Well, first, this seems to require more luck than skill. It requires getting the last hit, on a player with useful items, at a time when they can drop the items. As it seems the assumption is it also gives them right away it also requires that you can survive to put these items to use, given firefights, revives, and other shenanigans. Also, if you include luck based drops, well, there you go.Originally Posted by ZERO
I also don't feel it is as efficient at balancing the game as the cost reduction, because it requires a lot of things. That the winning team is using items, or useful items. Items such as claws are great on human and jack, meh on many races. That people who can use the items get the kills, be it because of kill stealing, the enemy getting away, awp on a stick, or just racial restrictions. Yes, this point could be largely solved by teamwork, but let's face it, if we had teamwork, we wouldn't NEED more balance. On the other hand, cost reduction just requires your team getting stomped, and helps the entire team, which is something else this fails to do.
I'm wondering what you were thinking about with X. Because, in three rounds of winning, I can afford an ankh and two random other items. Many races only need one or two items, or spawn with guns, so can afford to die every 2 rounds. If X is too large, it can encourage shock troops to dump items after they can replace them. If it's 1 round, the losing team will be supplying the winning team with items. This also can encourage more farming by an main objective sided, dominating team, "don't kill him, next round he drops his items".
However, I do like the idea, I just don't like it as THE "balancing" mechanism. Maybe add in a bounty system for players with kill streaks too, so you get something that will last if you kill the "pro" players. Or give the player the money equivalent, or a percentage, of the items the dead person was holding, or split it between the team/alive part of the team. This idea would solve a number of problems. Janky or class based builds (sock + claws on a spiderman), helping the full item'd players who kill the dominating players, not losing items just as you get them.
However, from the programming standpoint, go for whatever will work :P
(joke)If items are really the problem, just restrict the number of items each player on the winning team can hold or let the losers keep items on death (/joke)
Based upon what Zero said, either this shouldn't happen except in a very close game, because you'll need to survive a bit with the item for it to transfer, which normally doesn't happen for the losing team or, like you said, it'll be percentage based. Players don't normally survive round in a row (with a few exceptions such as mr. I don't actually have to do the objective) unless they are on the winning team, so as long as the number of rounds are long enough, unless there is a very odd perfect sequence, item trading won't happen very often.Originally Posted by maynard