Less Elitist Gameplay
Termy58
Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58102Members
Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58102Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Please?</div>Well one thing I like about TF2 is that there isn't any crazy people that are 9 million times better then a new comer. I played NS1 and I was raped to no extent, I was wondering if NS2 will sort of make it less elitist and more open ended to non-hardcore gamers. I myself do not considered myself a hardcore gamer, I spend a lot of time playing casual games and making games myself mostly messing around Lua, but I don't think I'll ever be one of those CSS junkies.
Comments
Add CRITS to this game please!!!
i played it for a bit, but the annoying thing about it is that you can spen hours on it and still die from a spray and pray..
i understand making it more user friendly, but the reason games stay around for a long time ie CS, DOD, NS is cos the more you play the better you get and the better the score you get.
if you play and you dont get better whats the point of playing regularly, and if you dont have regulars then there goes any fan base/ no team work and the game will go down the pooer.. like TF2 will do
bit extreme but you get my point
I'd say there's something wrong with the depth of the game if you don't get beaten by people that have played the game for something like 4 years, some competetive. I play a lot of fps and rts online and still I'd get the beating of my lifetime if I had a chance to play cs against people that have played it for four years even somewhat active.
Hey devs, I'm bad at this video game!! Please make me better.
I gather by eventually you mean NS2 1.1? Makes sense, when the game's new the skill gaps aren't as large.
A simple tracker for the most skill-oriented tasks of the game (not welding and building because they aren't combative, and the objective is assumedly to pseudoequalize combat while still maintaining depth so that hardcore players enjoy their experience, and new players don't rage and tell all their friends how bad the game is) shouldn't be a monumental project, and it would make the gaming experience far more palletable while still maintaining the interest of players who are looking for depth as their <b>only</b> buying criteria for games (like myself).
And I already said it should be considere, but I couldn't vote yes on it for reasons of difficultly in real-world implementation. I'll go with the flow of the community on this, but keep a critical eye out for hazardous pitfalls.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally I'd rather have the game reward coordination and teamwork more than player skill. I think the game is more fun all around if a team of coordinated new players can beat a lone incredible player. There certainly should be things to master, but I'd argue that mastering fps skills isn't as fun as mastering teamwork skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good to still see you alive ol' friend, and yes I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But you don't balance to increase fun (except as a platitude) - you balance to <i>negate</i> mismatched games. Anyone can weld, and anyone can walk with friends. Games are decided by a few twitch skills that should be the crux of deciding the skill of a player. And although welding and covering are just as important, they're not as difficult, and not as quickly acquired. In order to quantify player skill you need to focus on only the core elements that a player must take a great deal of time to learn, because if you use the quickly-mastered elements during this balancing act you're effectively telling players that they don't need to try at all.
What I'm saying is, if you *can* weld, and *can* team up and cover, there's no reason why you wouldn't in *any* game. These shouldn't be frustrating skills to learn like aiming and ambushing are, so they shouldn't be considered when you try to figure out if one player is capable (at their current level of habitual progression) of facing another player and having a good game.
Teamwork is absolutely crucial. The problem is that the fps skills are required to execute teamwork effectively and that good fps skills are superior to low teamwork, not allowing it to develop that easily.
I haven't seen any 'teams of coordinated new players' so far. I don't think there are any in Europe at least. Things are going so fast that it takes a lot of time for inexperience players to develop the situational awarness and ect.
"Wow. It took all five of you and I still took out three of you? GJ."
That's all there's to it. TF2 does what it's supposed to do, as does CS, SC or whatever other game that requires or doesn't require skill. This whole argument merely exists cause there are those that just want to "pwn" others and play for score no matter what. Doesn't matter if they do it cause that's how they enjoy it or simply cause they want to improve their e-penis or whatever. Fact remains that it's a player mentality issue, and not a game issue.
That's all there's to it. TF2 does what it's supposed to do, as does CS, SC or whatever other game that requires or doesn't require skill. This whole argument merely exists cause there are those that just want to "pwn" others and play for score no matter what. Doesn't matter if they do it cause that's how they enjoy it or simply cause they want to improve their e-penis or whatever. Fact remains that it's a player mentality issue, and not a game issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it goes a little deeper than that even. Teamplay on public servers is hard. In TF2, for example, a good medic with good soldier/demo rule servers. Even lucky crits have a reduced effect due to uber and the soldier taking hits for the medic. I rarely see a pub team able to muster up an effective response. It will be interesting to see if there are other such dominating teamplay elements in TF2 which will ultimately determine the fate of its competitive league.
The point of the anecdote is that on pubs, teamplay will trump any individual skill. Not just trump it but trounce it. This makes the depth of the individual classes low. This would be a major departure from NS1 where I think the depth of the individual classes is extremely high AND the depth of teamplay is decent as well. A good marine can still get the trap skulk when baited, for example. Baiting is a powerful teamplay element that can also trounce pubs, but it can also be overcome by good players. TF2 doesn't seem to have the class depth and looks to be relying on finding depth with class interactions. I don't know if it's there or not.
Well, replace "new" with "can't aim." (Or can't track, whatever.)
That's all there's to it. TF2 does what it's supposed to do, as does CS, SC or whatever other game that requires or doesn't require skill. This whole argument merely exists cause there are those that just want to "pwn" others and play for score no matter what. Doesn't matter if they do it cause that's how they enjoy it or simply cause they want to improve their e-penis or whatever. Fact remains that it's a player mentality issue, and not a game issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe you are missing a very important point here.
