The TF2 comparison is valid because you make a choice in something like goldrush between pushing the cart and going for kills, or in CP maps capping the point and going for kills. By killing your enemies you facilitate the capturing of points, but the kills are a means to an end, rather than the end in themselves.

In DG, kills *could* function the same way, by merely being a way to allow the team doing the killing to take map control.

Counterstrike rewards you a paltry amount for kills, I would argue that the amount you get in DG in the mid game is far too high to be comparable. 300$ in CS is like 10% of a Colt or whatever, it might push you over the line but it won't get you a gun by itself.

A kill in DG pretty much gets are another item in the 1 - 2k range (which is where the most cost effiecient items are anyway), which is a huge advantage over the other team AND they are a player down for ~30 seconds AND that player gets no XP, AND he gets no gold, AND you get XP AND you get war rank...

Seriously the penalty for death in the game is ridiculously high, I'd have no problem with toning down the gold and putting up the XP bonus for getting a kill, or even just toning down/removing the gold.

Say the gold is piggybacked onto experience gain, in other words you get it for capping flags and being near enemies when they die, then you really can just sit behind a tower and farm your way to the end of the game. The tempo and objective of the game shifts dramatically. Generals and the rook see a major power surge while other assassins become second-rate.

If you tie it to tagging or killing blows you risk exhuming the old priest issue where buying an upgrade is a grave risk for the team, except you extend it to all unit upgrades unless you focus the exp in the soldiers/archers, in which case AoE DGs have major, major tagging/kill advantages.

If you link it to war score then you shift balance towards generals and rooks again, camping flags is already important as-is and it gets kicked into overdrive.

The last games the OP has lost. Here's the two most recent, as of the time I posted this:

http://pantheon.demigodthegame.com/game/837189/player/31737/

http://pantheon.demigodthegame.com/game/837285/player/31737/

In both of those games he has some partners who definitely did not belong there. The records of the winning team on the second one are 50-21, 268-131, and 187-98. He went up against them with partners who were 26-57 and 33-133, that's pure masochism. His goal here is to make these frustrating games less frustrating and I think we can all relate to that. However the potential collateral damage is huge. We're talking about a major, major game mechanic change when the real problem is that he's just not picking the right games and partners. If he'd just said "hey, these teams aren't even, could I get some better partners?" that game might have gone very, very differently and more generally speaking he may have a more consistently fun game experience.

In-game stats are coming in patch 1.2 and that should be a major improvement to help solve the real problem which is matchmaking rather than treat the symptom of feeders.

Now as for whether the death penalty itself is too severe that's a whole other discussion. Shaving off some of the gold gained, decreasing the time-out duration or removing the fog of boredom are all reasonable ideas, but this thread didn't start about tweaks, it was about reinvention and I'm not sure any of those kinds of things would suffice for the OP.

Also I've gotta agree that the FPS to DG comparison got pretty abstract in a hurry. I have no way to continue that discussion, I'm tapped out on comparisons there.

asdf

Honestly, the only sensible suggestion I've seen on this topic is to reduce the gold you gain from killing a particular opponent over and over(Feeders).

As for this suggestion, uh, if all money and exp came from creeps, Torch Bearer would be overpowered as hell(This coming from a TB player).

Don't Play with crap players.

How can you compare FPS games to RTS? In any way shape or form?

0% you say? I have been in games where I won when the other team had 8 kills on top of my team. Its called flag locks. Teleport. Cit Upgrades. Run Away. Its definatley not 0%.

but some suicide is okay? or a lot? how would you define too much anyways?

The current system does that. Expect with your system there is no palenty and people wont care they will just stand there and fight until death. Since the other team cant get gold who cares?

Its a lot of fun now. Please uninstall and go back to FPS. since you like them so much. There is a lot of combat between players now, the only addition this would add would be suicide combat.

Go back to FPS man this is an RTS/RPG. I can tell you dont play RPG's much or really RTS there is no reason to have a high kill rate in an RPG or DEATH rate and in any RPG you play there is palentys, major ones to dying (unless you play WoW) which was ruined because of people like you.

So in the end all I got say in the actions of Capt. Picard is ::::

Yep don't read too much into it, I was particularly thinking of the TF2 goldrush example when I wrote it, it's inappropriate in most other cases.

I think also of the DoW2 squad retreat mechanic, where the idea is that your opponent doesn't lose entire sqauds, instead surrendering map control when a battle is lost.

And yes I think we're discussing the rewards structure in a different (more sensible) manner than the OP suggested...I agree the current system is far from ideal in that it's a major part of the "slippery slope" that I feel is a little too slippery at the moment. Tweaks are all it needs, personally I'd like more XP and less gold.

Funny thing the internet......

