19 AM

No. This was the bane of Planetside 1. Perhaps because of the finicky system.

Log in, die once...."THE FREQUENCY OF YOUR DEATHS HAS INCREASED YOUR RESPAWN BY 15 SECONDS"

And just like that I have a 30 second respawn.

But in all actuality, it really don't add anything to the game. Especially since they're trying to increase all the action in the game, adding an increasing respawn timer would just bog down the gameplay.

Adding any mechanic that discourages death is awful for a game. All you get is more timid fights and camping. Both of which are awful.

I sometimes question this forum's playerbase, did any of you actually play PS1? Or any online game ever :rolleyes:?

duomaxwl

2012-05-10, 02:42 AM

Yeah, this would be pointless. I hate the one in PS1, all it takes is some dudes in a maxzergfit to kill you a few times, and than you gotta wait forever. I'm very much against the death penalty.

super pretendo

2012-05-10, 02:43 AM

Having a generic zerg respawnfest doesn't sound appealing. Dying should be something players have to avoid and consider. It shouldn't just be rolling your face on your keyboard until you die with no penalty, and repeat ad nauseam

Sirisian

2012-05-10, 02:46 AM

But in all actuality, it really don't add anything to the game. Especially since they're trying to increase all the action in the game, adding an increasing respawn timer would just bog down the gameplay.
The reason I prefer a per spawn location penalty for quick deaths is because it does add something to the game for attackers. Say you're defending a base that has 2 spawn rooms (hypothetical). You spawn at one and spawn in 5 seconds. If you die after stepping out the door you get +X second penalty then spawn again and die again and get the same penalty for dying quickly using the same spawn. Soon the spawn timer is annoying (probably around 20 seconds) and you choose a new spawn location as the other one cools down. This artificially within a base environment stops the "didn't I just kill you once 5 seconds ago?" as you push through a door.

Personal preference mostly since it forces defenders to have more spawn locations for their troops to use.

Death2All

2012-05-10, 03:10 AM

The reason I prefer a per spawn location penalty for quick deaths is because it does add something to the game for attackers. Say you're defending a base that has 2 spawn rooms (hypothetical). You spawn at one and spawn in 5 seconds. If you die after stepping out the door you get +X second penalty then spawn again and die again and get the same penalty for dying quickly using the same spawn. Soon the spawn timer is annoying (probably around 20 seconds) and you choose a new spawn location as the other one cools down. This artificially within a base environment stops the "didn't I just kill you once 5 seconds ago?" as you push through a door.

Personal preference mostly since it forces defenders to have more spawn locations for their troops to use.

That's easily remedied by implementing a fixed spawn timer that isn't too quick. I don't have the information right at my side by I recall hearing that respawn timers would be quite lengthy (10-15 seconds, lengthy by today's standards anyways).

Yes, adding a penalty from a constant deaths is a good way to help attackers push in against defenders, but the question is how much does that help the overall game? Adding that sort of mechanic just pigeon holes people into playing more defensively and turtling up to avoid death.

People always try to avoid death, but adding that sort of mechanic manifests the idea in people's heads easier.

The same can be said about K/D ratios, but that's a whole other topic that's been discussed to death.

Noivad

2012-05-10, 03:37 AM

The old PS1 Timer system served a purpose of giving time equally to defenders and assulters the chance to recover between assults. If the assulting force kept pressure on the defenders, the defenders died more quickly, increasing their respawn times allowing assulters to get into the base.

However if the assulters failed to keep up pressure, their increased spawn times plus the distance from either tower or ams gave the defenders a chance to repel the assults.

It was a pretty fine balance and it worked well. It Added epic base fights in game.

Those people who solo played, without squad / outfit teamwork, were the ones dieing the Fastest. You know the ones, The rushers. The dummys who run into a hallway right into a boomer, or a max and are KIA instantly without doing any damage to anyone but themselves.

They contributed very little to the game in battle. except being fodder to the enemy. when they are lucky and kill the enemy its not dumb luck its skill they say. Organized units called them Zerg. Most everyone does. They even call each other the zerg, those mindless beasts that charge into the attack. In the Army we called them John Waynes and FNGs.

But with all my years running with my outfits and other others, the spawn timers really did not effect our game play. If we did die, most of the times we had medics to bring us back up.

So Higby, put the old timeer system back into the game, Your already making the game FTP, what else do you have to do to keep the solo players happy. Its not costing them anying to die but a little time. If they can't handle a little time for being zerg rushers, thats ok, there are always plenty of zerg around. :evil:

Kipper

2012-05-10, 08:15 AM

Right idea but wrong implementation.

The penalty for dying is that you died, and even if getting respawned and back to the front line is 20 seconds, thats 20 seconds you weren't in the action killing enemies.

Instead of punishing bad play - reward good play instead. Give people something to strive to achieve.

Possible rewards could be increased XP gain for good streaks or staying alive for a good period of time while in a contested zone, or medals. Everyone likes a medal.

Snipefrag

2012-05-10, 09:06 AM

Perma-death imo.

Duddy

2012-05-10, 09:27 AM

I like Sirisian's idea of a timer penalty per spawn location.

Brusi

2012-05-10, 10:11 AM

Perma-death imo.

IRL

sylphaen

2012-05-10, 10:30 AM

What about no spawn penalties on players and instead having fixed spawn rate on spawn tubes instead (ex: 1 spawn every 4 seconds) ?

The more people from your empire die at the same time and try to spawn at the same point, the more people have to wait for their turn on the spawn tubes.

On a big trade, all empires would suffer the same penalty (all players waiting for their spawn tubes to spawn everyone).

On a fight where one empire wipes a goup of enemy players, it takes more time for everyone to spawn (since spawning is not-instant and spawn countdown is not parallel) and gives a chance to the attackers (or defenders) to gain more ground while others respawn/regroup/reorganize.

One empire could bring more spawn tubes with galaxies and choosing the spawn point would actually matter and may spread troops around... Boosting spawn rates could be a valid mechanic, etc...

I can't really imagine how much it would affect the game but at least, when you spawn slowly, it's less about being penalized for dying and more about your empire not having enough spawn capacity.

Everyone hardly died at the same time in PS1 unless an OS went off or a gal landed arclegged.

Edit: btw, isn't having to respawn miles away from the fight already a penalty for death ? When I read "no death penalty", I kind of understand godmode...

Kipper

2012-05-10, 10:39 AM

The more people from your empire die at the same time and try to spawn at the same point, the more people have to wait for their turn on the spawn tubes.

I really like this idea of a spawn queue (on the respawn screen it should show the estimated queue length). It works on several levels:

Firstly, it doesn't penalize the individual for dying.

Secondly, it rewards the opposing team for killing - in that their defence/attack is able to progress.

Thirdly, it promotes bringing multiple spawn points to an area and having backups (it also makes spawn points more valuable targets as you are slowing down the rate of enemy soldiers coming to the fight).

Fourth, in beta, bases and galaxies can be balanced by altering the amount of available spawn tubes. Say that every tube can spawn one troop every 4 seconds, so a base with four tubes effectively spawns once per second, and a galaxy with two tubes once per two seconds. To get an advantage with inferior numbers, bring more spawn so you can keep what you have flowing faster.

Also as a certification, an upgraded Gal with an additional tube, or for resources, add more tubes to bases. It fits in with the sci-fi theme perfectly.

