Are Smaller Teams Better?
Sirot
Join Date: 2006-12-03 Member: 58851Members
Join Date: 2006-12-03 Member: 58851Members
I'm kind of tired, so I'll keep this short. I think NS2 will get more benefit from having the game built for a smaller team size in mind (4-10 heads per team) and expanding to 16 heads per team is a bad idea. I'll quickly list the advantages of having a smaller team size scope briefly in no real order:
<b>1. Smaller Map Sizes</b>
This may not seem like a good or bad thing, but only having a map designed for a certain number of people makes for better experiences. If you have a map designed for such a huge scope of players, the end result will be that small teams will feel lost and large teams will feel crammed. If you have a narrower scope, you can better design a map for that number of people.
<b>2. Less Objectives</b>
An extension of smaller map sizes, the less objectives there are on the map (resource nodes, hives), the easier it is to navigate and coordinate as players. This also helps newer players from being overwhelmed with choice and running off to do something ill advisable.
<b>3. Tighter Balancing</b>
Again, with a smaller scope the game will be easier to balance which I am sure is going to be a large issue for a game asymmetrical sides. I honestly don't know how much of an impact this bullet will give, but hey, it's at least something.
<b>4. Easier Commanding</b>
People often akin leading people to herding cats. The only way herding cats gets easier is when you have less cats to herd. Dumb analogy but having the commander having to take care less people makes it easier for him or her to learn the position if he's new. It also allows the players who are under the care of the commander to feel special more often.
<b>5. More Frames Per Second</b>
The less information that needs to be handled, the faster the game will run.
<b>6. More Servers</b>
"Wait? How is this a good thing?". First of all, there will be servers and thus better chances to get better latency. Secondly, there will be more full servers because people won't be as intimidated by trying to fill a 32 person server.
<b>7. Less Ear Bleeding</b>
I play a lot of online games on the PC. One of the biggest reasons why I steer away from 32 servers from TF2 when I played it extensively is voice communication does not hold well when there are 16 people on your team. Sometimes most of them won't have headsets, but when they do, the server <i>lags </i>from the heckling.
I'm going to go drink some tea, discuss away!
<b>1. Smaller Map Sizes</b>
This may not seem like a good or bad thing, but only having a map designed for a certain number of people makes for better experiences. If you have a map designed for such a huge scope of players, the end result will be that small teams will feel lost and large teams will feel crammed. If you have a narrower scope, you can better design a map for that number of people.
<b>2. Less Objectives</b>
An extension of smaller map sizes, the less objectives there are on the map (resource nodes, hives), the easier it is to navigate and coordinate as players. This also helps newer players from being overwhelmed with choice and running off to do something ill advisable.
<b>3. Tighter Balancing</b>
Again, with a smaller scope the game will be easier to balance which I am sure is going to be a large issue for a game asymmetrical sides. I honestly don't know how much of an impact this bullet will give, but hey, it's at least something.
<b>4. Easier Commanding</b>
People often akin leading people to herding cats. The only way herding cats gets easier is when you have less cats to herd. Dumb analogy but having the commander having to take care less people makes it easier for him or her to learn the position if he's new. It also allows the players who are under the care of the commander to feel special more often.
<b>5. More Frames Per Second</b>
The less information that needs to be handled, the faster the game will run.
<b>6. More Servers</b>
"Wait? How is this a good thing?". First of all, there will be servers and thus better chances to get better latency. Secondly, there will be more full servers because people won't be as intimidated by trying to fill a 32 person server.
<b>7. Less Ear Bleeding</b>
I play a lot of online games on the PC. One of the biggest reasons why I steer away from 32 servers from TF2 when I played it extensively is voice communication does not hold well when there are 16 people on your team. Sometimes most of them won't have headsets, but when they do, the server <i>lags </i>from the heckling.
I'm going to go drink some tea, discuss away!
Comments
Giving people the options sounds like a great idea, but then the majority chooses the larger (ie. better, right?!) server sizes. But limiting it is a poor option too and will probably be modified anyway by armchair designer server admins.
