TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1659543:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:26 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Nov 6 2007, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valve dropped it because it wasn't going to be applicable for their goals. Their goals included breaking onto the much more mainstream console market, shifting shelf units and in general making a universally playable game. Valve couldn't have achieved as much success in those goals if they'd gone for a game model which relies heavily on experience, as a commander mode does.
NS is different in that it's much more smallscale, it needs to aim at a small niche market and work towards its existing fans to be a success, because UWE doesn't have the funds or the core game concept to compete in the mainstream with the big players who can absorb losses made on 'safer' games that don't get any bites. UWE also has a decentralised dev team and probably the same goes for the dedicated playtester group if they're at that stage because financing an in-house PT group is (I guess) beyond their current means. This means they can't afford to be -too- experimental with their existing game model because they don't have the luxury of playtesting features with a full server twice a day like Valve do and they can't dedicate cabal groups to experimenting with ideas.
Commander is integral to NS. It works for the experienced players of NS today. There are plenty of refinements that can be made to the commander model to make it easier to learn, more intuitive, less split-second and more tactical. That is what NS2 should aim to do, hopefully.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a bit late on the reply here, but the commander mode was the selling point for me when I was looking at NS, I wouldn't have tried the game if it didn't have it, and there are many others like me that probably wouldn't have tried it either. I just happened to excel at it , so I kept at it, but the learning curve is exceptionally harsh and almost vertical in terms of steepness. One screw up and 10 people are screaming at you over voicecomm "OMFG bad comm eject!" I still get ejected by random idiots on pubs and I'm one of the more experienced commanders left in the game at this point. While the mechanics take a bit to adjust to, its mostly the player element that makes commanding difficult.
Sarisiel was correct about most commanders knowing the basics and little else, and that definitely hurts the quality of games, but there are ways to fix that. The part people have to get over is 10 raging idiots on your team who always know how to command better than the person that's in the chair, yet all of them would do just as bad or worse if they were in the chair (with exceptions). NS definitely suffers if the players are of poor skill quality compared to other games, but it's a function of being a team game that if some people are awful, it drags the team down. Anyone ever randomed a team from WC3/TFT automatching and gotten idiot teammates that cost you an easy win because they couldn't manage to upgrade their town hall before 20 minutes in? NS has a vertically integrated team structure, if any of the pieces fall out, the whole thing can come down pretty fast, and that's why pub play suffers sometimes. In competitive play, this was never an issue once people learned about the game early on because they understood all the basics and even the advanced stuff over time, and passed it down to future competitive players over time.
Hopefully the commander role will be front-and-center on the marine team in NS2, I think it is an amazing concept that works fine in NS, it just needs some tweaking mainly in the form of UI. I think most of the issues in NS are due to limitations on the engine, I know I asked during PTing about things and that was the usual answer I got to something, that or it was just beyond the scope of normal game updates. I hope that it stays very complex, very steep, and very demanding, because some of my best gaming moments were times that I had an amazing victory as commander. Years later I still have games that come to mind, and that's what is going to sell people, having such an amazing time that they come back for more and still remember those games years later. It just takes a very unique type of gamer to play commander and still play the rest of the game (marine, aliens etc) because of the different playstyle, so don't expect every player to be able (or willing) to command, its quite a niche role.
<!--quoteo(post=1660312:date=Nov 12 2007, 12:02 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Nov 12 2007, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660312"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so don't expect every player to be able (or willing) to command, its quite a niche role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And as long as commanding is a niche role, the game will break. Without a commander, how long does a game last for the marines? And if no one wants to command, how often might you find your marine team without a commander? And if the marines are not capable opponents, what kind of experience will the Kharaa have?
This isn't a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.", it is broken whether we like it or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1660312:date=Nov 12 2007, 05:02 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Nov 12 2007, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660312"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a bit late on the reply here, but the commander mode was the selling point for me when I was looking at NS, I wouldn't have tried the game if it didn't have it, and there are many others like me that probably wouldn't have tried it either. I just happened to excel at it , so I kept at it, but the learning curve is exceptionally harsh and almost vertical in terms of steepness. One screw up and 10 people are screaming at you over voicecomm "OMFG bad comm eject!" I still get ejected by random idiots on pubs and I'm one of the more experienced commanders left in the game at this point. While the mechanics take a bit to adjust to, its mostly the player element that makes commanding difficult.
Sarisiel was correct about most commanders knowing the basics and little else, and that definitely hurts the quality of games, but there are ways to fix that. The part people have to get over is 10 raging idiots on your team who always know how to command better than the person that's in the chair, yet all of them would do just as bad or worse if they were in the chair (with exceptions). NS definitely suffers if the players are of poor skill quality compared to other games, but it's a function of being a team game that if some people are awful, it drags the team down. Anyone ever randomed a team from WC3/TFT automatching and gotten idiot teammates that cost you an easy win because they couldn't manage to upgrade their town hall before 20 minutes in? NS has a vertically integrated team structure, if any of the pieces fall out, the whole thing can come down pretty fast, and that's why pub play suffers sometimes. In competitive play, this was never an issue once people learned about the game early on because they understood all the basics and even the advanced stuff over time, and passed it down to future competitive players over time.