The 'spawn on squad leader' function would use the spawn queue timer of the nearest base/tower I guess as if to say you spawned at the base, but were launched out of some wacky human cannon and landed in a pod next to your leader.

Arius

2012-05-10, 10:48 AM

I usually die alot, so definitely a NO.

This is a way to tease away new players.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 11:00 AM

I really like this idea of a spawn queue (on the respawn screen it should show the estimated queue length). It works on several levels:

Firstly, it doesn't penalize the individual for dying.

Sorry but this is plain stupid and contra-effective. Why should the others from the same empire suffer if there are few assholes who don't know how to play or overestimating their abilities dying like crazy? I hate the spawn tube timer idea. Death penalties if any should be individual.

I usually die alot, so definitely a NO.

Very objective of you. Did u ever wonder why you die a lot?

DayOne

2012-05-10, 11:20 AM

The person dying probably needs all the help they can get. So no, this is not a good idea.

laelgon

2012-05-10, 11:32 AM

Dying is penalty enough. If people aren't motivated to get better on their own, penalizing them further isn't going to do it. The more time a player spends waiting to respawn or waiting for a penalty to wear off, the more time they have to log out and play another game. This game won't succeed by catering to the nerdcore crowd that fancies itself to be professional e-soldiers. The largest portion of the playerbase is going to be the more casual, few play sessions a week, just like most of the MMOs out there. That's where a lot of the money is going to be, and SOE knows that.

Kipper

2012-05-10, 11:39 AM

Sorry but this is plain stupid and contra-effective. Why should the others from the same empire suffer if there are few assholes who don't know how to play or overestimating their abilities dying like crazy?

I wouldn't anticipate the queues to be measured in minutes; unless you didn't bring enough spawn points to a location. Also, you can respawn immediately if you respawn at a location with no queue.

The balance team would obviously be able to increase/decrease the rate at which the machinery works to find something thats optimal.

I just think it makes sense that if you're assembling people out of nanites then the machinery/equipment has a throughput - which could be increased by adding more spawn tubes or bringing more galaxies, which is also a good resource sink.

Attackmack

2012-05-10, 11:57 AM

To enable defenders taking a rest for awhile if attacked by larger but less skilled force. Also there would be no reason to avoid dying or waiting to be healed either if there was no penalty in any form. Why wait for the medic when you can die and get re-spawned nearby?

If the spawnsystem is done right, you will always prefer to survive then to die.

I was (and still am) very suspective to any form of squadspawning but from what is know so far it seems it wont be possible indoors (where many of the most important battles will take place) and dying means youll be some distance away from the battle. This fact in itself should make you very interested in staying alive.

Arius

2012-05-10, 12:35 PM

Sorry but this is plain stupid and contra-effective. Why should the others from the same empire suffer if there are few assholes who don't know how to play or overestimating their abilities dying like crazy? I hate the spawn tube timer idea. Death penalties if any should be individual.

Very objective of you. Did u ever wonder why you die a lot?

Because I'm just not THAT good at shooter games where other people are. Even though I'm not great, I still enjoy them though.
I'm not going to have any fun at all if the game punishes me for being worse then someone else.

Zekeen

2012-05-10, 12:40 PM

I think rather than PERSONAL death penalties, a better idea is EMPIRE death penalties - After so many death, in such a short time, in such an area, Empire respawn time is increased in THAT ONE AREA. Meanwhile, you will be able to respawn at that location in a, let's say it's super heavy fighting, so, 45 seconds to respawn, but over here, in this nearby base where no one is fighting, respawn time of 0-5 seconds.

Planetside is a war game where you give your life for your empire. We get penalized AS A TEAM! Also it's less painful and game breaking that way.

Neurotoxin

2012-05-10, 12:47 PM

In PS1, longer respawn timers, respawning in pajamas with basic gear, and respawning with all the implants at 0, energy was more than enough penalty for death. We spawn as the class we intend to play now, but increasing respawn timers and implant charge-up time will still be enough of a limiting factor.

RSphil

2012-05-10, 01:18 PM

i dont think they will be needed. on the vids it looks like you dont spawn next to the combat area anyway. well not for the attackers.
if you want a good viable attack then the medics will have to do their job and keep ppl alive. a for the defenders, not sure on their spawn points so cant say anything on that point.

Rumblepit

2012-05-10, 01:33 PM

they are looking to speed up combat in ps2 not slow it down.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 02:20 PM

Because I'm just not THAT good at shooter games where other people are. Even though I'm not great, I still enjoy them though.
I'm not going to have any fun at all if the game punishes me for being worse then someone else. That's fine. Neither am I so I won't try playing Rambo style instead I'll play support class, there's a place for everyone in this game from what I've heard. But I doubt anyone will get killed 20 times in 5 mins no matter how average they are... you'll get there only if playing like reckless zerg.

i dont think they will be needed. on the vids it looks like you dont spawn next to the combat area anyway. there will be enough ways to spawn close to combat from what i've heard - on your commander, you could deploy galaxies etc...

they are looking to speed up combat in ps2 not slow it down. Yes in comparison to PS1? Have you seen it? Running looks almost slow-motion to me, however this game shouldn't be competing with Tribes in term of speed.

In PS1, longer respawn timers, respawning in pajamas with basic gear, and respawning with all the implants at 0, energy was more than enough penalty for death. . This sound good enough for me.

Senyu

2012-05-10, 04:33 PM

Dont know if it was mention within the 5 pages but heres my take.

The more you die within in area, the longer it takes you to respawn in that area. IE if you are defending a base and die ALOT then respawning in that base or the galaxy parked next to the base takes longer. Its normal time somewhere else that is a fair distance away. When you respawn like in PS1 your implants take time to activate as well. The timer can be reduced by not dieing for a bit and/or killing enough enemies.

I don't know where people are getting this idea that your helping someone who is dieing alot by giving him more chances to die. Increase spawn time means you need to die less often and that means you need to l2p the game and become more skilled. It is not promoting the player to become better if they spawn willy nilly no matter how many times they die like in other shooters. Infact your going to see people more stupid stuff because "lols I can just respawn". Instant respawn is going to cause alot of sloppyness in player skill. You need to cultivate the desire to remain alive as long as possible and become a better player.

basti

2012-05-10, 04:40 PM

Increasing the spawn timer per spawn location is fine really. If you spawn at one galaxy and die within a minute increase your spawn timer for that location by 5 seconds up to a maximum of 20 seconds. Very sane system.

Its not Fine

Its Nessesary. Without it, you would see a massive slaughterfest.

Obviously there cant be a big death penatly in a full PVP MMOFPS, that just doesnt work. But a slight additional spawn time for each death, up to a certain point, is nessesary, or any base assault will end up in a endless slaughter that nobody can win. Thing is, if you have a skilled defending force, but just an averange attacking force, that attacking force would still win just by overwelming the defenders with numbers.
But with a longer spawn time per death, it somewhat evens out, as long as the defenders are able to hold the first few waves. Otherwise it would just be a stream of enemys coming in, and nobody can hold against that.