I think that's one of the reasons 32 player servers are so popular. Most people seem to be looking for some casual gaming without any responsibility or necessity to do something game impacting. Can't really blame them, but its really shame that the smaller pubs have died away.
I'd put the main pros/cons for each down as the following:
<b>Smaller Teams</b> (8v8 and below)
<!--coloro:#008000--><span style="color:#008000"><!--/coloro-->+ Smaller maps with less routes, meaning they are less complex and can be learnt more quickly (good for newbies, but good for everyone in general because newbies get up to speed quicker)
+ Easier to keep servers full, which is a definite plus for the community
+ Easier to setup friends-only games
+ Smaller maps generally means less areas and less art overheads, which is a good source of economisation for an indie dev team
+ Smaller teams means more startup clans and more clans to play eachother
+ Teamwork feels tighter, more personal<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->+/- More responsibility on each team member so individual mistakes have bigger ramifications (bad for newbies, good for advanced play)
+/- Smaller teams mean the Comm has less people to man-manage but anyone not following orders has a greater contrasting affect to their gameplan<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->- Skill differences are more prominent with less players to affect (generally bad for the community as a whole as newcomers are put off)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
These are all generalisations, though. Bad map design could counter-act the fact that a small map should be easier to learn. Also clever design could help narrow the skill gap between newbies and veteran players.
Different sized maps <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> !
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->'Cause variety is a keyword to extend game's life.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Some big maps to public servers/random matches, and some smaller to more competitive/serious gameplay.
The question is... is better to have one kind of map size predominating (if yes, which one)? Or is better be equilibrated?
A 32 player server is chaotic when its full, and sometimes I enjoy that thoroughly. Gives it less of a stealthy feel and more of an all-out war feel, as if marines weren't just quelching an alien breakout on a ship but they were pulling all the stops to keep back the alien invasion. Means you have a battle much more frequently and it keeps your attention stuck to the game. Nobody can say it's boring because even while building, someone has to defend against attacks.
Though of course I also enjoy 24 player servers for all the reasons that you named. The big thing for me is the stealth. When I want it, I go to 24 player servers and try to deal as much damage as I can do exploiting a big hole in the defense of the opposing team. Can't do that on a 32 player server, because you can't jump around a corner without having an alien jumping on your face.
It seems to me that the only time chaos would be fun is if a player had no interest in competition or critical thinking and wanted to simply <i>act</i> rather than to achieve, or <i>cause</i> rather than to effect the game in a positive way.
In that case that player's definition of fun should, I think, be overridden by the fact that they have no concept of the purpose of a game (to win) and that they should be considered insane for purposes of game design.
It seems to me that the only time chaos would be fun is if a player had no interest in competition or critical thinking and wanted to simply <i>act</i> rather than to achieve, or <i>cause</i> rather than to effect the game in a positive way.
In that case that player's definition of fun should, I think, be overridden by the fact that they have no concept of the purpose of a game (to win) and that they should be considered insane for purposes of game design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chaos is fun because it's the unknown. You're in a new or unexpected situation and have to adapt. When I was newer to NS I preferred the larger servers, but after a while I grew tired of having no appreciable impact on the game and being frustrated by not having critical thinking pay off. It is an interesting test bed for new things though.
Edit: To address your second point: players don't care about winning if the game isn't fun.
That's funny, <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3868/shoot_to_thrill_biosensory_.php?print=1" target="_blank">biometric data</a> says the exact opposite.
Give me a quote or concede. Also, gamasutra isn't really a scientific journal I would trust.
And actually I don't think it is the frequency of combat that makes bigger team sizes fun. Perhaps a lack of combat might make a game <i>less</i> fun or boring, but this isn't governed by team size really. That's not it at all... by decreasing the map size you can achieve the exact same thing, but squeeze 32 players into a crammed NS1 combat map, for example, and the idea of fun is quite different (i.e. grenade spamming, xenocide, chronic gas, lvl99 upgrades, etc - there is more dependence on how team-mates play all of a sudden, and the sum of all of this makes for a very different gaming environment than was originally intended).