I have been playing these genres for a long time.

I made the top 100 in Supcom ranked, I am not the l33test player, but I know how to play competitively in games I enjoy playing, RTS, RPG or FPS, it was an idea that I would like to test.

My point was not to compare genres, the point was that games can be played where death doesn't equal a big one up to the other team.

At the moment, you die, you are at a severe disadvantage. That is fair to me, you should be at a disadvantage as a solo player. The problem with the mechanic in this game, is that the WHOLE team is at a disadvantage. If my team mate dies, it is the same as if I died. To me, for solo players (most probably a good 80% of people who bought this game) that makes it a frustrating experience.

Regardless of whether I am considered a troll or not. It was an idea I would like to see or be given the option to play. It was not a call to get rid of the mechanic, I asked if it could be added to the hosts options.

I don't see it as being all the bad, it is just radical in terms of this genre. I can take being ridiculed for it, it doesn't bother me. At one point in time people were ridiculed for saying the earth was round

What if the idea was more based along traditional RPG penalty. When you are killed you lose your gold and a set amount of XP. That would be more fair. Of course, not really implementable in the game, as you cannot de-level.

What about some sort of diminishign returns on kills. The first time you kill guy u get 100% of the bounty, but if you kill him again within 5 minutes you get 50%. After 5 minutes it goes up 10% per minute or something, so at 6 minutes after first kill you get 60%, at 7-70%.If the person gets a kill however, they go back to 100%.

It would give incentive for the side getting pwned to take some risks as well. Because their reward would be 100%, while dyign woudl only give the opponent 50% reward.

you shouldn't change a working game system in order to accomodate those players who don't know how to play the game.

your complaint is more related to skill level mismatches then the game rules.

you should ask for a change in matchmaking so you don't get feeders in your games as frequently. but don't be under any illusions about what the problem is. its matchmaking, not the game rules. 

There is a slippery slope here definitely. As soon as people die early, it usually results in a loss. If you take DG kill gold/xp out, you still earn constant gold and any from killing the enemy NPC army. If you die, you lose control of some of the map and you don't earn that constant stream of gold while dead, the penalty is still there and the gain. I'd like to see the gold gained lowered quite a bit. You get xp/gold for killing NPCs why not for PCs.

I play with people who know how to play, except in some random PUB games or pantheon. Even these guys will chase you into base to kamikaze kill you, which seems like a bit of an exploit in itself, as even if you put them near death and they kill you in base under fire of towers you still get no reward even though you assisted. Lowering the gain from DG kills will minimize this, unless of course someone really wants to kill you.

You can't compare this to Counter-Strike or TF2, they aren't RTS/RPG. Besides when you earn cash for killing in CS it is because there isn't any other income really, unlike DG where these are 2 others one been a constant stream.

One little change I'd make with the OPs suggestion would be to make gold earned from kills a set price.  Say 1000$.  This way, early kills mean as much as late kills.  As a modifier to this, make DG levels scale the amount of gold you get.  Maybe 10% per level difference.  A level1 DG killing a Level1 DG will get 1k gold.  A level1 DG killing a level5 DG will get 1500 gold, and a level 5 killing a level1 will get 500 gold.

What this does is add a slippery slope mechanic that lets lower level players earn better equipment for higher level players mistakes.  It also stops the snowball effect gold (and items) have in the middle game.  Early game right now kills are pretty weak. 

This wont stop a bad team from losing, but it will let a good player on a bad team stay competitive a little better.

While I understand how huge the gold from a demigod kill can be (just a couple kills and your team can get a good upgrade ahead of your opponents at the citadel, or a really useful item) there are a couple problems with this. 

First of all, if you barely get a kill (almost die/out of mana), you'll probably go back to town anyways so that you don't get sniped or whatever.  This would mean the lane control (via killing the enemy deathgod) was pretty much pointless, since they'll be back pretty much by the time you're back.  Imo, the solution to this would be either rejuvies drop when you kill an enemy deathgod, instead of health or mana.

The second problem is that although having the enemy out of the fight for 30 seconds can be pretty significant, it doesn't feel like much, especially when the DG who died then had time to buy items to get stronger than you currently are, so you die or have to run back to town anyways.  It's only like 1 or 2 waves of creeps that they miss out on.  I think killing enemy deathgods needs to still have a tangible bonus; something like a team "morale" buff that makes your reinforcements temporarily stronger, for example.

I used to feel the same as the OP.  But...

This problem should largely dissapear after the 1.2 patch for two reasons.

1. You'll be able to see the experience rating of each player in the lobby, and can thus join games where the teams are more evenly matched.

2. Replays.  Those of use who don't get to play much will be able to learn faster and not have to get stomped 100's of times before we figure it out.