RSphil

2012-05-10, 04:44 PM

I don't know where people are getting this idea that your helping someone who is dieing alot by giving him more chances to die. Increase spawn time means you need to die less often and that means you need to l2p the game and become more skilled. It is not promoting the player to become better if they spawn willy nilly no matter how many times they die like in other shooters. Infact your going to see people more stupid stuff because "lols I can just respawn". Instant respawn is going to cause alot of sloppyness in player skill. You need to cultivate the desire to remain alive as long as possible and become a better player.

i agree with this. i try to stay alive as long as possible in any fps i play. i always try to keep a high k/d ratio anyway. if you have no neason to stay alive and just run in guns blazing it makes the game less fun and more idiot suicide attacks will happen.

skill and tactics are whats gona make this fun for me. :D

Shogun

2012-05-10, 05:02 PM

Rumblepit

2012-05-10, 05:07 PM

no.
if you pilot a vehicle, you already get death penalty by losing the ressources needed to draw the vehicle and maybe a vehicle draw timer. don´t know if dieing infantry will lose their consumable items like grenades that cost ressources, too. if so, it´s more than enough penalty for everyone

this is how the new system will work......... they are not going to slow down combat or gameplay because someone is new or just had a run of back luck.

Death2All

2012-05-10, 05:09 PM

I think what we have here is a vocal minority, as indicated by the poll. I hope the devs take that information and apply it correctly to the game.

Penalizing you upon death doesn't add anything to the game other than more timid behavior and stagnant fights.

Proof you say?

i agree with this. i try to stay alive as long as possible in any fps i play. i always try to keep a high k/d ratio anyway. if you have no neason to stay alive and just run in guns blazing it makes the game less fun and more idiot suicide attacks will happen.

skill and tactics are whats gona make this fun for me. :D

There. There's your proof. He already plays defensively, "skill and tactics" (never mind that he can barely hold a sentence together grammatically, but I suppose the greatest tacticians weren't known for their literacy).

He's already doing anything he can to avoid damaging his precious K/D...How do you think he'll play when he's given a penalty for dieing?

Xyntech

2012-05-10, 05:35 PM

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 05:45 PM

I think what we have here is a vocal minority, as indicated by the poll. I hope the devs take that information and apply it correctly to the game.

Penalizing you upon death doesn't add anything to the game other than more timid behavior and stagnant fights.

He's already doing anything he can to avoid damaging his precious K/D...How do you think he'll play when he's given a penalty for dieing?

And illiterate majority I'm afraid. :p Most of the people who voted I doubt even read the opening post. Adding 5-10 seconds to your respawn or disabling some of your skill for same amount of time after getting consecutively killed multiple times in the short time lapse will hardly ruin the game. It will actually make player think that he has to change his tactics, and yes it will make players play smarter and more cautious until they get better. You like rush zerg tactics?! Go play another game there's plenty of them out there right know. :P~ From what I've heard SOE is trying to go for something groundbreaking and different what doesn't always mean appeasing the majority.

As for second part I agree I'd ditch all the statistics except xp earned from such actions. The K/D ratio, shoot % etc are unnecessary if you ask me since they can make players playing more non-natural way to preserve them. The real skill of the player will be reflected by the situation on the field not by some statistics - your 10.0 k/d ratio means nothing if your team lost every single battle you were in.

Death2All

2012-05-10, 05:47 PM

Adding a spawn time penalty definitely has some merit as far as balancing out the flow of fights, but I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish the same goals without kicking a player while they are down.

"Fuck you, you are dying too much, let's make sure you have even less fun"

Just doesn't seem smart to me.

There's some obvious ways.

For example, if you spawn at a base (defending presumably) you have a shorter respawn timer (just like in the original game).

If you're attacking and spawning from a tower or AMS(or Galaxy this time around I guess) you have a longer respawn (just like in the original game).

These things are just coming to me for some reason :rolleyes:...

You already have a perfect system in place, there's no need to add senseless penalties that punish you for dying.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 05:52 PM

You already have a perfect system in place, there's no need to add senseless penalties that punish you for dying.

But there are obviously death penalties in PS1 from what I've heard so far here. :rofl:

Death2All

2012-05-10, 05:58 PM

But there are obviously death penalties in PS1 from what I've heard so far here. :rofl:

Yeah, I pointed out in the beginning of the thread that the penalties were flawed. :confused:

I was saying the system they had in place for respawning at bases versus towers/mobile spawn points was perfect.

Talek Krell

2012-05-10, 06:01 PM

This idea is terrible to the point of comedy. The only legitimate reason to have a death penalty is to shape the flow of a fight, which was why they existed in PS1. Without the penalty it was inordinately difficult to take a spawn room.

Sylphaen has done us the service of proposing an infinitely better solution for this problem.What about no spawn penalties on players and instead having fixed spawn rate on spawn tubes instead (ex: 1 spawn every 4 seconds) ?

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 06:03 PM

Yeah, I pointed out in the beginning of the thread that the penalties were flawed. :confused:.

Then they obviously don't have a perfect system by your measure if part of it is "flawed". No reason to be confused. :D

Death2All

2012-05-10, 06:05 PM

Then they obviously don't have a perfect system by your measure if part of it is "flawed". No reason to be confused. :D

:bang:

Did you read what I said at all?

Here I'll post it here again for you:

Yeah, I pointed out in the beginning of the thread that the penalties were flawed. :confused:

I was saying the system they had in place for respawning at bases versus towers/mobile spawn points was perfect.

Hope you understand my meaning this time.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 06:15 PM

:bang:

Keeping banging maybe it will come to you. You can't take away part of the system we are talking about here, and say it was perfect before thus no need to "add penalties" - there were/are penalties in previous system. :doh: I understand what you're tried to say but you've been very unclear in your first post. You meant to say different spawn times for different structures/vehicles are good enough by itself - take away the penalty system altogether.

For Talek: Sylphaen "solution" penalizes entire empire (everyone) for couple of guys dying too much. That's the worst solution actually.

Death2All

2012-05-10, 06:17 PM

Keeping banging maybe it will come to you. You can't take away part of the system we are talking about here, and say it was perfect before thus no need to "add penalties" - there were/are penalties in previous system. :doh: I understand what you're tried to say but you've been very unclear. You meant to say different spawn times for different structures/vehicles are good enough by itself - take away the penalty system altogether.

Yeah there were death penalties in the game but they were flawed as I pointed out, and they shouldn't exist in th--Aw fuck it.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 06:29 PM

Yeah there were death penalties in the game but they were flawed as I pointed out, and they shouldn't exist in th--Aw fuck it.

Fuck m8 I apologize, my bad. I misread/misunderstood your second post on this page. oops: But still I think individual death penalties are necessary and should be left as they were in PS1.

Talek Krell

2012-05-10, 07:11 PM

For Talek: Sylphaen "solution" penalizes entire empire (everyone) for couple of guys dying too much. That's the worst solution actually.His solution penalizes no one. It provides the same spawn rate throughout while still permitting spawn rooms to be taken. It is the best solution because unlike your suggestion it is addressing an actual problem.

Kipper

2012-05-10, 07:13 PM

sylphaen

2012-05-10, 07:34 PM

For Talek: Sylphaen "solution" penalizes entire empire (everyone) for couple of guys dying too much. That's the worst solution actually.

Wowowo ! Unless your empire's spawn point is being camped, those guys actually still have to reach the battle before they get shot.

Look at the bright side, when you're busy not dying, they are actually maximizing the productivity of spawn tube equipments ! And they also have a much worse K/D ratios.

