(Cred / evo) share / over flow system

[|GBA|QweefZilLa]

I play in the korx mod and I like there over flow / cred sharing system ... Id like to see it in the offical 1.2 severs It would make me play 1.2 more. I hate the fact that when I'm a tyrant and I have 9 evos all the kills I make do nothing for me or my team Id love the extra wasted evos to go to my team ...

Also the /share feature is good. If I have 9 evos I can spare a couple to my buddies or people willing to rush a base with me or if my buddy / brother comes in late in the game I can give him evos / creds so he doesn't end up feeding trying to get evos when he or she joins when both teams are at stage 3.

[kharnov]

Short answer: no.

I can give you the long answer, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

[Demolution]

What incentive would every dretch on the team with no evos have for going out and risking an attack when one or two killwhoring rants or goon can generate a buttload for the whole team?

[swamp-cecil]

What incentive would every dretch on the team with no evos have for going out and risking an attack when one or two killwhoring rants or goon can generate a buttload for the whole team?

The fact that those dretches could of just joined or of gotten unlucky so they can get evos easily to be basimedics, zapassisters or even the RC hopper that wins the game, then profit themselves.
Because you know what it's like being a dretch when both teams are S3: you have to get quarter of evos every minuite from assists.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

best answer, get better as nekked rifle/dretch.

[CreatureofHell]

If you constantly have too many credits/evos you are either too good or aren't dying enough. The solution is to get killed and then spend the credits or evolve.

[OhaiReapd]

Dev's don't like taking suggestions from mods. I love the idea. Too bad the dev's are nazis.

[Qrntz]

Too bad the dev's are nazis.

[kharnov]

Too bad the dev's are nazis.

I was wondering how long it'd take this thread to reach Godwin's law.

What incentive would every dretch on the team with no evos have for going out and risking an attack when one or two killwhoring rants or goon can generate a buttload for the whole team?

I'd have said something along the lines of this.

If you can't get evos or credits, you suck at the game. Now, with hard work and determination, you too can become the Dracone or Warlock of tomorrow. It might take weeks, maybe months, maybe even a few years. Practice is key, and if you know how to learn, then every death becomes a learning experience. Getting free credits and evos from your teammates cheapens the game for you. You might think it makes things more "fun" when you can connect and instantly become a tyrant or wield a lucifer cannon, but you don't feel like you earned it. When you fight for every single alien form and piece of equipment you want, you're more cautious and the game feels like an adventure. When you get everything you want without doing anything for it, where's the incentive to even play? You'll just drop the game and move onto something else you can cheat at.

That was the long answer.

The short answer will always be no.

[Demolution]

The fact that those dretches could of just joined or of gotten unlucky so they can get evos easily to be basimedics, zapassisters or even the RC hopper that wins the game, then profit themselves.
Because you know what it's like being a dretch when both teams are S3: you have to get quarter of evos every minuite from assists.

Yes, but just giving away evos defeats the mechanics of the gameGPP which are in place to motivate you to leave the base and to go attack the other team's structures while being an active part of the team (camping eventually results in defeat anyways). There's also building which does give additional evos, so you really shouldn't have to be sitting around wasting time when you could be doing many things to help your team.

Sure, stating at s3 sucks, especially as a dretch or naked human and you end up feeding, but that's just part of the game and it happens on both teams, thus both sides feed roughly equally in that case (ignoring stack from the more experienced players).

[Plague Bringer]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I get max evos, I go kill a turret or ten. Then I die, evolve, max my evos again, and kill some more turrets. It's a cycle that helps the team a hell of a lot more than killing hummies.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I get max evos, I go kill a turret or ten. Then I die, evolve, max my evos again, and kill some more turrets. It's a cycle that helps the team a hell of a lot more than killing hummies.

i tend to attempt that before max evos.  if you see a basi with a funny name savagly attacking turrets, it very well just might be me.  i have a grudge against turrets you see...

[/dev/humancontroller]

the real full answer is:
if any one player on a team could contribute his full potential to his/her team, then the relatively low quality of the game logic will surface significantly; the decision is to cap the potentials of skills here-and-there, which may yield a somewhat more balanced game due to the logical (pseudo)randomness introduced with this decision. another reason leading to the decision is that randomized credit/evolution counts force players to chose from not-so-desired equipment/classes, yielding games with more variably distributed use of equipment/classes.

[Kingnickolas]

You know, it might be better just to make the game more noob-friendly. You know, that way people don't have a terrible experience, rage, then quit forever. That kinda tends to happen when they have no way of getting evos, and thus no way of evolving. Dieing a lot sucks. A lot.

[Pazuzu]

You know, it might be better just to make the game more noob-friendly. You know, that way people don't have a terrible experience, rage, then quit forever. That kinda tends to happen when they have no way of getting evos, and thus no way of evolving. Dieing a lot sucks. A lot.

If they don't have the patience required to wait two minutes and get an evo automatically, they probably won't make the cut anyway. Impatient people tend to die in Tremulous.

[F50]

the real full answer is:
if any one player on a team could contribute his full potential to his/her team, then the relatively low quality of the game logic will surface significantly; the decision is to cap the potentials of skills here-and-there, which may yield a somewhat more balanced game due to the logical (pseudo)randomness introduced with this decision. another reason leading to the decision is that randomized credit/evolution counts force players to chose from not-so-desired equipment/classes, yielding games with more variably distributed use of equipment/classes.

*sigh*

The real full answer is that tremulous is designed with an RPG element, such as in COD4, where a person who makes lots of kills gets perks, only in tremulous that is *much* more pronounced (and changed) to the point of being an integral part of the game. However, the accumulation of power that a skilled player can achieve can get so extreme, that there is little that can be done to bring down a determined killwhore, returning him temporarily to a less dangerous. Therefore, built into the design, is a limit on how many kills you can save at one time.