NS is vastly different from TF2 and CS, and almost all shooters. The majority of shooters feature almost identical teams that point and shoot at each other. Sometimes they have 'classes', meaning one class has a weapon that points and shoots differently than the other. But they're still all guns vs guns in grounded combat.
NS pits a wide array of classes against each other on different teams under an economic technological advancement umbrella. That might sound complicated, because it is. In CS, i get money from kills, and then I buy a bigger gun. But whats the difference between a Para and a Colt? Twice the price, but frankly, the Colt will win most of the time.
Now whats the difference between a lerk and a fade? or a fade and an onos? or a gorge + ocs and a hive? And this is just on one team. These simple contrasts have infinitely more depth than any kind of contrast in 'class' you can find in CS, and frankly, TF2 as well. If NS had no structures, no res, and no 2nd/3rd hives or their abilities, then its depth would be a lot closer to CS and TF2. And it would have held my attention for about a week rather than four years.
You say this whole issue is just about players wanting to dominate other players. I disagree completely. Yes I love to fade and get a crazy ratio, but I also love gorging and supporting that fade. I also love taking multiple marines and setting up an ambush against that crazy fade. Or yelling when we see an Onos rushing base. Or building a ninja PG.
Because of the type of game that NS is, it requires, REQUIRES, acquired innate advantages. Acquired, because the purpose of controlling the resource web is to earn an advantage over the enemy. And Innate, because that advantage has to be in physical, visible ways. Such as the Fade, or the HMG, or the Proto Tech, or even upgrade chambers and hand grenades.
TF2 might have classes which lends to (rather limited) inter-class teamwork, while CS has acquired weapons (which plateau after about two rounds). NS mixes the best aspects of both, VASTLY expands on them both, and balances them with masterful skill, at the cost of a higher learning curve.
So no, this isnt about just wanting to 'up my e-penis' like you said. Its about the fundamental reasons why NS has the best gameplay available.
Like Socom 2 style or Halo 2/3 style?
Socom 2 is different lobbies, Halo 2/3 is it finds you the game.
I'm for Halo 2/3 style.
Also I believe L4D is making the same system, and Red Orchestra has Steam Friends Matchmaking now, as part of the <a href="http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/" target="_blank">steam works system.</a>
I fail to see the problem with better players making a larger impact on the game. If one player is, say, four times as good as the average (Lets not get into how we might quantify skill), why shouldn't he be able to fight on an equal footing with four average players?
Are you replying to what I said? If you are, go back and look at the context of the post.
TBH Harimau I had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say because there is no context. I mean he quoted your whole post...
It was in response to this, which I did quote: <i>(there's your context)</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1673766:date=Mar 21 2008, 06:58 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Mar 21 2008, 06:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the game is more fun all around if a team of coordinated new players can beat a lone incredible player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that that's cleared up, I will say I do agree with:
<!--quoteo(post=1673896:date=Mar 22 2008, 09:50 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Mar 22 2008, 09:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I fail to see the problem with better players making a larger impact on the game. If one player is, say, four times as good as the average (Lets not get into how we might quantify skill), why shouldn't he be able to fight on an equal footing with four average players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was in response to this, which I did quote: <i>(there's your context)</i>
Now that that's cleared up, I will say I do agree with:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I fail to see the problem with better players making a larger impact on the game. If one player is, say, four times as good as the average (Lets not get into how we might quantify skill), why shouldn't he be able to fight on an equal footing with four average players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't think that's the issue. It's more about giving players advance knowledge of the types of player they are likely to encounter on a server.
At the moment we have a situation where it's purely a case of trial and error. You find a server, perhaps even one marked 'Beginner ONLY', and you are more than likely to find a few incredibly experienced players dominating the game. When you're learning the game and don't fully understand the mechanics, it's extremely off-putting to have an advanced player hand your arse to you repeatedly with no means of stepping back and wondering how and why you died.
If you play with players of a similar experience level, you have relatively more time to observe which weapons are more deadly and doing more damage to you, which means the learning curve is less steep and you learn quicker because you have time to observe the consequences of different actions. If you try out Fade as a beginner with a few advanced players about, and a Commander pushing early shotguns, you will die before you even get the hang of managing your blink adrenaline properly, and to add to this the more experienced players who understand the crucial inportance of the Fade to the Alien team may even moan at you for dying so easily. I personally learnt the basics of Fading on some intermediate level servers because any time I attempted it on the server I usually go on I would blink into a room and die in a heartbeat. It took me a lot of hours to figure out how differently I needed to play the Fade when you only have 1 or 0 MCs versus the full 3, when you have Celerity-Focus versus Celerity-Regen or Celerity-Carapace. These sort of intricacies make learning the Fade nigh impossible on a semi-advanced server, even if you can hold your own in the first-person shooter side of the Marine game.
If you had a beginner server where everyone was on more or less equal footing, 'losing' wouldn't be such a big problem. You would still be punished for your errors, but it wouldn't be as severe or unforgiving. This is pretty much what it was like for everyone trying out NS for the first time when the mod dropped so many years ago, everyone had a great time sandboxing in the game. It's just generally better for the average non-organised vanilla server to have the innate ability to retrict its playerbase based on experience.
Because using teamwork to counter a single skilled rambo is nothing like a bossfight that the skilled player is explicitly asking for by soloing and trying to find someone who knows how to play the game well enough to beat them.
I don't know about you, but I don't look for a challenge. I just want to 10bullet skulks.