In fact, the only place where they actually outperform you is in front of you on the spawn queue.

I mean, it's fine if you don't like that solution but I do not see many other options between instant respawn, fixed respawn time and respawn times linked to death frequency. No solution is perfect but I find it better than what PS1 offered.

I personally don't like instant respawn which is too deathmatchy.
Fixed rate respawn also feels like "boom! 20 guys reappear in the same spawn room at the same time" (if they died at the same time)
Increasing spawn times with death frequency was a bit too much and promotes stalemates by inequally penalizing those most willing to push through doors and take risks.

So yes, my suggestion is influenced by personal preferences but in the end, anything tweaked adequately could work fine. Even spawning on squad leaders.

Duddy

2012-05-10, 07:42 PM

Having read some more, I now like the idea of the timer on the spawn location itself. (Sorry Sirisian!)

One thing I like about it is that it does go some way to reintroduce logistics.

In PS1, as long as you had the 1 spawn point you could produce a seemingly infinite number of players. The problem for defenders of course was that you always had to track down that last AMS as all attackers (barring MAXes) could spawn there. By limiting how many people can spawn at a source at once you make it important to manage those resources rather than it being a binary case of "Have a spawn point? Ok, all sorted."

Surely the PS1 players remember that very few people gave a damn about looking after AMSes until there was only 1 left?

Such a system could be balanced by setting a "spawns per second" limit. Bases could have a very high limit, given that defenders would probably only have the one (possibly, two) spawn point(s) in the base. Gals would have a lesser limit to encourage more deliberate (over passive) use, not implying you'd need a lot to match base capacity... but it should be more than 1!

Gonefshn

2012-05-10, 09:18 PM

Does someone who's dying often enough for this to kick in really need their life made harder?

LOL. THIS.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 09:46 PM

His solution penalizes no one. It provides the same spawn rate throughout while still permitting spawn rooms to be taken. It is the best solution because unlike your suggestion it is addressing an actual problem.

Perhaps I don't understand spawn mechanism well but how exactly this solution penalizes no one? Having dozens of zerg in your empire could seriously clog some spawn tube even make them completely useless - so the guys who actually try to keep alive while fighting will have to wait longer or choose tube far away from battle to spawn as well as those responsible for the clogs? It's actually penalizing everyone, even those who don't deserve it.

Taking the spawn room isn't the only problem imo if you mean that by actual problem.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 09:53 PM

I mean, it's fine if you don't like that solution but I do not see many other options between instant respawn, fixed respawn time and respawn times linked to death frequency. No solution is perfect but I find it better than what PS1 offered.

I like last solution the most of before mentioned. However your solution could be viable also but only if the same guy couldn't spawn over and over through to same tube too frequent. i.e. no more than 1 time per 2 minutes or something like that. In other case we'll have zerg clogging all the tubes close to battle.

CutterJohn

2012-05-10, 10:17 PM

that attacking force would still win just by overwelming the defenders with numbers.

Outnumbering your opponent is a valid tactic. It doesn't need to be evened out.

Talek Krell

2012-05-10, 10:34 PM

Perhaps I don't understand spawn mechanism well but how exactly this solution penalizes no one? Having dozens of zerg in your empire could seriously clog some spawn tube even make them completely useless - so the guys who actually try to keep alive while fighting will have to wait longer or choose tube far away from battle to spawn as well as those responsible for the clogs? It's actually penalizing everyone, even those who don't deserve it.

Taking the spawn room isn't the only problem imo if you mean that by actual problem.The reason that you think this is the same reason that you can think of a spawn tube as "clogged" simply for taking longer to spawn you, even if it is still churning out soldiers at the same rate it always has.

You are so wrapped up in your own ego that you can no longer see other viewpoints.

This is why you blame game mechanics instead of your poor strategic choices when you're overwhelmed by a superior force.
This is why a method of play that you personally dislike must be invalid without further reasoning.
This is why you genuinely believe that the poll not going the way you want is the fault of "illiterates" rather than because your idea is vindictive and poorly thought out.
And this is why you can insist that your tight knit crew of leet survivalists are so good that they need the Devs to handicap their opponents in order to win and see absolutely no logical flaw in the statement.

If you were dying so infrequently then you would be spending less time waiting to spawn anyway, which means that what upsets you is the suggestion that you should have to spend as much time per spawn as everybody else.

Immigrant

2012-05-10, 11:06 PM

The reason that you think this is the same reason that you can think of a spawn tube as "clogged" simply for taking longer to spawn you, even if it is still churning out soldiers at the same rate it always has.

Yes but on average it will churn zerg more. I can't see why you won't even consider this being a problem in battles of several dozens (and more) against each other? And yes it could get clogged seriously just do a simple math if you don't believe me. Just 10 zerg-likes in your empire could make queues long 40 seconds (4 secs x 10) if all stack up on the same tube. Why is this so hard to grasp?

You are so wrapped up in your own ego that you can no longer see other viewpoints.

:rofl: right back at you.

This is why you blame game mechanics instead of your poor strategic choices when you're overwhelmed by a superior force. No, if we're overwhelmed it's fine just as long as the guy we just killed 15 seconds ago doesn't jump out behind the nearest bush with in full battle gear. No penalties for dying exponentialy increase the strength of zerg attacks.

This is why a method of play that you personally dislike must be invalid without further reasoning.

No, you just haven't provided well supported answer to simple questions: like why bothering to stay alive when fighting then, or why wait for medics to heal you when you have spawn point nearby, etc...

This is why you genuinely believe that the poll not going the way you want is the fault of "illiterates" rather than because your idea is vindictive and poorly thought out.

No, I've concluded this from most of the reactions - since they are like : why turn away new players, slow down game etc. which aren't really a problem if triggers (thresholds) when penalties occur are well though out and tested beforehand. Why put it away when you haven't thought it out throughly. As some of the guys said here they never had problem with PS1 system as long as they practiced teamwork.

And this is why you can insist that your tight knit crew of leet survivalists are so good that they need the Devs to handicap their opponents in order to win and see absolutely no logical flaw in the statement.

What are you smoking? I don't even have a crew, I'm new to this game. :huh:

If you were dying so infrequently then you would be spending less time waiting to spawn anyway, which means that what upsets you is the suggestion that you should have to spend as much time per spawn as everybody else.

Why are then you so upset when you'd need to wait few seconds more if dying more often then the most? :lol: People dying the most should wait the most not vice versa. It's pure logic... and anyway while they're waiting at least they won't be dying. :D

It's not having to wait same as other that bothers me or anyone it having to wait more because of others that should bother everyone (this is what sylphaens suggestion could lead to in practice). Who will reason with zerg not to charge headlessly and prolong the spawn queues for everyone if not the game mechanism itself?

Kipper

2012-05-11, 05:12 AM

Forcing people into downtime for the sake of it is just asking people to /quit tbh.

World of Tanks has a 30 second timer to allow everyone to load into the map, which is absolutely necessary - but 30 seconds seems like ages, particularly when you're watching a countdown, unable to do anything else, no time to go get a drink etc. At least here you generally fight for a good solid 10 minutes.

In a highly contested base fight, you might be expected to live 2 minutes - so 30 seconds arbitrary would be 25% of your game time - unacceptable.

If you have instant respawn - base fights will only ever end when people go to bed because essentially, it will be two armies of infinite numbers fighting infinitely.

