A few thoughts...

Mappie said:

Some one earlier mentioned random respawns. That idea has a plus side and a down side.

Plus: Spawn camping would be eliminated/greatly reduced.
Would add more variety and add new tactics to maps

Dowside: Having multiple spawns can cause defenders to possibly spawn next to attackers? and if multiple spawn points are made would they all have "invisible snipers?" Cause this would severly limit where attackers could travel.

Click to expand...

Within EAS the uncontrolled random spawns would ruin the mission normally cause noone would be able to tell if the spawn areas would not end up totally mixed up so that ie the attackers spawn right next to the laptop or the defs spawn directly at the extraction or some other weird spots. Sniper actors would be needed to be turned off fully to allow both groups to travel everywhere cause else they would have not much of a chance to reach the different goals. And EAS plays two rounds and such uncontrolled random spawns would not give both sides the same chances at all.
So it would only move the spawn areas randomly with the cost of a maybe impossible mission for one of the two parties and no protection at all at the spawns.

So, let mappers setup random spawns if needed but do not let something uncontrollable set this up cause the balancing of such things needs a human hand to control it.

Oh and I totally forgot to talk about the zero reinforcements setting...

On controlled matches (ie clans playing in a league) this can be pretty tense but on public servers this will only ruin the game. Reasons:

- if the teams are unbalanced then there will automatically be a big big advantage for the team with the one man more cause this one life can be the key to win the whole match if you count one vs one on the death list
- if only one team member does not follow the 'team spirit' and runs around alone or doesn't know the map too good to be of a big help in critical situations then you can simply add one more to the deathlist giving this team a disadvantage again
- if the teams are unbalanced skill-wise then the team with the higher skill automatically wins... additional reinforcements can balance this out a bit. ie. if two newbie attackers are 'needed' to kill one veteran defender then this can give the newbies enough time to accomplish their objectives... even if more attackers get killed by this one veteran. Same the other way around... if three defs are needed to stop him it can be enough to win.
- without reinforcements you get no second chance at all. Sure in RL you do not get a second chance too but this is a game that should make fun. If newbies or not so good players on public servers get all killed by snipers or hidden players in good defensive positions without the chance to try this route again and to then maybe get these guys hiding somewhere killed too, then it will be over within a minute and you will only get a bunch of frustrated players within a very short amount of time.
- most games would then switch towards TDM again cause all you need to do is eliminating the enemy team... no respawns so nothing to care anymore then. Why risk my life to step into the laptop area at all, why not setup some sniping positions instead and wait for someone to look around the corner. Why should an defender defend the risky laptop area at all if another spot is much more secure and easier to defend. Why play at all... I can just wait and hope that my whole team wipes out the enemies even if they all die too... I can then accomplish the mission on my own without anyone able to stop me. Why not simply spam the whole map with 40mms and grenades... maybe I hit and kill someone. Cheap 'tactics' in all types will show up to get the enemy down before you yourself die. Again it would be a bit realistic but the extremes would only distract from playing this stuff on publics.
Again, with clans that fight in even groups in a controlled way (no nade spamming or spawn camping aso allowed) this can be pretty tense. But nothing for a public server.

the reinforcements are great because it makes any solo action dangerous.
without reinforcements, i can , as a defender , go alone forward , i know i wont have much problems, i can go everywhere in the map, i wont be More in security at my base than at the ennemy base.

with reinforcements, i just can't , because i will face 10 ennemies or more, it makes the "other part of the map" a dangerous place. its better for the challenge and the gameplay to have some dangerous areas, some choquepoints, some place where you are in inferiority. then you need to work as a team , and to play for the objectives.

without reinforcements would end as a bunch of people runing everywhere in the map like (2.86) bots do