Hopefully the commander role will be front-and-center on the marine team in NS2, I think it is an amazing concept that works fine in NS, it just needs some tweaking mainly in the form of UI. I think most of the issues in NS are due to limitations on the engine, I know I asked during PTing about things and that was the usual answer I got to something, that or it was just beyond the scope of normal game updates. I hope that it stays very complex, very steep, and very demanding, because some of my best gaming moments were times that I had an amazing victory as commander. Years later I still have games that come to mind, and that's what is going to sell people, having such an amazing time that they come back for more and still remember those games years later. It just takes a very unique type of gamer to play commander and still play the rest of the game (marine, aliens etc) because of the different playstyle, so don't expect every player to be able (or willing) to command, its quite a niche role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could not agree more. Commanding is not for everyone, yet everyone is an "armchair...armchair" commander. It has been my experience that the loudest pub players (the ones screaming at the com half the game) are screaming because they do not get what they want. Everyone thinks that they are NS’s best player and that they should be served as such. This is the same experience that you get in any game that has team-based play. I think that it is a negligible issue in light of the overall experience.
I have always felt that the best games that I’ve played had at least 2-3 good coms on the marine team. One in the chair, and the other 1-2 leading a squad, this tends to be the best mix because the other good coms/squad leaders tend to listen and lead better.
Perhaps the NS dev’s can figure out a way to rank the truly “good†commanders. I would love to be able to look at the scoreboard and know who can get the job done. This could also motivate the weaker commanders to hone their skill.
a ranking system maynot favour all comms. or be fair although i would like one. For example, im not a terrible comm but neither am i a brill one. I only get in the comm chair on a decent server, if theres no one else around better who snags it first. This means i rarely have any field comms present. Ive got about 5 wins on competative pubs to i dont know how many losses, but atleast double that. Alot of times i get in the comm chair aobut half way thru a game, wen the current comms done one or been ejected with no replacement at hand.
really good comms can bring a game back from the half way point, and can win a game, with a less than professional team (aslong as a couple of them listen). But ive found it hard to bridge the gab between being an ok comm that knows some basic strategys and can do some organising to being a pro, that can get noobs to be an assult force. Im not sure a ranking system would help players like me improve. Its not too difficult to get from knowing nothing about comming to get to my level, all u do is practice on a few bot servers, then small servers with a few newer players on them, and then listen/watch some of the better comms on the bigger servers. But getting past the where i am seems hard, and the games ive progressed most in have been the ones where theres been a good field comm and a team that micromanagment aside, can get kills and stay relativly alive, and listen.
What i would really appreciate is a game mechanic that works a teams support for the comm in to the game, but in a kind of subtle way. Im not sure what this mechanic would be tho.
in response to canadian wolverines comment; One solution to know comm being avliable on a server would be an AI comm. Ok AIs are never brilliant, but it may not need to be. in NS1 if a rine team contols say 3- 4 of the nodes, and one hive position and the comm buys upgrades the game will last a while (assuming the rines can kind of shoot) even if the team cant coordinate for a proper offensive. An AI could be programed to order and drop nodes, order and lock down hive positions - micormanaged/resupply and buy upgrades/weapons. I doubt an AI could analyse the aliens attack stratergy other than what chamber they had opted for, but it could tone its choice of upgrades towards that. The ai could kick in, in the absence of a human comm for more than 30 secs or summit.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1660330:date=Nov 12 2007, 01:11 PM:name=CanadianWolverine)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CanadianWolverine @ Nov 12 2007, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And as long as commanding is a niche role, the game will break. Without a commander, how long does a game last for the marines? And if no one wants to command, how often might you find your marine team without a commander? And if the marines are not capable opponents, what kind of experience will the Kharaa have?
This isn't a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.", it is broken whether we like it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, fading is a niche role as well, if you don't have any of those the aliens tend to lose (barring a strat that relies on something else to win). If you want to keep reducing the game like that, Lets just do unupgraded marines versus vanilla skulks with nothing else, DM style. I very rarely encounter a game where someone isn't running straight to the chair, and if no one does I step up and do it (I can competitive comm very well, but my pub skills are lacking; I refuse to turret spam the crap out of the map, they either listen or lose miserably). Commanding requires some people skills, which most don't have, that's the most difficult part for people to grasp.
<!--quoteo(post=1660668:date=Nov 15 2007, 12:31 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Nov 15 2007, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I refuse to turret spam the crap out of the map, they either listen or lose miserably<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is the way it should be done. Either you win in the first 5 minutes, or you lose in the first 5 minutes. No need to drag a slow win/slow loss out for an agonizing 30 minutes.