Chaos - where people are more likely to make mistakes and get confused - is what allows more players of varying skill levels to enjoy the opportunity to just play around. For example, gorge rushes or OC rushes aren't really very fun with small team sizes - it is boring to watch. Chaos also allows for 'epic' scenarios where one event causes a trickle-down effect that can completely upset the flow of the game, for example allowing for surprise comebacks of an otherwise losing team.
I'm not arguing that this is the <i>only or best</i> idea of fun - that's not the argument at all. I'm just saying that some players do enjoy this and oppressing them into a particular mode of play that they might not find <i>as fun</i> runs the risk of removing such players from the game completely. Why not just make the game more inclusive overall instead and provide players with more options? Everyone has their own preferences for flavors of fun - these can change daily, weekly, etc. - but having them there as options makes a game more popular overall.
LMG/Skulkbite combat in NS is very exciting due to the CQB factor. However, just walking around the maps looking for action isn't as fun as experiencing the action and the thrill you get. Some breaks between combat bouts are necessary, but not on the scale NS has it.
Map size is a strong predictor of combat frequency and game balance in the presence of variable team sizes.
This force is counteracted by the fact that there is a lot more consistency in larger games. Larger games are less luck dependent and are mostly arbitrated by player skill because positioning isn't stressed as much.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In smaller games of NS, the final outcome becomes apparent very early on, whereas in large games the outcome is much more likely to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't true at all. The winning team usually remains ambiguous until the second hive is up/down in small games unless one of the teams wipes the floor with the other due to sheer skill.
I've gotten a kick out of the classic skulk/marine battle for a solid 5 years
But I get a kick outta everything : )
I like 32 man servers and Pug sized servers, though I tend to like the ability to feel like I'm changing the course of a game (whether it be taking down an AA or munching on RTs) amidst so many other players and incalculable effects, so I generally play on BAD for that experience
I was hoping you'd actually take the time to read it because it's very informative. Here are your quotes:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>3. Broken roller coasters.</b>
There's only so much intensity players can handle. Games that try to keep intensity continuously high created (counter-intuitively) an experience that was actually less intense, less cinematic, and less "epic."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>4. Repetition and assured outcomes.</b>
We also discovered how important novelty and its close cousin, the unknown, are to engaging players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1695900:date=Dec 11 2008, 02:00 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 11 2008, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695900"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This force is counteracted by the fact that there is a lot more consistency in larger games. Larger games are less luck dependent and are mostly arbitrated by player skill because positioning isn't stressed as much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consistency and chaos aren't really opposites, so maybe there is some cancellation but not in the sense that the level of chaos stays the same between small and larger games. Aggregate player skill is another important variable for game outcomes. In larger games, significant differences in aggregate skill between teams may cut down on the element of luck, but such differences only became significant near the end of NS1's lifetime, when skill started to become concentrated in pub servers (i.e. a substantial amount of relatively high-skilled players could be found in most pubs and the trend of stacking ensued). For the sake of being precise, if skill is balanced between teams, there is more chaos in larger games than smaller games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In smaller games of NS, the final outcome becomes apparent very early on, whereas in large games the outcome is much more likely to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1695900:date=Dec 11 2008, 02:00 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 11 2008, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695900"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This isn't true at all. The winning team usually remains ambiguous until the second hive is up/down in small games unless one of the teams wipes the floor with the other due to sheer skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. I did not define what I meant by 'early on'.
As already pointed out, smaller team sizes = more impact. You feel like you're contributing and not just a cog in the giant machine.
However, this weight of responsibility can be harsh, especially for newer players. Losing that one firefight might change the dynamic of the entire game, potentially for the worse. It also makes team balance harder (for those who try to balance these kinds of things) since each individual carries so much weight, a few players can swing the balance drastically.
I personally enjoy both sides. If I want to feel important, I'll find a smaller server. If I just want to go around fragging a little, I find a larger server.