Again, this suggests a sensible solution that the spawn timer is on the spawn point not the soldier - thus, dying affects the team and allows a better team to gain advantage, logistics matter since you can make up for smaller numbers with more spawn points, and you can trade dead-downtime for spawning at a different location.

Canaris

2012-05-11, 05:22 AM

I'm a huge advocate of the death penalty, I believe it should be applied to all NC & VS ;)

however an game mechanic to punish people for dieing is a bad idea, it will just aggravate and alienate those who don't play well, a slight increase in spawn time would be the most acceptable just like PS1 anything after that, heck no.

Sabot

2012-05-11, 05:39 AM

Death penalty for the VS? That would imply we die...
http://i.qkme.me/35p1ys.jpg

But no... no penalty. Like other have said.... at the most a small increase in spawn time would be acceptable.

Immigrant

2012-05-11, 06:44 AM

World of Tanks has a 30 second timer to allow everyone to load into the map, which is absolutely necessary - but 30 seconds seems like ages, particularly when you're watching a countdown, unable to do anything else, no time to go get a drink etc. At least here you generally fight for a good solid 10 minutes.

In a highly contested base fight, you might be expected to live 2 minutes - so 30 seconds arbitrary would be 25% of your game time - unacceptable.

If you have instant respawn - base fights will only ever end when people go to bed because essentially, it will be two armies of infinite numbers fighting infinitely.

Again, this suggests a sensible solution that the spawn timer is on the spawn point not the soldier - thus, dying affects the team and allows a better team to gain advantage, logistics matter since you can make up for smaller numbers with more spawn points, and you can trade dead-downtime for spawning at a different location.

WoT is arena-style game essentially, not open world-persistent MMO so consequences and anticipation from this games are different. And after all what happens when u die? You have to wait for the end of the match what can be 10 mins if you die among the first to use that tank again. 30 secs at the start seem negligent to that really, at least to me. But enough with WoT offtopic.

I agree with the last part if you get spawn away enough most of the times it's no problem at all. But from what I've heard and read people will be spawning from around every bush - on commanders, groups spawn call ins etc.

Edit: sorry i misunderstood the last part. no the "spawn timer" shouldn't be at the point - this could produce zerg clogs on certain points in massive fights. I thought you said that spawn point shouldn't be on other soldiers just on spawn locations. Anyway just one question - will "on commander" spawn points and galaxy spawn points be usable only by members of your squad/outfit or everyone? If it by everyone then clogs will be viable problem but if only for your team then this isn't a problem since you can choose with whom to play.

I'm a huge advocate of the death penalty, I believe it should be applied to all NC & VS ;)

however an game mechanic to punish people for dieing is a bad idea, it will just aggravate and alienate those who don't play well, a slight increase in spawn time would be the most acceptable just like PS1 anything after that, heck no.

Death penalty for the VS? That would imply we die...

But no... no penalty. Like other have said.... at the most a small increase in spawn time would be acceptable.

First :lol: at bold part. Second that "small increase in ST" is actually the big scary penalty I was talking about in the first place - I didn't know it was already there in PS1 when I started the thread. I never meant for something like "you can't play for next X mins" as I feel most got an impression. Just for something that would make most players try to stay alive so that dying to get full HP bar isn't better solution even if you had spawn point nearby.

Kipper

2012-05-11, 07:00 AM

And after all what happens when u die? You have to wait for the end of the match what can be 10 mins if you die among the first to use that tank again

Assuming you don't want to watch the conclusion of the match - you just press escape, pick another tank and get straight back in with zero downtime bar the 30 second load-in timer. If you were forced to wait till the match was over, you'd just stop playing.

The point was - 30 seconds may sound like a trivial amount of time, and it is - except when you're forced to sit there and do nothing except watch a 30 second countdown and are unable to do anything else. Then it feels very much like you are wasting time when you could/should be doing something else.

You don't want players to feel like that for 25% of their time on PS2 because eventually they will just log out.

Games are meant to be fun, and online competitive games require active players to provide content for one another. Punishing people for playing your game, however badly they play it, is not conducive to having them stick around and invest their time and money into it, whereas rewarding them for good play gives them something to aim for.

If you make the rules of the game say that the team as a whole contributes to the effectiveness of the team - then you promote team play, which will reward everyone, and single out no individual for punishment.

sylphaen

2012-05-11, 09:12 AM

Just a few unordered thoughts below.

Another idea, if the goal is purely to prevent death rushing, would be a spawn timer system like the one for vehicles in PS1.
e.g.: if you die within 45 seconds, you will have to wait until 45 seconds have elapsed since you spawned before you can respawn.

Overall, this means that the concept of attrition is maintained since someone is kept out of the field for some time if he died too fast. However, past those 45 seconds, you could care less about respawning.

We talk a lot about spawning but as it was mentionned earlier, there is a whole class entirely dedicated to reviving players. Hopefully, they will be complement each other instead of competing for the best respawn method.

I think medics should be favored to spawn tubes which should in turn be favored vs. squad leader spawn.

There could also be some original spawn mechanics added to PS2 like a powerful high level unlock for medics that they could set up to rebirth there once when they die.

If you played ET:QW, the Strogg technicians respawn mechanic would also be an original mechanic for the VS:
http://etqw.geezergaming.com/newbies/stroggvgdf.php#techvmed
One of the most significant asymmetric features is the difference between GDF Medics and Strogg Technicians. They fulfill similar tasks (reviving teammates and supplying health), but in quite different ways. Fallen GDF players can be Revived by GDF Medics, or wait for the next Respawn wave. Fallen Strogg players can be Revived by Strogg Technicians (although more slowly), but Strogg Technicians can turn fallen GDF players into Spawn Hosts, allowing Strogg players to rejoin the action directly, at the next respawn, without having to transit from the Spawn Point.

Fenrys

2012-05-11, 02:54 PM

What about giving a bonus for not dieing? Like an extra 1% xp per (1-5) minute(s), up to +5% max?

Death2All

2012-05-11, 03:34 PM

What about giving a bonus for not dieing? Like an extra 1% xp per (1-5) minute(s), up to +5% max?

No. That just gives you incentives you to play even harder to stay alive. I.E. more camping/not pushing forward.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no.

No.

...No. :no:

Xyntech

2012-05-11, 03:56 PM

What if we penalized players for letting their guns magazine get too low, like it takes longer to reload if you have fewer bullets left?

"Fuck you, you should have reloaded sooner. Now it will take you three times as long to reload!"

(individual shot loading shotguns not withstanding, since you can fire at any point during that longer reload period)

Reloading should be reloading, and respawning should be respawning, and I would prefer to see it stay consistent. As in, you never get rewarded or penalized for the circumstances of your respawn.

If there needs to be a way to balance the flow of battles, do it in a way that doesn't reward or penalize players for something that may be entirely out of their control (due to not being the most skilled gamer or encountering consistently unfavorable odds).

Losing resources when you die is really bad enough, and that's actually a fair penalization, since some purchases don't require resources, so it's a choice. Maybe I won't pull those grenades if I know I'm going to get cut down before I get a chance to use them.

And really, why shouldn't a player have the option of running headlong into the meat grinder again and again regardless of their own safety? It's still a pretty futile tactic that will never prevail against more organized players, no matter if there are respawn penalties or not. If that's George's way of having fun, mindlessly charging into the fray, why should he be penalized just because he isn't smart or a good player? It's not like he is winning anyone any battles doing it.