<!--quoteo(post=1660668:date=Nov 15 2007, 12:31 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Nov 15 2007, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, fading is a niche role as well, if you don't have any of those the aliens tend to lose (barring a strat that relies on something else to win). If you want to keep reducing the game like that, Lets just do unupgraded marines versus vanilla skulks with nothing else, DM style. I very rarely encounter a game where someone isn't running straight to the chair, and if no one does I step up and do it (I can competitive comm very well, but my pub skills are lacking; I refuse to turret spam the crap out of the map, they either listen or lose miserably). Commanding requires some people skills, which most don't have, that's the most difficult part for people to grasp.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry you seem to have taken it personally, I was just using your use of the word niche to highlight a problem I have noticed with NS1 since the first time I played it. I wasn't trying to imply anything about your - or anyones - ability to Command effectively. And it is insulting that you would imply I want to turn NS2 into just another boring Death Match, that was completely uncalled for.
I just recognize that a empty Command Chair equals a broken game.
So anything that prompts players to not jump in the chair breaks the game.
I also do what you do, if approximately 15-30 seconds passes and no one else jumps in the chair, I go for it, just to keep the game going, even though against even a moderately skilled Kharaa player or team will take advantage of that and the game will most likely end in favor of the Kharaa based on the resource to advanced weapon gameplay.
Ideally, there are a number of steps that could be taken to rectify the situation: - improve the experience of being the commander (reason: if it is fun and intuitive to do, more will want to be in this game hinging spot) - start a round with a player already in the chair (reason: no possibility of wasted time in regards to the gameplay) - allow for a warm-up to the round (reason: allow team to get familiar with each other) - allow the team to have a nomination vote for who commands (reason: if a team has a stake in who commands, they are more likely to support their command decisions)
<!--quoteo(post=1660674:date=Nov 15 2007, 01:36 PM:name=CanadianWolverine)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CanadianWolverine @ Nov 15 2007, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ideally, there are a number of steps that could be taken to rectify the situation: - improve the experience of being the commander (reason: if it is fun and intuitive to do, more will want to be in this game hinging spot) - start a round with a player already in the chair (reason: no possibility of wasted time in regards to the gameplay) - allow for a warm-up to the round (reason: allow team to get familiar with each other) - allow the team to have a nomination vote for who commands (reason: if a team has a stake in who commands, they are more likely to support their command decisions)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're generalizing, and badly:
It IS fun to do, though not intuitive at first (since the commander DOES kindof need to know the game well to understand how to <i>control one entire team</i> well). You dont enjoy it, fine. A huge group of us (the ones who always fight over the chair), do. Its been a VERY long time since ive seen marines without a commander, now that i think of it.
Starting a player already in the chair is kinda unnecessary, since it only takes 2 seconds for a marine to run to it.
There IS a warm-up, either via the actual warm-up in tournament mode (which can easily be put on Pubs as well), or by a longer freeze time (try TG server)
Nominating who commands? We cant go putting in a democratic vote for who commands. That would be very difficult to make work in actual pubs. The only way would be to enforce a much higher freezetime, and players nominated themselves, then theres a two-stage vote (like many of the current mapvotes). But even that would seem pretty excessive. I think its best how it is now.
Generalizing, more of an outline in point form really, and my reason for that was it has been discussed in plenty of other threads, but if you would like me to write up an essay for each point, I can see what I can do.
Lets get something straight here, I didn't say I don't enjoy Commanding, I have just recognized it can be a weak point in the game as well as a strong point. The gameplay hinges on having a Commander, period. Without a Commander, the game in NS1 fails.
For everytime a game has someone jump in the chair in those 2 seconds, it could be someone you really don't want Commanding. Maybe they yell, are abusive, don't have a clue, or whatever. Now you spend the time to Eject them, then continue the arguments over who will Command now, which takes time again. Whether you realize it or not, democratic process is already in NS1 when you can vote a Commander out of the chair, only it can contribute to the downfall of a match, on top of whatever mischief the ejected Commander had been up to. Too often the current democratic process in NS1 produces and unsatisfactory game that is aborted early with a huge Kharaa victory or F4 party or both. Lets change it up, vote for confidence in a particular player for Commander, rather than vote for no confidence in the Commander you got stuck with. I sure hope you can recognize the difference.
You could have a game option that "enables" you being voted in as commander. You can either enable or disable the function at the beginning of each game (or just leave it the way it was last game).
Everyone joins their team. When you join the team, you can immediately vote for a commander. Commander W/L/E (Win/Loss/Eject) statistics would be needed to implement this properly though :x. I don't see a large overhead if you just report the steamid's WLE record to an outside database for just the commander. I think that would probably be the best implementation.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1660673:date=Nov 15 2007, 01:35 PM:name=Domining)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Domining @ Nov 15 2007, 01:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660673"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is the way it should be done. Either you win in the first 5 minutes, or you lose in the first 5 minutes. No need to drag a slow win/slow loss out for an agonizing 30 minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't necessarily mean you win or lose in the first 5 minutes, it just means that I refuse to make up for ######ty marines by using worthless static defense that slows down the game period I need to be expanding, not turtling into what I already own. Good marines are marines that can listen, not necessarily the ones with prosauce aim. I'd rather have a moderately skilled, listening marine than Johnny CAL-Allstar that has hud_saytext 0 and voicecomm disabled, even if he kills 3 skulks per LMG clip. It's entirely possible to have a good 20-30 minute game, its just rare in a pub because both teams are usually stacked with awful people that don't get the game, with 2-3 players on both teams really influencing the outcome while the rest are just fodder. When you get a relatively even bad player:good player ratio (with the right people in the right roles) on both teams is when you have the possibility of an awesome game. I agree on dragging it out though, nothing hurts my brain more than seeing a comm take down the second hive then turtle in and take 20 minutes to kill hive1 aliens with no resnodes.