I don't agree to some of the points stated by beppo and others.
- i don't care if a 0 reinforcement setting is not "newbie friendly". I don't play for them, not that i think they're not important (i welcome them warmly when they come). If newbies think the new aiming system is too hard to learn, why not make an option for crosshair ?
- i agree that waiting 5 min in front of your screen can be boring, and i know what i'm talking about since i'm usually not of the last remaining players. But that what makes your playing time so intense. I see Inf as a chess game : in chess you can wait hours before it's your turn to play, that's why you have to be overfocused and very careful of what you do. But perhaps i'm too oldfashioned, nowadays people just want fun to be cheap and easy.
- unbalanced teams in number is nothing compared to unbalanced teams in skills. Having played quite some matches on rav2 i can tell you that i've seen more than often a team of 3 take out twice as many players. Teams will always be unbalanced on public servers, that's the result of mixing experienced players with newbies: reinforcements or not, this won't change. Actually, from what i remember of rav2, matches then were as balanced (or unbalanced) as they are now.
And don, just observing how people play on servers shows that game settings *as they are now* do not encourage teamplay AT ALL. If anything, people are more trying to run in their own direction now than with rav2. Many former ra players can confirm that. This is probably due to respawn settings making players respawn one by one most of the time.

Setting a higher respawn time or 0 reinforcement really amounts to the same thing, that's why i don't care which method is used to make people act more careful. Saying that either one of those method will result in TDM matches is not a valid argument, because if both the enemy and you have no second chance, i don't why people would try to risk to hunt down the enemy at any cost. Rambo style players will always look for contact, while more cautious players will try to spare their playing time by engaging only when necessary. There's no reason for that to change.
That said, this is my vision of Inf, i hope some people share it, but i don't mean to impose rules people don't agree with, because that would only result in a crappy gameplay.

the question is :
would you go searching the CD with 0 respawn ?

personnaly i wont. to dangerous. easier to hunt the ennemy team

Circling the map and charging flanks is EASY with single respawns. Very easy. Even if the first two players fail at it the next could wipe out half of the enemy team. All it takes is some minor knowlage of map flow.

Vega-don said:

the question is :
would you go searching the CD with 0 respawn ?

personnaly i wont. to dangerous. easier to hunt the ennemy team

Click to expand...

Well in DTAS, people always went for the flag instead of hunting the enemy. So to answer you question, yes people would go for the cd. (Although, I think that the alarm "OMG teh CD is st0len!1" should be removed in this case).

In response to what makes players rush. Here are the factors IMO:
1) Small maps with very good defensive positions ex: Belfast and Cityblock roofs. (get to the roof before the enemy).
2) The Overtime reinforcements. If attackers rush in and quickly kill enough defenders, then they can win before the defenders get overtime reinforcements.
3) Claymores, the faster you attack, the less time they have to set up clays.
4) Small wave timers. If I go slow, I have to face the same enemies (who will often know my position now) multiple times in order to reach the objective. If I go fast, I can be in and out before they respawn.
5) Without any randomness to spawn location (especially for the 1st wave). I can quickly and safely run across half the map without fear of making enemy contact

keihaswarrior said:

Well in DTAS, people always went for the flag instead of hunting the enemy. So to answer you question, yes people would go for the cd. (Although, I think that the alarm "OMG teh CD is st0len!1" should be removed in this case).

Click to expand...

DTAS did not involve an extraction, and provided an instant win.

yurch said:

DTAS did not involve an extraction, and provided an instant win.

Click to expand...

On most maps, the extraction is fairly easy once you safely make it out of the area around the laptop.

The main danger to CD capturers then comes from enemies who lurk near the laptop waiting for the alarm to rush in and kill you.

keihaswarrior said:

On most maps, the extraction is fairly easy once you safely make it out of the area around the laptop.

The main danger to CD capturers then comes from enemies who lurk near the laptop waiting for the alarm to rush in and kill you.

Click to expand...

not on the map i played today ; nomad/ the CD carrier was killed 5 times before we managed to extract.

maybe someone could set up a server with 0 reinforcements to try it. but i wont like it

Going to address the points raised by Beppo.

1) "Big advantage for unbalanced teams". How is this different than the current situation? Ratio wise, there isn't one. If you have 1 life, the ratio may be 5:4. If you have 5 lives, the ratio is 25:20. Same thing, it doesn't make the advantage any greater or lesser.

