BUT TO F*CKING "HOW TO PUNISH NOOBS FROM DIEING"
OMNIFRAME REPAIR COST.
SERIOUSLY, IF YOU MANAGE TO REKT 4 FRAMES IN A INVASION OR THUMPING.
340% REPAIR COST. BECAUSE YOU SUCK.
3 DESTROYED FRAME AND THE 30% DAMAGED FRAME IS DEFINITELY NOT CHEAP.
IS THAT PUNISHMENT ENOUGH?
OR YA'LL NEED MORE SPANKING?
OMNIFRAME REPAIR COST.
SERIOUSLY, IF YOU MANAGE TO REKT 4 FRAMES IN A INVASION OR THUMPING.
340% REPAIR COST. BECAUSE YOU SUCK.
3 DESTROYED FRAME AND THE 30% DAMAGED FRAME IS DEFINITELY NOT CHEAP.
IS THAT PUNISHMENT ENOUGH?
OR YA'LL NEED MORE SPANKING?
Likes:
Degiance
This should be used to make an impact on the encounter difficulty. Some examples:
- Field encounters (resource mining, enemy patrol, some 'Brontodon King' type encounter): if your team mates/someone passing by fail to revive you, respawn at nearest base. Would be nice to have the base close by in the starter areas but quite far sometimes (higher downtime traveling back) as you go for activities further away from the 'safe place' (more lucrative mining, etc).
- Base defense: occasionally add some difficulty for some of those. Remember the melding bubbles? Something similar could be in place around the base so that players who die and fail to be revived or force respawn can't re-enter that fight (the only way to continue your participation in the encounter is by being revived by another player).
It kind of sucks to have a shield preventing entry for those who are just arriving late to the party, they still should be able to enter, the more players able to participate the better. There has to be a way to apply the 'impassable barrier' status only for those who were KIA (failed to revive) while inside the invasion/bubble area, like applying a debuff.
'No respawn' mode, which really isn't but let's call it like that (in any case, it would be 'no comeback' mode).
For some of the defensive encounters make 'revive' and some careful play be valuable. Allow the enemy to put some serious pressure when something big is at stake.
Regular/more common/starter area shouldn't use this. Being irritating and frustrating isn't the idea.
'Repair Cooldown' being too long or always resulting in immediate 'frame-switch' can get kind of frustrating. 'Respawn point distance' (travel time, related to world construction in the war effort) and 'yes/no respawn' should be tuning the encounter difficulty along with enemy type and enemy numbers.
That's a good point. The number/types of enemies shouldn't increase SOLELY based on player numbers in the vicinity, it should also scale with 'general performance' in simple ways: if we are killing too many and too fast (aka 'roflstomping') then the bad guys should be pissed and 'open more portals' (not to the 'slide-show' crowd level, that shouldn't be needed nor its desired), call in bigger baddies, launch an attack somewhere else to divide player's attention or some other thing they can come up with.
'Trolls/afkers' will still make 'more enemies appear' but just by being absent/obnoxious and doing nothing will not be enough for them to make the encounter the most rewarding/hardest it could be (after all, they can't add to 'good performance' score).
See above point.
The encounter should naturally get harder the better we're doing, up to a point and depending on the encounter (there needs to be an upper and lower floor).
Bringing 'alt accounts' to simply stand there to augment the reward will be possible but not as good as bringing more good players because only those will make the enemy try harder. Encourages better play but doesn't necessarily make the world end because of screw-ups (unless that was the intention for some particular encounter). This will also happen naturally because of buildings lost, vehicles destroyed, etc.
Revives are a good thing, it's fun, encourages team play, sociability, some players enjoy the support role more than anything. I'd rather have the revive mechanic instead of always being forced to travel back, always respawn on site by myself or simply stay staring at a timer.
Revives only make sense if you somehow make death matter. It doesn't matter if you get downed, someone nearby is likely to attempt a revive.
If you 'don't punish anything' then there's no way to make team play and good play matter. Not to abusive extremes, I'd agree there.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure if gun stealing becomes a thing, so does passing the gun. Also im pretty sure anybody here would throw their extra boomstick to you or their only boomstick and grab popcorn and a lawnchair and just watch as you chase down that rabbit.