In response to CanadianWolverine, I'm not really taking it personal as much as showing my strong support for commandermode. I was simply equating that it is as crucial as alien lifeforms, without either the game "breaks". The point is that it is not the game's fault when this happens, it is the player's fault. If someone stepped up and got in the chair, you have a fighting chance, same for going Fade. The game isn't broken because people don't get in the chair, people just aren't utilizing what resources they have available to effect a win. There is a difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1660824:date=Nov 16 2007, 06:22 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Nov 16 2007, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In response to CanadianWolverine, I'm not really taking it personal as much as showing my strong support for commandermode. I was simply equating that it is as crucial as alien lifeforms, without either the game "breaks". The point is that it is not the game's fault when this happens, it is the player's fault. If someone stepped up and got in the chair, you have a fighting chance, same for going Fade. The game isn't broken because people don't get in the chair, people just aren't utilizing what resources they have available to effect a win. There is a difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, sure, I can see that. What I am trying to point out that utilizing some resources is more a chore for majority of players when Commanders are refered to as a "niche". Just so I don't hear how I hate Commanding again, let me clearly state I love Commanding because it is one of the coolest support roles in a game to date. Better than playing Engineer or Medic in Team Fortress 2, that's for sure! I enjoy helping other people, and try to have patience with new players who may not understand my instructions, way points, resource management strategy and such, but there surely is a problem with the Commander mode's implementation when it results in frustration and conflict, which seems to be a driving motivation to not jump in the chair at the beginning of a match. Seeing as how I love Commanding so much, I have just tried to think of ways the experience could facilitate people's desire to support each other in a team driven game. Does that make sense? I sure hope it does.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
The problem (which I think was already mentioned) is moreso that NS pulled its playerbase from FPS games (namely HL mods), therefore most of the people that play want to shoot things, not stare at people from overhead. I think a standalone game as NS2 will be shouldn't have as many issues there. There are tons of RTS games that are played on Steam now and it should get more attention from a wider playerbase, so you'll get people that do nothing but command all the time. It's frustrating to people who don't get RTS games, that's about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1660344:date=Nov 12 2007, 07:07 PM:name=Superfly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Superfly @ Nov 12 2007, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps the NS dev’s can figure out a way to rank the truly “good†commanders. I would love to be able to look at the scoreboard and know who can get the job done. This could also motivate the weaker commanders to hone their skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They said they were interested in using the achievements function, which is a good start. But I'd also like to see a win/lose ratio* and an 'average win time' and 'average lose time'.
* Games only count towards stats if you're in the CC within the first 30 seconds of the round
The W/L score is basically to show who is a good commander, and it could be used as the base of an optional 3rd-party server-side Commander voting plugin, where you vote in the readyroom before the game starts.
The average win/lose time is to do with people learning the game. If they don't have a lot of wins but they can still keep the team going for a reasonable amount of time, they're obviously not so bad they get ejected within 5 minutes every time they try to command. Of course this could encourage commanders to beacon when the game is already lost just to increase their average loss times, but as a player you would still have the option of F4ing (or ejecting if eject voting were made possible from the reinforcement screen).
---
For the Commander voting system I mentioned it would work quite simply. Players who want to comm put themselves forward via a menu, then after 10 seconds all other players are shown each candidate's commander stats and can make their votes. Commanders can drop out during this process if they are happy with another candidate commanding. The candidate for commander with the winning votes is then placed in the 'commander' spawn. The commander spawn is the part that would require some development, being the addition of either a player spawn flag or a new entity that would place the commander in the spawn point nearest the command chair (as defined by the mapper).
Ya, I totally agree with Crispy, except for maybe a few tweaks that could implemented (I can't think of any as I'm tired, but I'm sure that they're there to be found).
NS2 would probably be a 10 to 15 minute game, so spending thirty seconds to get organized is -not- a bad thing. Heaven knows that it would be a GREAT change of pace from joining any other random server for any other game for the most part (95% of pubs have no organization whatsoever).
But then it depend who this game is for. If it's for the "casual" market like it seems every other bloody game is then sure, scrap the commander model or make it something that is pretty worthless.
If however you have the balls to create an intelligent game and do it well (which we all know can be done because we all play NS) then tbh I think in the modern day where games are fairly shallow in terms of experience even if fun NS2 could stand out for good critical acclaim and the rewards that come with it.
NS always worked because for the general joe bloggs it was simple to play as a marine at least, and so you weren't *forced* to learn any faster than you wanted. When you wanted to really take on the aliens you could do evolutions at your own pace, command only when you felt comfortable. As long as that stays, as long as being a skulk or a marine is an intuitive fun and relatively rewarding experience despite never playing NS then NS2 can happily grow its player base.