2) "Disadvantage for unskilled/new player". Again, this doesn't change. The player isn't going to magically get skillful or know the map well just because they have more lives. The unskilled/new players are the ones you find out of the match first while the rest of the team is on their 1st/2nd life. They haven't contributed any more simply by having more lives.

3) "Higher skill level automatically wins". This is, in general, true of the situation as it stands with respawns. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting with your math here, but the ratio system remains the same. If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same, and therefore the newbies are no more or less helpful for having extra lives.

4) "No second chance". You say that like it's a bad thing. Frankly, I find the whole "Oh, I spotted where the guy is hiding so I'll go get him this life" policy to be absurd. A secondary wave of attackers isn't going to magically know where the first wave got shot down. Providing a second chance to get that guy who got you the first spawn is, imo, a bad thing.

5) "Games would switch to TDM". I don't agree. In fact, I think the examples you provide actually support the opposite position that you take. As an attacker, would I rush for the objective? Nope. Would I slowly make my way towards it? Yup. I can't win without either killing all the defenders or doing the objective. But that hasn't changed any from the way it is now, I can still either kill all the defenders or get the objective. What I'm not going to do is be careless knowing I have another life.

In the same vein, as a defender, would I ignore the CD and set up in another location? Again, I might do that now. I have to trust in my team to provide enough cover that someone isn't going to walk in and grab the CD unnoticed. My job as a defender is to stop the enemy from succeeding. The more I kill, the less chance they have to succeed. But keep in mind, with or without respawns, if I do nothing but kill people and ignore the objective, there remains an equal chance of the objective being fulfilled.

Now, suggesting things like "why play at all" seems rather silly to me. You set up this whole argument about why it's horrible to have unbalanced teams, and then you suggest that someone unbalance their own team by not playing? Each player is important, sitting out in the hopes your team kills everyone else is stupid, and hopefully will get you kicked from any game you play.

As for the "cheap" tactics, I don't see why they'd be any more prevalent than now. We already have m203 shots being used as "maybe there's someone there" killers, people willing to nade enemy spawns, etc. And hey, we even have people willing to ghost on the servers, don't we? Sounds like things already are pretty cheap.

In summation: I don't think the arguments you put forth really counter the concept of "no respawns". The fact that entirely viable (and popular) games of "no respawn" happened frequently in the form of DTAS pre-2.9 suggests that you'd need a lot more convincing arguments to be persuasive in this area.

Bh

Bhruic is my hero. I agree with every single thing he just said.

One thing: There are very few tactics I consider cheap, and nade spamming is not one of them. It is actually somewhat expensive in that you must take a very heavy loadout to have enough nades to make this tactic effective.

Nade spamming the enemy spawn is a little cheap IMO. I usually draw the line there in regard to the way I play. But, that doesn't mean I'll get mad and complain if people do it to me.

You people must have been playing a different 2.86 game than I was. I never saw people being as careful as you describe.

What about multiple objective maps then? Give me a map that requires a series of objectives and I'll show you a map with one of the teams dead before the second objective is completed in 99% of the cases.
The 'hunting enemies down in the second life' scenerio is only viable when the dead player can get back into the game very quickly. This is usually the fault of a too-small map or a quick spawn. You can bet you won't have this if the killer has more than 20 seconds to move.
Spawns define an area of enemy ownership, and offer chances for operational momentum to take place. I've never seen a team 'regroup' (actually fall back and gather before trying again, imagine that!) after losses in TDM/DTAS.

The number one reason to have spawns is having a second chance. If I'm killed by a random overpowered grenade across the map, a teammate, or even worse, a bug exploit, I don't want to be sitting for EIGHTEEN MINUTES stewing about it. That sucks, and it isn't fun, and I don't give a damn if it's realistic or not.

Not 2.86 Yurch, REALAIM 2.86 the most realistic teamplayingest game evar...