There is nothing more fun than pulling a miracle revive while basicly being caught in cross-fire and being surrounded and blasting your way out. But that feeling is usually taken away by the fact it's never being rewarded ( Support roles or being a supportive player is rarely appriciated no matter how many times you pull peoples ass out of the habachi grill where their family jewels were about to turn in to cream-cheese filled meatballs for the mobs. Oh and when you finally have had enough and don't really care if some loudmouth dies, everybody considers you a bad support. The level of fairness xD )
My mind to multiboxers the moment you said "alt accounts" but i guess that is another subject matter. But i agree with everything said so far. You could also say that it encourages people to group up more often seeking better rewards even with strangers even if they might suck, extra gun is a extra gun.. (Unless that gun is pointing at the dirt the whole damn time. Being dead)
Some people are glutton for punishment. But that does sound like really effective way to punish deaths personal bunk mates.
There is nothing more fun than pulling a miracle revive while basicly being caught in cross-fire and being surrounded and blasting your way out. But that feeling is usually taken away by the fact it's never being rewarded ( Support roles or being a supportive player is rarely appriciated no matter how many times you pull peoples ass out of the habachi grill where their family jewels were about to turn in to cream-cheese filled meatballs for the mobs. Oh and when you finally have had enough and don't really care if some loudmouth dies, everybody considers you a bad support. The level of fairness xD )
My mind to multiboxers the moment you said "alt accounts" but i guess that is another subject matter. But i agree with everything said so far. You could also say that it encourages people to group up more often seeking better rewards even with strangers even if they might suck, extra gun is a extra gun.. (Unless that gun is pointing at the dirt the whole damn time. Being dead)
Some people are glutton for punishment. But that does sound like really effective way to punish deaths personal bunk mates.
Last edited:
Likes:
Pandagnome and Torgue_Joey
I don't know how people would feel about it, but for example in Elite Dangerous your ship has an insurance cost, which is 5% of the ship and module total cost.
If you get destroyed and you can't afford the rebuy, you can still get a loan based on your pilot rank.
If your loan isn't enough either, you lose the ship completely and go back to the starting ship or a ship that you had stored.
This does make it so you want to get much better in combat and flying so you don't lose a lot of credits or your ship, but I can see that this wouldn't be a popular mechanic for many people.
If you get destroyed and you can't afford the rebuy, you can still get a loan based on your pilot rank.
If your loan isn't enough either, you lose the ship completely and go back to the starting ship or a ship that you had stored.
This does make it so you want to get much better in combat and flying so you don't lose a lot of credits or your ship, but I can see that this wouldn't be a popular mechanic for many people.
Grummz has already stated there will be a resource cost for Omni-frames, I assume that cost will at least partially revolve around dying. But honestly simply the fact that you have been temporarily removed from the fight when you respawn back at base and have to run back should be plenty of frustration, specially for those of us who die a lot.
I can't decide if I love or hate the idea. One thing I will say is, it is brilliant (even if it is unoriginal.)
To expand on the idea, look at eve online. They do the same thing, but more advanced. Imagine if you're not satisfied with an omniframe, you can "package" it, and trade it for ce. Or you might have to package it to carry it across the land to another base for closer access. The possibilities of this are great indeed.
To expand on the idea, look at eve online. They do the same thing, but more advanced. Imagine if you're not satisfied with an omniframe, you can "package" it, and trade it for ce. Or you might have to package it to carry it across the land to another base for closer access. The possibilities of this are great indeed.
Likes:
Degiance
that wasn't my point. Perhaps an example would help.
Suppose there's a cat 3 kaiju. We'll call him Bob. Now, if we send 20 skilled players to fight Bob, that would be "too easy" because nobody is dying to make Bob stronger. Kevin wants a challenge, so instead of taking 19 other skilled players with him, he takes 9 skilled players and 10 less-than-competent players with them, the idea being that the 10 ltc players will die, making Bob stronger and providing a bigger challenge. Stuart, on the other hand, while being a skilled player, doesn't want the odds to be impossible, so the more noobs die to Bob, the more you reward Kevin and punish Stuart. That isn't fair to anyone, because the idea is to encourage players to improve their skill, not split the community into the Torgues and the Kaiju fodder.