This is further compounded by the fact that wealth tends to be expended to attack the opposing base (an unfavorable situation), and accumulated when slaughtering the enemy in favorable situations.

Overflow credits, or any other share-like system are even worse. Instead of merely giving one player an infinite abillity to become a tyrant, it allows, through the killwhoring of one player, who may or may not be skilled, to level up the entire team, and let the team accumulate power, and then expend it all simultaniously on the opposing base. The *problem* with share is that it allows you to give your evos to your buddy so you can both rush.

As a side note: yes, it means that there will be a more even distribution of people who are "fed" and "poor" in public games, but that is not ultimately what this is about, IMO. The distribution (or rather, the expenditure) of wealth can be controlled better in a clan(m) match.

I by no means say the game logic is perfect, but I think you should make your own thread about "flawed" and "poor" game logic.

[Dracone]

I'm liking no share. Should it stay like it is for good, which should be a complete yes/no situation in a game as dead as this one (splitting it among servers/people/clans will create more arguments of actual impact than this game needs), my advice to those complaining about having 9 evos is to stop crying about it and take more risks. Coordinate a rush or something. If your team is retarded, as it would be half the time on US1, just suicide on the enemy base and take out what you can. Tell your team what you got, then evo and get the expense back with kills. Or suicide again.

[Aelita]

I'm liking no share.

I have months of evidence showing that running without share does not detract from gameplay (in 1.1 at least). Earning credits/evos on your own is a much better incentive to learn the game than having newbies constantly spamming EVO PLS

[Flux]

evos or kick

[OhaiReapd]

I think that tremulous should have setting dedicated towards scrims and pubs. But that's just me.

You know, it might be better just to make the game more noob-friendly. You know, that way people don't have a terrible experience, rage, then quit forever. That kinda tends to happen when they have no way of getting evos, and thus no way of evolving. Dieing a lot sucks. A lot.

If they don't have the patience required to wait two minutes and get an evo automatically, they probably won't make the cut anyway. Impatient people tend to die in Tremulous.

And what am I? This made me laugh.

[OhaiReapd]

delete this plz.

[jm82792]

Short answer: no.

I can give you the long answer, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

There is one idea I have.
Make an uneven ratio for sharing creddits.
Even if it's 3-5 to share 1.

[OhaiReapd]

Short answer: no.

I can give you the long answer, but I don't think you'd like it very much.

There is one idea I have.
Make an uneven ratio for sharing creddits.
Even if it's 3-5 to share 1.

That could be interesting. So to share 1 to a buddy, you'd need to give up a goon.

[CorSair]

There is one idea I have.
Make an uneven ratio for sharing creddits.
Even if it's 3-5 to share 1.

That could be interesting. So to share 1 to a buddy, you'd need to give up a goon.

Alien society and/or military doctrine takes 80 percent of share? No way I'm going to be duped. I'll keep all my earned dibs myself.

[OhaiReapd]

wtf..... is wrong with my internet. Fuck me. Delete this.

[/dev/humancontroller]

You know, it might be better just to make the game more noob-friendly. You know, that way people don't have a terrible experience, rage, then quit forever. That kinda tends to happen when they have no way of getting evos, and thus no way of evolving. Dieing a lot sucks. A lot.

If they don't have the patience required to wait two minutes and get an evo automatically, they probably won't make the cut anyway. Impatient people tend to die in Tremulous.

which is why the game logic sux.
in a good game logic, continuous acting (as opposed to patience) would be rewarded; such games are not only more fun to play, but also fun to watch.

[/dev/humancontroller]

the real full answer is:
if any one player on a team could contribute his full potential to his/her team, then the relatively low quality of the game logic will surface significantly; the decision is to cap the potentials of skills here-and-there, which may yield a somewhat more balanced game due to the logical (pseudo)randomness introduced with this decision. another reason leading to the decision is that randomized credit/evolution counts force players to chose from not-so-desired equipment/classes, yielding games with more variably distributed use of equipment/classes.

*sigh*

The real full answer is that tremulous is designed with an RPG element, such as in COD4, where a person who makes lots of kills gets perks, only in tremulous that is *much* more pronounced (and changed) to the point of being an integral part of the game. However, the accumulation of power that a skilled player can achieve can get so extreme, that there is little that can be done to bring down a determined killwhore, returning him temporarily to a less dangerous. Therefore, built into the design, is a limit on how many kills you can save at one time.

This is further compounded by the fact that wealth tends to be expended to attack the opposing base (an unfavorable situation), and accumulated when slaughtering the enemy in favorable situations.

Overflow credits, or any other share-like system are even worse. Instead of merely giving one player an infinite abillity to become a tyrant, it allows, through the killwhoring of one player, who may or may not be skilled, to level up the entire team, and let the team accumulate power, and then expend it all simultaniously on the opposing base. The *problem* with share is that it allows you to give your evos to your buddy so you can both rush.

i have no idea what you just said, but it sounds like pointless bla-blaing without justification.
the *good thing* with share is that it allows you to give your evos to your buddy so you can both rush.

[jm82792]

Yes you give 3 evos to give your buddy 1.
Same thing with humans but you're using credits.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

guy guy guys, you get evo/creds in proportion to how much damage you do to a player on the other teams.  you dont even need to make the kill, just get a lick in every now and again, and you can evo anytime you want.

[TheLollingManv2]

More upset over enemy buildings not giving credits than this share bullshit. Get your own evos/credits or gtfo.