As much as there are new FPS elements that are getting added "just because they are new," I feel like some players like classic elements just because they are old.

Respawn timers are definitely important and deserve careful balancing, but additional penalties just seems like a bad and severely outdated concept. We can do better than that.

Death2All

2012-05-11, 04:24 PM

Words

Oh my God! I agree with you about something :eek:!

Hit the nail right on the said. There's no point in penalizing players for dieing in game, all it does is add a lame additional mechanic and turn off newer players, despite what your delusional claims of "balance" that it adds to the game. So many easier avenues to take that don't involve punishing players.

Oh, and no one better mention death streaks a la CoD I.E. "die 5 times in a row and now you have more health"! I might actually kill you :evil:.

BlazingSun

2012-05-11, 04:25 PM

My death frequency is usally very low, but I'm against penalties anyway.

Xyntech

2012-05-11, 04:46 PM

Oh my God! I agree with you about something :eek:!

:groovy:

Oh, and no one better mention death streaks a la CoD I.E. "die 5 times in a row and now you have more health"! I might actually kill you :evil:.

Hey, death streaks are actually a good idea.

*dives for cover*

Seriously though, that shit is astonishingly retarded.

At least in Tribes: Ascend, they do it as a shitty perk that wastes a valuable slot. That's about the only way I'd not go apeshit over something like that being added to PS2

Graywolves

2012-05-11, 05:00 PM

If you get nothing from killing a person then when assaulting you have no reason to attack other players unless they are preventing you from taking the console.

Playing for effect will mean finding methods to go around and get to the least resistance in your effort to take a base (there will be players who do this anyways).

10s might be enough of a slowed spawn.

Or...

We can put NTU/Energy levels in bases again. If people are respawning in a base constantly and not refilling/charging the batteries/generator, then eventually no one will spawn there again.

Talek Krell

2012-05-11, 06:50 PM

This is why a method of play that you personally dislike must be invalid without further reasoning.
No, you just haven't provided well supported answer to simple questions: like why bothering to stay alive when fighting then, or why wait for medics to heal you when you have spawn point nearby, etc...Your pitiful attempt to redirect the conversation fails to provide any reason that people should be doing those things or why they should be excessively penalized for not doing them.

As the person making the suggestion you are responsible for providing sound reasoning to back your suggestion. So far you've given us blind assumptions about how psychology works and your personal vitriol for broad swathes of people that you accuse of being "less skilled".

People will stay alive because losing is less effective and less enjoyable than winning. The same reason that anyone bothers to stay alive in any game regardless of how long it takes to spawn.

Toppopia

2012-05-11, 06:55 PM

The only problem i see is that as defenders, you basically keep fighting until you lose or the attackers give up, but not everyone will give up attacking so you will always need to keep a skeleton defence force at every base and tower so that incase someone attacks, you can delay them long enough for reinforcements to arrive, but no one will want to sit at a base or tower for the 6 hours they are playing waiting for an attack that may never happen.

sylphaen

2012-05-11, 07:00 PM

Gonefshn

2012-05-11, 07:02 PM

People will stay alive because losing is less effective and less enjoyable than winning. The same reason that anyone bothers to stay alive in any game regardless of how long it takes to spawn.

This. Also people will want to preserve K/D ratio. And on top of that, without people willing to push into the fray and die many conflicts would go nowhere.

In PS1 you could never take a base without running in the door and the first people inside get mowed down because despite skill no one can outgun a dug in enemy multiple times the size.

You can't punish people for dying for two reasons.
1. It discourages taking risks that are often necessary.
2. People who suck get punished? Here is the flipside to that. Lets just bring in Killstreaks and when I camp and kill 5 in a row I can call in robot attack dogs! Hurray for people who don't need help winning getting more tools to win with.

Toppopia

2012-05-11, 07:05 PM

You do need those few people to sacrifice their life to allow the other teammates to push through to the objective, or else no one will want that task if there is a huge penalty on dying for the good of the team.

sylphaen

2012-05-11, 07:08 PM

dying for the good of the team.

You are the team, they are the elite.
:rofl:

Blackwolf

2012-05-11, 07:08 PM

To enable defenders taking a rest for awhile if attacked by larger but less skilled force. Also there would be no reason to avoid dying or waiting to be healed either if there was no penalty in any form. Why wait for the medic when you can die and get re-spawned nearby?

Why respawn nearby when you can be brought back to life HERE? Yay reverse logic?

Death penalties in a DPS game are pretty pointless. You are in the game to kill and die, that's it. Why make a crappy situation that much worse with a penalty stacked on top of the already large enough mountain of inconveniences you will have to endure every time you get your ass handed to you?

Synical

2012-05-11, 07:10 PM

Toppopia

2012-05-11, 07:14 PM

Gonefshn

2012-05-11, 07:18 PM

I voted for "Yes(Spawn prevention)".

I like the system that was in place in PS1 and I would not mind seeing it make a return.

There needs to be a system in place that makes players think before mindlessly running into a base/firefight. It helps put some limits on the zerg rush mentality and rewards good players. Zerg rushers should get penalized for dying 30 times in a row because all they do is respawn outside of the base and rush back in.

For example a Terran Republic base is being attacked and the attackers have a Galaxy landed a ways out for closer respawns.

One outfit, a zerg outfit, spawns at the Galaxy then they all rush into the base trickling into the base one by one like lemmings getting cut down. They respawn and proceed to do the same thing over and over again. Eventually they break through the defensive line and capture the base.

Another outfit, an outfit of players with actual skill, plans out an attack strategy. They assault the base working off that strategy and capture the base with few casualties.

Which play-style do you think should be rewarded?

Your absolutely right and the answer to whom should be rewarded is obvious but this is about a penalty not a reward.

The reward for an outfit that takes a base with good strategy and few casualties should be and is better stats, recognition, more points, success.

I don't think longer spawn time will encourage a zerg rusher not to rush. The extra time it takes them to plan their next move is no different than the time they would spend watching a timer run down in their eyes. If people just want to run in and shoot the first thing they see they will do that and a death penalty will only frustrate the ridiculous yet sadly essential zerg player base.

You need the zerg at the core to create the battle lines and give strategic players something to Lol at while driving by in transports.

sylphaen

2012-05-11, 07:22 PM

Taking the attacker's viewpoint: it gets frustrating when no one dares to assault a defensive position.
Taking the defenders' viewpoint: it gets boring when no one dares to assault your defensive position.

Without people rushing in, defense gets boring. Without the feeling of pressure, last resort defense feels less epic. And sometimes, there's no other way to scout for the attackers than sending someone in and probe the quality of defense.

Of course, it does play a factor when the defensive position has no spawns (e.g. gen room holds in PS1) but numbers and tactics would always take care of you much more certainly than any spawn time mechanic.

I agree with Gonefshn and others saying that penalties on death promotes stale gameplay. The rest is about balance and what kind of gameplay devs believe to be the most fun for everyone.

Synical

2012-05-11, 07:24 PM

You forgot the 3rd option of a good outfit plans a good attack, but a better defending outfit plans a better defense and you get killed anyway :D

Well, they would obviously fail anyway, it was a Terran base they were assaulting after all.