If anything I think the only thing that can threaten NS2 is the fact there will be many of us from NS that know largely how to play the game. NS2 could almost do with everyone being at square 1 again and learning the game at the same pace at the same time, unfortunately elitism will show through and as much as some of us will get frustrated at people that don't straight away know how to play, those people will also dislike playing with people clearly of a much higher skill than them and put the game down.
That's the real challenge, not screwing with the commander too much, but helping communities manage the skill gap that can potentially cause people to ask for their money back.
<!--quoteo(post=1661129:date=Nov 19 2007, 01:30 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Nov 19 2007, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Organization is bad for the growing ADD culture. The fastest modes with the least requirement for organization will be the most popular (i.e. combat).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is simply not true. RTS games are huge in Asia and Europe, not to mention that one of the most popular games these days requires organization and has 30 sec "setup" times and "safe" areas to spawn in. If you don't know what I am talking about yet, you owe it to yourself to play Team Fortress 2.
TF2 is strategy for dumb people maybe. What is so strategic about TF2? It's just a 'lets have 2 scouts, 2 soldiers a heavy and a medic" strategy game. Oh and you can also set up sentries :o
<!--quoteo(post=1659393:date=Nov 5 2007, 11:10 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Nov 5 2007, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't begin to estimate time lines, especially since you are not involved with the industry. Since you do not know the financial situation, its best to leave this part unspeculated. NS was a GREAT success in the beginning. A lot of people flocked to download it. It was the number 3rd party mod for like 3 years, and it still today beats out most source mods. Also, if you admit the developers are learning from their mistakes, it kind of defeats the purpose right? Well if combat was used the way it was supposed to be, there would have been more people playing classic. But its the player's choice on what he or she wants to play, thats not the dev team's fault. And given that there are going to be LUA scripts for everything, people will be able to customize exactly what they want. The irony behind that is that the vets (myself included) always wanted to push for a more scientific means. In order to achieve balance, you have to test with the least amount of variables possible. Putting the top 2 teams against each other is the best way to eliminate variables from the game. Putting together random teams with random experiences, is not an effective way to test balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1659220:date=Nov 3 2007, 07:38 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Nov 3 2007, 07:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659220"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Testing with players that are new to the game or are not skilled really won't yield any useful results.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Sorry, I have no place and have not played NS 1 long enough to comment in this thread, but this one statement is wrong dude. Testing needs to be done using people from ALL of the levels of experience. Why? Because experienced players and new players don't play the same. They also don't see things the same, and don't communicate the same, don't approach areas the same. It's that simple. [I still play twichy FPSs like I am playing Rainbow 6]. I am more methodical, and I cut the pie everytime, almost on the defensive vs the offensive, but that's why a super fast player can eat me alive too, hehe.
I am only guessing you are making this statement because you think newer players are more "simple," or just "not as good," but that would be a bad ASS-umption. You would be suprised how a guy who maybe plays RTSs all day, might try his hand at NS2, go comm, and end up being a badass. By forgetting about how new players would approach a role, or by forgetting about the learning curve for building, not only would NS1 problems still exist in NS2, but there could be new ones...
I don't mean to slam your statement, but I really think this is unwise. <i>example:</i> If you invented a new way for electricity to travel and you had to test it, would you only test it with regular copper wires and not gold plated, or steel threaded, or thin telephone wires?? If so, then when it fails you have noone to blame but yourself. *shrug*
Comments
NS is different in that it's much more smallscale, it needs to aim at a small niche market and work towards its existing fans to be a success, because UWE doesn't have the funds or the core game concept to compete in the mainstream with the big players who can absorb losses made on 'safer' games that don't get any bites. UWE also has a decentralised dev team and probably the same goes for the dedicated playtester group if they're at that stage because financing an in-house PT group is (I guess) beyond their current means. This means they can't afford to be -too- experimental with their existing game model because they don't have the luxury of playtesting features with a full server twice a day like Valve do and they can't dedicate cabal groups to experimenting with ideas.
Commander is integral to NS. It works for the experienced players of NS today. There are plenty of refinements that can be made to the commander model to make it easier to learn, more intuitive, less split-second and more tactical. That is what NS2 should aim to do, hopefully.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a bit late on the reply here, but the commander mode was the selling point for me when I was looking at NS, I wouldn't have tried the game if it didn't have it, and there are many others like me that probably wouldn't have tried it either. I just happened to excel at it , so I kept at it, but the learning curve is exceptionally harsh and almost vertical in terms of steepness. One screw up and 10 people are screaming at you over voicecomm "OMFG bad comm eject!" I still get ejected by random idiots on pubs and I'm one of the more experienced commanders left in the game at this point. While the mechanics take a bit to adjust to, its mostly the player element that makes commanding difficult.
Sarisiel was correct about most commanders knowing the basics and little else, and that definitely hurts the quality of games, but there are ways to fix that. The part people have to get over is 10 raging idiots on your team who always know how to command better than the person that's in the chair, yet all of them would do just as bad or worse if they were in the chair (with exceptions). NS definitely suffers if the players are of poor skill quality compared to other games, but it's a function of being a team game that if some people are awful, it drags the team down. Anyone ever randomed a team from WC3/TFT automatching and gotten idiot teammates that cost you an easy win because they couldn't manage to upgrade their town hall before 20 minutes in? NS has a vertically integrated team structure, if any of the pieces fall out, the whole thing can come down pretty fast, and that's why pub play suffers sometimes. In competitive play, this was never an issue once people learned about the game early on because they understood all the basics and even the advanced stuff over time, and passed it down to future competitive players over time.