Suppose there's a cat 3 kaiju. We'll call him Bob. Now, if we send 20 skilled players to fight Bob, that would be "too easy" because nobody is dying to make Bob stronger. Kevin wants a challenge, so instead of taking 19 other skilled players with him, he takes 9 skilled players and 10 less-than-competent players with them, the idea being that the 10 ltc players will die, making Bob stronger and providing a bigger challenge. Stuart, on the other hand, while being a skilled player, doesn't want the odds to be impossible, so the more noobs die to Bob, the more you reward Kevin and punish Stuart. That isn't fair to anyone, because the idea is to encourage players to improve their skill, not split the community into the Torgues and the Kaiju fodder.
Last edited:
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
Sorry for a moment there i totally imagined Bob Burger's as a Kaiju fodder food joint. *imagines a towering Kaiju with a spatula and a chefs hat and a apron that says:"I eat noobs for breakfast!"* (You just had to choose the siege engine as the mad chef didn't you? xP )
That suggested scenario does sound bad* almost evil master plan type of way. (*except for the evil genious)
(I keep looking at it as a opportunity to get better and watch someone who is better than me in action. Maybe it's just my never say die attidute and frontier spirit ^^)
But if Kevin Smith is truely clever to pull a ploy like that in attempt to improve his odds for better rewards. There should be some safety switch or "skill-check" the game could pull out randomly, like suddenly starting to target the players with highest score or "reward haulers". Also some of the stuff suggested before could work as a stabalizer to prevent such foul plans. (But scenario like that does sound very unlikely(*crosses fingers* I hope x) ) there is multiple variables most likely with in the game that would prevent a scenario like that occuring excatly the way you suggested. But damn did you throw a curve-ball scenario, i didn't even think of something like that i have to commend you ^^ )
That suggested scenario does sound bad* almost evil master plan type of way. (*except for the evil genious)
(I keep looking at it as a opportunity to get better and watch someone who is better than me in action. Maybe it's just my never say die attidute and frontier spirit ^^)
But if Kevin Smith is truely clever to pull a ploy like that in attempt to improve his odds for better rewards. There should be some safety switch or "skill-check" the game could pull out randomly, like suddenly starting to target the players with highest score or "reward haulers". Also some of the stuff suggested before could work as a stabalizer to prevent such foul plans. (But scenario like that does sound very unlikely(*crosses fingers* I hope x) ) there is multiple variables most likely with in the game that would prevent a scenario like that occuring excatly the way you suggested. But damn did you throw a curve-ball scenario, i didn't even think of something like that i have to commend you ^^ )
whatever "countermeasures" are put in place to prevent this scenario could, in turn, be "counter-counter-measured". If the kaiju only targets skilled players, then Kevin could taunt Bob right in front of Ned the noob, then move at the last second, letting the projectile hit Ned. The human mind will out-think AI every time.
Likes:
Degiance
Yeah. People could revive each other firefall and it was important in the Beta version that had a cost to death. When they removed it, revive each other became optional and only for instances because players could just respawn and get back to the position where they can fail again in the same way.
You can't get better at something without a cost.
For example:
So yeah more players could bring in bigger and beefier enemies but if the rewards scale down for the team as well as the for person for every player death, then people will try more to support each other more.
You can't get better at something without a cost.
For example:
Put diesel fuel into a car running unleaded and you'll destroy it. There is a cost to either fix it or replace it. People learn via this hard way that you should only put the correct fuel into all machines.
But what if there was no cost? What if a person could simply head over to the vehicle dealership and pick up a new car after they wreck their car by putting the wrong fuel in it? Then they would never learn and keep making the same mistake.
Or
A young child is taking a math test. 6 simple addition problems. He gets half of them wrong and fails the test. He gets scolded/punished. While he also notices that his classmates that have passed the test is getting praised/rewarded. The child then learns that he needs to do better or he will get punished again and he if does well he too will get rewarded.