:D

Duddy

2012-05-11, 07:38 PM

I think the biggest problem here at the moment is talking from the perspective of a penalty (to a player) for dying as opposed to just a game mechanic to shape the flow of battle.

I'm in agreement with that "punishing" people for dying is a bad idea, but certainly I feel that not having some system to manage the rate at which people can spawn at could lead to significant balance issues.

With that said, this is why I like the idea of timers on the spawn point. When I say this I don't mean timers on the spawn point per player, but more so as the capacity of a spawn point to spawn players.

A, somewhat flawed, analogy is that of the vehicle terminals. Only so many vehicles were able to be produced at any one time in PS1 bases, which prevented an overwhelming surge of vehicles at once (unless you actually bothered to mount up a force that is).

Consider this, if there is no "flow control" to the amount of people that can spawn at a spawn point, how will it be possible for either defenders or attackers to make headway? If people are able to respawn very quickly and in very large numbers it'll make for fairly manic but slow progressing fights and it would actually reward players for playing in a sub-optimal way.

The point is, there needs to be some kind of system, I don't see a way it could work without one. Whether we impose that directly upon the player or as a wider gameplay mechanic is a different question, one that I propose we answer by giving spawn points a certain capacity.

Synical

2012-05-11, 07:39 PM

Your absolutely right and the answer to whom should be rewarded is obvious but this is about a penalty not a reward.

The reward for an outfit that takes a base with good strategy and few casualties should be and is better stats, recognition, more points, success.

I don't think longer spawn time will encourage a zerg rusher not to rush. The extra time it takes them to plan their next move is no different than the time they would spend watching a timer run down in their eyes. If people just want to run in and shoot the first thing they see they will do that and a death penalty will only frustrate the ridiculous yet sadly essential zerg player base.

You need the zerg at the core to create the battle lines and give strategic players something to Lol at while driving by in transports.

Yes, this discussion is about penalties rather then rewards, and I do realize that in a way zergs do have their purpose. They just rub me the wrong way, especially zerg outfits, so I guess I am biased when it comes to this discussion.

I know not everyone enjoys the tactical side of FPSs (in most popular FPSs there isn't one) and most just want to hop into combat and start shooting, and that is obviously their right as everyone should be able to play the game the way they want to. At the same time however I don't think a zerg outfit should be able to rush a base and die repeatedly without some sort of penalty other than having an awful KDR (which I think is useless anyway). It's not fair to the defenders for them to lose a hard fought battle just because a zerg outfit shows up.

It is a balancing act though. Some players are not all that skilled, or are only casual players and they should not be penalized for that, on that point I agree with everyone who is not in favor of a death penalty of any kind.

Blackwolf

2012-05-11, 07:46 PM

You forgot the 3rd option of a good outfit plans a good attack, but a better defending outfit plans a better defense and you get killed anyway :D

Also the strategy of, let the lemmings trickle into the base and pick a different direction to assault from. To flank is to win.

On a more serious note.

Experience boosts for higher KDRs at time of capture? Or for fewer deaths?

Say theres a base exp reward for taking the base, what they have now. Add varying degrees of bonuses for higher KDRs. Maybe 10% for 2-1, 12% for 3-1, 18% for 4-1, and 25% for 5-1 and higher.

Kipper

2012-05-11, 07:47 PM

All empires will have Zerg, so they will balance each other out.....

Gonefshn

2012-05-11, 07:56 PM

Yes, this discussion is about penalties rather then rewards, and I do realize that in a way zergs do have their purpose. They just rub me the wrong way, especially zerg outfits, so I guess I am biased when it comes to this discussion.

I know not everyone enjoys the tactical side of FPSs (in most popular FPSs there isn't one) and most just want to hop into combat and start shooting, and that is obviously their right as everyone should be able to play the game the way they want to. At the same time however I don't think a zerg outfit should be able to rush a base and die repeatedly without some sort of penalty other than having an awful KDR (which I think is useless anyway). It's not fair to the defenders for them to lose a hard fought battle just because a zerg outfit shows up.

It is a balancing act though. Some players are not all that skilled, or are only casual players and they should not be penalized for that, on that point I agree with everyone who is not in favor of a death penalty of any kind.

Well said, I agree zerg outfits are slightly annoying but to me existing outside of those players and working in strategy around their constant stalemate is what makes it fun imo.

To the center paragraph I raise you this point, let it hold whatever weight you see fit.

In PS1 you didn't have a very prominent Lifetime KDR. In PS2 you most certainly will. I feel that a Zerg outfit's members will be the exact kinds of players this time around who do care about KDR and would approach the game with more self preservation in mind.

Immigrant

2012-05-11, 09:10 PM

Your pitiful attempt to redirect the conversation fails to provide any reason that people should be doing those things or why they should be excessively penalized for not doing them.

As the person making the suggestion you are responsible for providing sound reasoning to back your suggestion. So far you've given us blind assumptions about how psychology works and your personal vitriol for broad swathes of people that you accuse of being "less skilled".

People will stay alive because losing is less effective and less enjoyable than winning. The same reason that anyone bothers to stay alive in any game regardless of how long it takes to spawn.

Learn to debate like a proper person please. Why resort to throwing mud in form of ad hominem attacks and cheap attempts at psychoanalysis. Ok, i took the bait when someone called me and others who think differently "nerdcore vocal minority" and after that I probably shouldn't have responded to your ad-hominems. Yes, I admit I'm bloody under the skin and reacted inappropriate but let's stop it now, ok?

I think waiting for medic should be preferable than getting killed to respawn in most cases. If not you'll directly make medics as healers less valuable for broad masses, what's unclear there? No-one was talking about excessive penalties and I think other who voted same way didn't so please use truth. If you consider any penalty at all excessive that's your view point but please don't exaggerate. Also I said it shouldn't be set so it slows down game or turns away less experienced just to prevent "death rushing" as sylphaen called it. Next I didn't make any suggestion, this isn't the ideas forum, I just asked what do you think about penalties, and to back up the reasoning for and against.

Sorry but I have played few online games and know that there will be many people who won't be caring about staying alive simply because it is "more enjoyable". People will do crazy stuff which will lead to them surely dying just because they can especially when it bears no negative consequences to them at all. As some said earlier jumping from flying plane just to lob few grenades at unsuspecting soldiers below even though it will be certain death for him - sorry but that's more exploit than a legit tactic imo. I just hope it won't be too rampant to disable any attempt at more conventional tactical gameplay.

Also I didn't call anyone "less skilled" (I probably won't be great either) but there will be people who'll play like zerg (that mean non-cooperative rushing, zerg can be skilled in many ways) and I have concerns that could spoil the game for the rest if they death rush making crazy shit constantly since spawn points and methods will be abundant. When someone manages to kill you multiple times in short period you should be away for little more time. Killing someone should have some effect more than raising your kill count by 1. I think that otherwise in every case two teams clash the more numerous one will end up being victor no matter the tactics or effectiveness. I could be completely wrong (just sharing my concerns if you allow), we'll have to wait for beta to see.

Anyway I must say devs should take opinion of the majority into account, I just hope it won't spoil the game and make it just an enormous slaughter fest arena with no tactical play.

Why respawn nearby when you can be brought back to life HERE? Yay reverse logic?