You created a monster

Vega-don said:

not on the map i played today ; nomad/ the CD carrier was killed 5 times before we managed to extract.

maybe someone could set up a server with 0 reinforcements to try it. but i wont like it

Click to expand...

Yes but if there is no reinforce, by the time you'd get the cd, they should be less defenders around to kill you.

Bhruic said:

Going to address the points raised by Beppo.

Click to expand...

Bhruic, I guess you have not understood what my points were ... I will try to explain by using your quotes.

Bhruic said:

1) "Big advantage for unbalanced teams". How is this different than the current situation? Ratio wise, there isn't one. If you have 1 life, the ratio may be 5:4. If you have 5 lives, the ratio is 25:20. Same thing, it doesn't make the advantage any greater or lesser.

Click to expand...

You actually have not got my point it seems but you get to this a bit further down again. But if you want to compare ratios... 5:4 means 1 live more for team A. 25:20 means 5 lives more for team A. That definetly is NOT the same.

Bhruic said:

2) "Disadvantage for unskilled/new player". Again, this doesn't change. The player isn't going to magically get skillful or know the map well just because they have more lives. The unskilled/new players are the ones you find out of the match first while the rest of the team is on their 1st/2nd life. They haven't contributed any more simply by having more lives.

Click to expand...

An unskilled player will have 'time' to learn the map if he can reinforce. He can try to avoid the unknown map part with his next life or can try to follow another group of skilled players. It DOES change how the game plays and the unskilled player will get more chances to learn the map and to actually contribute to the match. With zero reinforcements he will get killed one time and from that time on he cannot even try to contribute something. Reinforcements give him a chance to develop during the match.

Bhruic said:

3) "Higher skill level automatically wins". This is, in general, true of the situation as it stands with respawns. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting with your math here, but the ratio system remains the same. If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same, and therefore the newbies are no more or less helpful for having extra lives.

Click to expand...

And again... ratio is not the same thing. And you missed that this is taken in combination with ie. the wave respawns of course. One man more out of the way - no matter how much lives it has cost to archive this - means one man less between my team and my goal ie the CD. The more 'tries' I get to archive this the better it is for the gameplay. Else I will only get one try and if this does not work out then my team lost the round. Again, the more tries I have the more times I can learn from how the higher skilled guy actually performes. I can find out 'how he works' and where his weak points are. From one try within each map I can learn nothing at all and so I cannot get really better over the time. This leads toanother point... reinforcements can lead to a faster learning curve of course... closing the gap between experienced and newbie players way faster than with zero reinforcements.
Sometimes it feels as if the skilled players onyl want to stay up there alone and are not willing to give lower skilled players even a chance to get up on the same level. This only leads to frustration and to a handful of 'god-likes' that are only a group of folks that know how the map flows and so are most times lucky on the first kill. Without giving the opponent another chance to kill me the game play will go down to a first see, first kill, match won state... nothing that is fun anymore.

Bhruic said:

4) "No second chance". You say that like it's a bad thing. Frankly, I find the whole "Oh, I spotted where the guy is hiding so I'll go get him this life" policy to be absurd. A secondary wave of attackers isn't going to magically know where the first wave got shot down. Providing a second chance to get that guy who got you the first spawn is, imo, a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Not quite correct. The second wave of reinforcements probably had radio contact with the forces before and knows where the guys were running around. 'Survivers' of the first wave can also give you valuable information about where the enemy is hiding.
In addition the 'policy' of "I stay here at the same spot and kill one after the other" is very unrealistic and way off too. If you have a good position then it is more than likely that you change this position to avoid being killed by someone who was able to notice where the firing came from. This is normally not only the guy that you killed... others can have seen you too. Do you know if the guy you just killed has not send out a radio message before telling everyone your exact position? Well you only know this if you can hear their radio comms... else you will have no clue at all. So staying at the same place is as off as the 'policy' you described up there.

Bhruic said:

5) "Games would switch to TDM". I don't agree. In fact, I think the examples you provide actually support the opposite position that you take. As an attacker, would I rush for the objective? Nope. Would I slowly make my way towards it? Yup. I can't win without either killing all the defenders or doing the objective. But that hasn't changed any from the way it is now, I can still either kill all the defenders or get the objective. What I'm not going to do is be careless knowing I have another life.