Hopefully the commander role will be front-and-center on the marine team in NS2, I think it is an amazing concept that works fine in NS, it just needs some tweaking mainly in the form of UI. I think most of the issues in NS are due to limitations on the engine, I know I asked during PTing about things and that was the usual answer I got to something, that or it was just beyond the scope of normal game updates. I hope that it stays very complex, very steep, and very demanding, because some of my best gaming moments were times that I had an amazing victory as commander. Years later I still have games that come to mind, and that's what is going to sell people, having such an amazing time that they come back for more and still remember those games years later. It just takes a very unique type of gamer to play commander and still play the rest of the game (marine, aliens etc) because of the different playstyle, so don't expect every player to be able (or willing) to command, its quite a niche role.
And as long as commanding is a niche role, the game will break. Without a commander, how long does a game last for the marines? And if no one wants to command, how often might you find your marine team without a commander? And if the marines are not capable opponents, what kind of experience will the Kharaa have?
This isn't a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.", it is broken whether we like it or not.
Sarisiel was correct about most commanders knowing the basics and little else, and that definitely hurts the quality of games, but there are ways to fix that. The part people have to get over is 10 raging idiots on your team who always know how to command better than the person that's in the chair, yet all of them would do just as bad or worse if they were in the chair (with exceptions). NS definitely suffers if the players are of poor skill quality compared to other games, but it's a function of being a team game that if some people are awful, it drags the team down. Anyone ever randomed a team from WC3/TFT automatching and gotten idiot teammates that cost you an easy win because they couldn't manage to upgrade their town hall before 20 minutes in? NS has a vertically integrated team structure, if any of the pieces fall out, the whole thing can come down pretty fast, and that's why pub play suffers sometimes. In competitive play, this was never an issue once people learned about the game early on because they understood all the basics and even the advanced stuff over time, and passed it down to future competitive players over time.
Hopefully the commander role will be front-and-center on the marine team in NS2, I think it is an amazing concept that works fine in NS, it just needs some tweaking mainly in the form of UI. I think most of the issues in NS are due to limitations on the engine, I know I asked during PTing about things and that was the usual answer I got to something, that or it was just beyond the scope of normal game updates. I hope that it stays very complex, very steep, and very demanding, because some of my best gaming moments were times that I had an amazing victory as commander. Years later I still have games that come to mind, and that's what is going to sell people, having such an amazing time that they come back for more and still remember those games years later. It just takes a very unique type of gamer to play commander and still play the rest of the game (marine, aliens etc) because of the different playstyle, so don't expect every player to be able (or willing) to command, its quite a niche role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could not agree more. Commanding is not for everyone, yet everyone is an "armchair...armchair" commander. It has been my experience that the loudest pub players (the ones screaming at the com half the game) are screaming because they do not get what they want. Everyone thinks that they are NS’s best player and that they should be served as such. This is the same experience that you get in any game that has team-based play. I think that it is a negligible issue in light of the overall experience.
I have always felt that the best games that I’ve played had at least 2-3 good coms on the marine team. One in the chair, and the other 1-2 leading a squad, this tends to be the best mix because the other good coms/squad leaders tend to listen and lead better.
Perhaps the NS dev’s can figure out a way to rank the truly “good†commanders. I would love to be able to look at the scoreboard and know who can get the job done. This could also motivate the weaker commanders to hone their skill.
really good comms can bring a game back from the half way point, and can win a game, with a less than professional team (aslong as a couple of them listen). But ive found it hard to bridge the gab between being an ok comm that knows some basic strategys and can do some organising to being a pro, that can get noobs to be an assult force. Im not sure a ranking system would help players like me improve. Its not too difficult to get from knowing nothing about comming to get to my level, all u do is practice on a few bot servers, then small servers with a few newer players on them, and then listen/watch some of the better comms on the bigger servers. But getting past the where i am seems hard, and the games ive progressed most in have been the ones where theres been a good field comm and a team that micromanagment aside, can get kills and stay relativly alive, and listen.
What i would really appreciate is a game mechanic that works a teams support for the comm in to the game, but in a kind of subtle way. Im not sure what this mechanic would be tho.
in response to canadian wolverines comment; One solution to know comm being avliable on a server would be an AI comm. Ok AIs are never brilliant, but it may not need to be. in NS1 if a rine team contols say 3- 4 of the nodes, and one hive position and the comm buys upgrades the game will last a while (assuming the rines can kind of shoot) even if the team cant coordinate for a proper offensive. An AI could be programed to order and drop nodes, order and lock down hive positions - micormanaged/resupply and buy upgrades/weapons. I doubt an AI could analyse the aliens attack stratergy other than what chamber they had opted for, but it could tone its choice of upgrades towards that. The ai could kick in, in the absence of a human comm for more than 30 secs or summit.