:lol: Maybe because medic won't be right on your arse every single time you get seriously low HP to heal you up right NOW? (I wasn't talking about revive ability here.) And spawn points can sometimes be very very close (on your commander or in a galaxy/tube right behind you). I think that even in those cases waiting let's say 40 secs for medic to heal you should be somehow preferable to deliberate charging at enemy to die so you can get full HP.

Raka Maru

2012-05-11, 10:41 PM

Xyntech

2012-05-12, 10:18 AM

Death should cause you to lose all your weapons and armor and everything you were carrying at the time and then force you to wear a death shroud colored dirty grey. Then you have to get rezzed at a spawn point and go find your corpse. ;)

Kidding aside...

I think PS1 did it right. Implants needed charging, you had to respawn away from the battle. Did we forget that the tactical squad will find the spawn point/person and take them out. That's how you push back attackers. The timer wasn't too bad and it did remind you that you were playing carelessly.

You are right about the other penalties, like having your implant timers reset, but that happened every time you died.

I like the idea that death is bad, but it should be equally bad every time you die, not worse because you died more.

It's not that there was no reason to have spawn penalties for dying too much in PS1, just that it may be a bit harsh on top of all the other bad things that go along with dying.

In the first Planetside, if you kept constantly dying, you would never have access to your implants at all. That seems about right for as harsh of a penalty as there should be for dying too often.

It's not like your implants got to start with a little extra charge when you respawned after a longer respawn timer. That would actually be kind of a nice, like a trade off for the penalization.

In my mind, we should punish players who failed to kill their enemy by dying. We should punish players who fail to defend territory by losing it.

What we should not punish players for is dying too many times in a row, or for not killing enough players in x amount of time. Killing and dying are reward and punishment enough.

I'm all for encouraging smarter play and team play, but I want the game to be a welcoming environment for new players, so that they have every chance to possibly be converted over time to being a better player.

The idea of having staggered respawn cycles is a decent idea. It would add a maximum of x amount of seconds to anyones spawn, but it would do it evenly, without rewarding or punishing.

Something like 5 second cycles would probably be enough time for an attacking force to make some headway, and if needed, you could make an overworked spawn point start to take longer per cycle, while allowing everyone to spawn who was waiting to once that cycle was up.

Gonefshn

2012-05-12, 11:57 AM

Also I didn't call anyone "less skilled" (I probably won't be great either) but there will be people who'll play like zerg (that mean non-cooperative rushing, zerg can be skilled in many ways) and I have concerns that could spoil the game for the rest if they death rush making crazy shit constantly since spawn points and methods will be abundant. When someone manages to kill you multiple times in short period you should be away for little more time. Killing someone should have some effect more than raising your kill count by 1. I think that otherwise in every case two teams clash the more numerous one will end up being victor no matter the tactics or effectiveness. I could be completely wrong (just sharing my concerns if you allow), we'll have to wait for beta to see.

Anyway I must say devs should take opinion of the majority into account, I just hope it won't spoil the game and make it just an enormous slaughter fest arena with no tactical play.

The best way I can argue a bit against this point is using PS1 as the example.
And this is barely an arguement because most of what you said is true but the results you predict I think I can put at ease a bit.

In a small 64 player match with new players constantly joining in your never going to get everyone on your team to cooperate. You are playing on a team with 32 people you have never met, at best your with 4 or 5 friends on Team Voice and can use tactical play.

Planetside 1 was different than all these shooters and the same will be for PS2 due to the persistant nature. In PS1 people zerg rushed ALL the time just as you described they might in PS2. It never ruined the game because in a game with hundreds of people and no end to a match, you had all the time in the world to find like minded individuals to employ HUGE strategic attacks and maneuvers. You have no time to rally together the people on your team in a 20 minute match. In Planetside the zerg will always be the zerg, and they will help form the battlelines and keep the fight constant. But strategic thinking players will always dominate the Zerg. In PS1 the zerg might trickle in Main battle tanks constantly one at a time but no trickle of tanks holds up when 10 show up all at the same time. This isn't possible in other games which is why zerg play is a problem. Not so in Planetside the original.

LexTalionis

2012-07-05, 01:54 PM

the thing that sucked about this in ps1 is if you played for a real long time or happened to be caught up in a long seige, you would end up waiting forever to spawn and it would feel like you were being punished for nothing. what is a series of quick deaths to one person may not be that many to another. some people play very fast paced.(myself). some people move slower. I always felt like I was being punished with spawn time too quickly. i log occassionally just to reset the timer.

Zalmoxis

2012-07-05, 02:30 PM

Death penalties should only happen on RPGs and MMORPGS, not shooter MMOs. The reasons are too obvious to be stated frankly.

Boomhowser

2012-07-12, 07:18 AM

well new poll link led me here so...

Voted no.. anyone who's played PS1 will understand.. you can be blown up.. spawn in base tubes.. gunned down before escaping tube.. spawn at galaxy spawn point... galaxy explodes.. spawn on group... killed before you can move to cover

none of the kills you could avoid was just a run of bad luck you might have had but by some peoples reckoning you would end up with a penalty.. so nope no death penalties

Accuser

2012-07-12, 08:01 AM

Most players will load up with resource-cost consumables when they spawn. Losing those is enough of a punishment for death. We don't need to crush the noobs' spirits too much!

Ivam Akorahil

2012-07-12, 08:07 AM

situations where you're forced to die repeatedly

exactly this should not be a viable option, simply "death zerging" if a situation is lost, spawn at the next closest op and try to take the base back, dont just respawn every 5 sec just to throw a grenade into enemies, kill 3 and then die

xnorb

2012-07-12, 09:14 AM

Death + Respawn timer + time to get to where you were + maybe losing
an objective because you weren't there are enough penalty/punishment.

Ohaunlaim

2012-07-12, 09:30 AM

Instead of a death penalty how about a life benefit...

While the former might add time to your respawn if you die too soon (ie. PS1) Example: Base 10 sec respawn, that can go up to 20 sec if you're having an off day.

The other would lower your respawn if you stay alive for a while (or better... if you earn a certain amount of xp by kills, caps, heals, etc.) Example: Base 15 sec respawn that can go down to 5 sec if you're an agent of awesome. So long as it only works one life at a time.

Grapes

2012-07-12, 09:42 AM

If it was a game for hardcore players only, a death penalty would make sense, but it's not. It's a free to play game, and many unexperienced FPS players will give it a shot, aswell as casual players which are not as skilled. Punishing these people for not spending, or having as much time as the "skilled" players, is just not fair at all.

IgloGlass

2012-07-12, 10:14 AM

Nope.

Polarity

2012-07-12, 10:45 AM

exactly this should not be a viable option, simply "death zerging" if a situation is lost, spawn at the next closest op and try to take the base back, dont just respawn every 5 sec just to throw a grenade into enemies, kill 3 and then die

You completely misunderstand the post you quoted. He's not talking about "deathzerging". He's talking about situations where you are forcibly camped or outnumbered. Short of running away, there isn't much else to do but attempt to fight back while being shot and killed. Most people don't go "Oh, looks like they're in the CC with a hack, might as well pack up and go back to our other base and wait. Don't even bother trying to rehack guys, we're outnumbered." No, they generally stay and fight until the bitter end and it has made for some epic battles.

When people are dying repeatedly during an assault it's because they are trying to push back to an objective to resecure or to capture something, NOT because they "throw a grenade to get 3 kills before dying" as you put it.