Click to expand...

I would rush to the 'best' spot within the map, cause the one that gets there first, wins. I would rush as attacker to not let the defenders get into their defensive positions at all cause why should I sneak up there if they had much time to protect the area then with clays and sitting in secure defensive positions.

Bhruic said:

In the same vein, as a defender, would I ignore the CD and set up in another location? Again, I might do that now. I have to trust in my team to provide enough cover that someone isn't going to walk in and grab the CD unnoticed. My job as a defender is to stop the enemy from succeeding. The more I kill, the less chance they have to succeed. But keep in mind, with or without respawns, if I do nothing but kill people and ignore the objective, there remains an equal chance of the objective being fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Not quite... if you are able to secure a forward position that the attackers have to pass by (is available in many maps) then I would try to reach this first to not give the attacker any chance to even get close to the laptop.
yurch is correct that one guy can wipe out a full team this way if he knows the map flow.

Bhruic said:

Now, suggesting things like "why play at all" seems rather silly to me. You set up this whole argument about why it's horrible to have unbalanced teams, and then you suggest that someone unbalance their own team by not playing? Each player is important, sitting out in the hopes your team kills everyone else is stupid, and hopefully will get you kicked from any game you play.

Click to expand...

Believe me ... many will do this or will try to do. Running around in places as far away from the enemy to need a bit longer to be spotted and hoping the rest will make it so that I can be the one last man that does the job.
Some think this way... trust me.

Bhruic said:

As for the "cheap" tactics, I don't see why they'd be any more prevalent than now. We already have m203 shots being used as "maybe there's someone there" killers, people willing to nade enemy spawns, etc. And hey, we even have people willing to ghost on the servers, don't we? Sounds like things already are pretty cheap.

Click to expand...

Really? Then why do you play and why do I and others play a lot out there? Cause the cheap play is reduced and normally players voice such things and then the guys using cheap tactics normally say "ok, sry" and the match can continue. Noone then says that we lost one or two lifes this way and then would like to vote for a restart of the round. If zero reinforcements are set you will see many folks start whining and bitching about this if they were one of the cheap-tactics-victims.

Bhruic said:

In summation: I don't think the arguments you put forth really counter the concept of "no respawns". The fact that entirely viable (and popular) games of "no respawn" happened frequently in the form of DTAS pre-2.9 suggests that you'd need a lot more convincing arguments to be persuasive in this area.

Bh

Click to expand...

Again, different standpoint I guess... and as others said... EAS is a big difference to DTAS and so the things working there do not work there automatically.

Beppo

Yurch:

Perhaps I just played more. I certainly saw a lot of situations of careful attacking/defending with DTAS (and, obviously, RA2). I also saw a lot of heedless running ahead and dying with DTAS.

As for the "multiple objective" map, it's too bad that you can't (AFAIK, anyway) tie a respawn into obtaining an objective. Would certainly give that added incentive to try and accomplish it.

You say "only viable" as if it's a situation that doesn't happen often. It does. Especially as a defender, of course, but as attackers too.

I also have seen a team "regroup" in DTAS (never TDM, but then I rarely played it). However, that extreme of coordination generally requires more communication than you can easily get in a game like this. If we all had voice comm, I'm sure it'd happen a lot more often.

And finally, the "sitting for 18 minutes" suggestion is, of course, silly. No, no one wants to sit around for 18 minutes. But there is no reason to make 18 minute long rounds if there are no respawns. Rounds could last a lot less time (and likely would regardless), making it acceptable.

Bh

two comments:

- regrouping happens a lot... most times the 'survivers' wait for the next wave to come to their position while they secured their current location. In EAS of course and in Specialist you have to, once your Spec guy was killed.

- no or very few respawns should reduce the timelimits. It seems you agree on this. But not a single server (I played on) out there reduced the timelimits to match the lower amount of reinforcements.

Beppo