This isn't a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.", it is broken whether we like it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, fading is a niche role as well, if you don't have any of those the aliens tend to lose (barring a strat that relies on something else to win). If you want to keep reducing the game like that, Lets just do unupgraded marines versus vanilla skulks with nothing else, DM style. I very rarely encounter a game where someone isn't running straight to the chair, and if no one does I step up and do it (I can competitive comm very well, but my pub skills are lacking; I refuse to turret spam the crap out of the map, they either listen or lose miserably). Commanding requires some people skills, which most don't have, that's the most difficult part for people to grasp.
Which is the way it should be done. Either you win in the first 5 minutes, or you lose in the first 5 minutes. No need to drag a slow win/slow loss out for an agonizing 30 minutes.
I'm sorry you seem to have taken it personally, I was just using your use of the word niche to highlight a problem I have noticed with NS1 since the first time I played it. I wasn't trying to imply anything about your - or anyones - ability to Command effectively. And it is insulting that you would imply I want to turn NS2 into just another boring Death Match, that was completely uncalled for.
I just recognize that a empty Command Chair equals a broken game.
So anything that prompts players to not jump in the chair breaks the game.
I also do what you do, if approximately 15-30 seconds passes and no one else jumps in the chair, I go for it, just to keep the game going, even though against even a moderately skilled Kharaa player or team will take advantage of that and the game will most likely end in favor of the Kharaa based on the resource to advanced weapon gameplay.
Ideally, there are a number of steps that could be taken to rectify the situation:
- improve the experience of being the commander (reason: if it is fun and intuitive to do, more will want to be in this game hinging spot)
- start a round with a player already in the chair (reason: no possibility of wasted time in regards to the gameplay)
- allow for a warm-up to the round (reason: allow team to get familiar with each other)
- allow the team to have a nomination vote for who commands (reason: if a team has a stake in who commands, they are more likely to support their command decisions)
- improve the experience of being the commander (reason: if it is fun and intuitive to do, more will want to be in this game hinging spot)
- start a round with a player already in the chair (reason: no possibility of wasted time in regards to the gameplay)
- allow for a warm-up to the round (reason: allow team to get familiar with each other)
- allow the team to have a nomination vote for who commands (reason: if a team has a stake in who commands, they are more likely to support their command decisions)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're generalizing, and badly:
It IS fun to do, though not intuitive at first (since the commander DOES kindof need to know the game well to understand how to <i>control one entire team</i> well). You dont enjoy it, fine. A huge group of us (the ones who always fight over the chair), do. Its been a VERY long time since ive seen marines without a commander, now that i think of it.
Starting a player already in the chair is kinda unnecessary, since it only takes 2 seconds for a marine to run to it.
There IS a warm-up, either via the actual warm-up in tournament mode (which can easily be put on Pubs as well), or by a longer freeze time (try TG server)
Nominating who commands? We cant go putting in a democratic vote for who commands. That would be very difficult to make work in actual pubs. The only way would be to enforce a much higher freezetime, and players nominated themselves, then theres a two-stage vote (like many of the current mapvotes). But even that would seem pretty excessive. I think its best how it is now.
Lets get something straight here, I didn't say I don't enjoy Commanding, I have just recognized it can be a weak point in the game as well as a strong point. The gameplay hinges on having a Commander, period. Without a Commander, the game in NS1 fails.
For everytime a game has someone jump in the chair in those 2 seconds, it could be someone you really don't want Commanding. Maybe they yell, are abusive, don't have a clue, or whatever. Now you spend the time to Eject them, then continue the arguments over who will Command now, which takes time again. Whether you realize it or not, democratic process is already in NS1 when you can vote a Commander out of the chair, only it can contribute to the downfall of a match, on top of whatever mischief the ejected Commander had been up to. Too often the current democratic process in NS1 produces and unsatisfactory game that is aborted early with a huge Kharaa victory or F4 party or both. Lets change it up, vote for confidence in a particular player for Commander, rather than vote for no confidence in the Commander you got stuck with. I sure hope you can recognize the difference.
Everyone joins their team. When you join the team, you can immediately vote for a commander. Commander W/L/E (Win/Loss/Eject) statistics would be needed to implement this properly though :x. I don't see a large overhead if you just report the steamid's WLE record to an outside database for just the commander. I think that would probably be the best implementation.
It doesn't necessarily mean you win or lose in the first 5 minutes, it just means that I refuse to make up for ######ty marines by using worthless static defense that slows down the game period I need to be expanding, not turtling into what I already own. Good marines are marines that can listen, not necessarily the ones with prosauce aim. I'd rather have a moderately skilled, listening marine than Johnny CAL-Allstar that has hud_saytext 0 and voicecomm disabled, even if he kills 3 skulks per LMG clip. It's entirely possible to have a good 20-30 minute game, its just rare in a pub because both teams are usually stacked with awful people that don't get the game, with 2-3 players on both teams really influencing the outcome while the rest are just fodder. When you get a relatively even bad player:good player ratio (with the right people in the right roles) on both teams is when you have the possibility of an awesome game. I agree on dragging it out though, nothing hurts my brain more than seeing a comm take down the second hive then turtle in and take 20 minutes to kill hive1 aliens with no resnodes.