But what if you have a child that is praised regardless if he fails or not? Then they don't learn the skills they were studying for.
It's the same thing here. You need to have a cost for death that isn't just restricted to the person that is dying. But what if there was no cost? What if a person could simply head over to the vehicle dealership and pick up a new car after they wreck their car by putting the wrong fuel in it? Then they would never learn and keep making the same mistake.
Or
A young child is taking a math test. 6 simple addition problems. He gets half of them wrong and fails the test. He gets scolded/punished. While he also notices that his classmates that have passed the test is getting praised/rewarded. The child then learns that he needs to do better or he will get punished again and he if does well he too will get rewarded.
But what if you have a child that is praised regardless if he fails or not? Then they don't learn the skills they were studying for.
So yeah more players could bring in bigger and beefier enemies but if the rewards scale down for the team as well as the for person for every player death, then people will try more to support each other more.
I get the feeling Kevin is abit of a d*ck in the scenario and hasn't heard of fair play and is being very unsportman like. (I have met alot of Kevin's in my game life and Kevin is usually tarred feathered and carried out of the social sphere of influence rather quickly in proper communities. But i'll try to think of it as a game issue and not just someone being a greedy jerk. Which most likely is the idea behind the scenario.)
Depends on the AI and i guess that's where it could boil down to, if the AI is able to learn player playstyles and throw them back at you with cold calculated precision. It would mean Kevin wouldn't prosper in the game very long as nobody would want to play with him being the jerk who sacrifices his team-mates. But as i don't have any accurate information on the AI or how well it's going to be designed or how well the enviroment both social and game will effect scenarios like that. So i better leave it up to someone who can present a counter scenario out of the riduclous "counter my counter" thing since there is always a breaking point.
Depends on the AI and i guess that's where it could boil down to, if the AI is able to learn player playstyles and throw them back at you with cold calculated precision. It would mean Kevin wouldn't prosper in the game very long as nobody would want to play with him being the jerk who sacrifices his team-mates. But as i don't have any accurate information on the AI or how well it's going to be designed or how well the enviroment both social and game will effect scenarios like that. So i better leave it up to someone who can present a counter scenario out of the riduclous "counter my counter" thing since there is always a breaking point.
That's why I proposed encounter getting more intense based on how players are doing, in other words, trying harder and playing better will be the way to increase difficulty because of enemy AI reacting to it. In practice, if players want to push up the challenge and the rewards they will try teaming with players who want the same thing instead of just 'bringing more allies'. It's all about incentives for like minded players to team up. You can't have this unless encounter scales with PERFORMANCE and not just based on player numbers and players being killed.
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
I got that, just trying to be more clear about what I'm saying. I do like your idea better, as long as it doesn't get to the point where you can't succeed.
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
if we can't possibly succeed, then how do we advance? And what motivation is there for playing if you can't win no matter how hard you try? and, personal question, what makes you think you're hyperion the mechanized immortal?
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
I think he mean enemies should not be "steamroll-able" throughout the entire game, if they are at or around our rank, level, w/e. Each engagement should be a moderate challenge and require certain degree's of skill. however i do not agree with the fact that end game mobs should be unable to be beaten and that we just loose.
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
Nah i dont want a game that is too easy, i like challenges, just not impossible to kill challenges.
Likes:
Pandagnome and zdoofop
I just want to put things into perspective for people who identify with AdmiralStryker:
To take a base will require 200 skilled players vs an army of kaiju, (almost) any one of which can tear apart an automaton the size of 2 houses, not to mention the intelligent hive mind that controls them, an army that can keep bringing more in as each of them is mowed down until the base is dismantled, and much much much more...and that's still not enough for you guys?
To take a base will require 200 skilled players vs an army of kaiju, (almost) any one of which can tear apart an automaton the size of 2 houses, not to mention the intelligent hive mind that controls them, an army that can keep bringing more in as each of them is mowed down until the base is dismantled, and much much much more...and that's still not enough for you guys?