One thing to note is that in larger games there's a stronger focus on squad mechanics. Not just having a buddy, going with at least 3 others and expecting to get hit by at least 3 opposing players. Some of the dynamics like priority of who to target really make my day. Similar to Empires where you're expected to be in a squad of tanks, all trying to coordinate and flank the enemy. It also creates a bit more flexibility in battle lines since instead of a presence in two rooms you can cover 3, 4, or more rooms, widening the conflict zone.
Of course, trying to command that many people has its downside. Enough said.
Something to note is that servers in general should scale. Smaller capped servers currently have a problem with the threshold. Once you dip below about 12 players, people tend to start leaving. To re-start the critical mass, you need several players or lots of bots to bolster the ranks. Larger server don't have this problem since they can swing between 12 and 30+ players just fine, a few people leaving isn't a problem to them. I'm not sure if this is fixable, but something to consider. A better system to deal with critical mass of players would be beneficial.
I did take the time to read, I just didn't find any support for your argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. Broken roller coasters.
There's only so much intensity players can handle. Games that try to keep intensity continuously high created (counter-intuitively) an experience that was actually less intense, less cinematic, and less "epic."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The smart thing to do about this is to find the optimal rate of combat. Whatever it may be, it can certainly be at least as fast as that of CO_.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4. Repetition and assured outcomes.
We also discovered how important novelty and its close cousin, the unknown, are to engaging players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only unknowns that are provided in a multiplayer game are positioning and movement. You don't need a slow game for any of that.
Except people burn out of co pretty quick. I think the faster combat may be a part of why people go to high pop servers, but it's not the reason I went, and this case study suggests that it's not the primary reason other people go either.
<!--quoteo(post=1695917:date=Dec 11 2008, 03:11 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 11 2008, 03:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only unknowns that are provided in a multiplayer game are positioning and movement. You don't need a slow game for any of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kind of a straw man, I'm not saying NS2 should be slow, nor am I saying that NS1(and multiplayer games) lack the unknown. I'm saying people are drawn to high pop servers because they can get a new experience. And this study suggests that that's what gamers crave.
This is more of a lack of experience playing in small games than anything. In truth, the number of upsets in small games is colossal compared to those found in large games.
Those people may be actively engaged in a stimulating activity (ala gamasutra's article) but it's not a game. It's closer to a tea party, and those people are completely brainless in terms of how they choose to use their free time.
Given that, I'll give you the point that some people do like to do idiotic things to relax, and as a result, it's reasonable to conclude that it might not be the best choice to force them into a competition of any form if all they're looking for is a hitbox orgy.
But I have to say that, from a marketing perspective, it isn't necessary to include those people in the target market for a game. But as you mentioned, it may be advantageous to do so from a business standpoint.
EDIT: The gamasutra article establishes "engagement and emotional and cognitive responses to content", not what gives them a feeling of satisfaction or enjoyment, let alone what they consider fun. There is no link between that article and a game's quality, because for instance, it would rate demonstratively low if a player was involved in a chess game. Chess is still one of the best games ever made.
When NS was more popular we used to run a clan server, it was clan servers which were normally capped at 16 people that were the most fun. But they worked because clan members would almost always fill it. So you'd always have maybe 6 good NS players hanging out in the server and people would join. Clan server seem to be dying so you need 32 people servers because when people join or drop out its not a big deal. I think pre-arranged matches work better over IRC. Then you can join a team for a 6vs6 match.
Anyways one way it could work is if you think of the 4vs4 games in valve's Left4Dead. Maybe there could be some kind of "Find me a game" kind of online mode? Have servers where there is a 6vs6 limit, all slots have to be filled before a game starts, multiple games are hosted on one server. Ideally you'd have an AI takes over but I don't think that would work with ns
To expand on Yautja_cetanu's idea, having a button for a "quick game" where it connects you to a low ping server that needs an extra player as a priority would be nice. Having multiple games hosted on a single server is probably possible, its a huge waste of resources compared to simply hosting a 12 vs 12 server. : /