In response to CanadianWolverine, I'm not really taking it personal as much as showing my strong support for commandermode. I was simply equating that it is as crucial as alien lifeforms, without either the game "breaks". The point is that it is not the game's fault when this happens, it is the player's fault. If someone stepped up and got in the chair, you have a fighting chance, same for going Fade. The game isn't broken because people don't get in the chair, people just aren't utilizing what resources they have available to effect a win. There is a difference.
Ok, sure, I can see that. What I am trying to point out that utilizing some resources is more a chore for majority of players when Commanders are refered to as a "niche". Just so I don't hear how I hate Commanding again, let me clearly state I love Commanding because it is one of the coolest support roles in a game to date. Better than playing Engineer or Medic in Team Fortress 2, that's for sure! I enjoy helping other people, and try to have patience with new players who may not understand my instructions, way points, resource management strategy and such, but there surely is a problem with the Commander mode's implementation when it results in frustration and conflict, which seems to be a driving motivation to not jump in the chair at the beginning of a match. Seeing as how I love Commanding so much, I have just tried to think of ways the experience could facilitate people's desire to support each other in a team driven game. Does that make sense? I sure hope it does.
* Games only count towards stats if you're in the CC within the first 30 seconds of the round
The W/L score is basically to show who is a good commander, and it could be used as the base of an optional 3rd-party server-side Commander voting plugin, where you vote in the readyroom before the game starts.
The average win/lose time is to do with people learning the game. If they don't have a lot of wins but they can still keep the team going for a reasonable amount of time, they're obviously not so bad they get ejected within 5 minutes every time they try to command. Of course this could encourage commanders to beacon when the game is already lost just to increase their average loss times, but as a player you would still have the option of F4ing (or ejecting if eject voting were made possible from the reinforcement screen).
---
For the Commander voting system I mentioned it would work quite simply. Players who want to comm put themselves forward via a menu, then after 10 seconds all other players are shown each candidate's commander stats and can make their votes. Commanders can drop out during this process if they are happy with another candidate commanding. The candidate for commander with the winning votes is then placed in the 'commander' spawn. The commander spawn is the part that would require some development, being the addition of either a player spawn flag or a new entity that would place the commander in the spawn point nearest the command chair (as defined by the mapper).
NS2 would probably be a 10 to 15 minute game, so spending thirty seconds to get organized is -not- a bad thing. Heaven knows that it would be a GREAT change of pace from joining any other random server for any other game for the most part (95% of pubs have no organization whatsoever).
If however you have the balls to create an intelligent game and do it well (which we all know can be done because we all play NS) then tbh I think in the modern day where games are fairly shallow in terms of experience even if fun NS2 could stand out for good critical acclaim and the rewards that come with it.
NS always worked because for the general joe bloggs it was simple to play as a marine at least, and so you weren't *forced* to learn any faster than you wanted. When you wanted to really take on the aliens you could do evolutions at your own pace, command only when you felt comfortable. As long as that stays, as long as being a skulk or a marine is an intuitive fun and relatively rewarding experience despite never playing NS then NS2 can happily grow its player base.
If anything I think the only thing that can threaten NS2 is the fact there will be many of us from NS that know largely how to play the game. NS2 could almost do with everyone being at square 1 again and learning the game at the same pace at the same time, unfortunately elitism will show through and as much as some of us will get frustrated at people that don't straight away know how to play, those people will also dislike playing with people clearly of a much higher skill than them and put the game down.
That's the real challenge, not screwing with the commander too much, but helping communities manage the skill gap that can potentially cause people to ask for their money back.
That is simply not true. RTS games are huge in Asia and Europe, not to mention that one of the most popular games these days requires organization and has 30 sec "setup" times and "safe" areas to spawn in. If you don't know what I am talking about yet, you owe it to yourself to play Team Fortress 2.
MANY STRADEJEES
NS was a GREAT success in the beginning. A lot of people flocked to download it. It was the number 3rd party mod for like 3 years, and it still today beats out most source mods.
Also, if you admit the developers are learning from their mistakes, it kind of defeats the purpose right?
Well if combat was used the way it was supposed to be, there would have been more people playing classic. But its the player's choice on what he or she wants to play, thats not the dev team's fault. And given that there are going to be LUA scripts for everything, people will be able to customize exactly what they want.
The irony behind that is that the vets (myself included) always wanted to push for a more scientific means. In order to achieve balance, you have to test with the least amount of variables possible. Putting the top 2 teams against each other is the best way to eliminate variables from the game. Putting together random teams with random experiences, is not an effective way to test balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
exigent vs terror ftw? ONE MORETIME!
Wrong. Sorry, I have no place and have not played NS 1 long enough to comment in this thread, but this one statement is wrong dude. Testing needs to be done using people from ALL of the levels of experience. Why? Because experienced players and new players don't play the same. They also don't see things the same, and don't communicate the same, don't approach areas the same. It's that simple. [I still play twichy FPSs like I am playing Rainbow 6]. I am more methodical, and I cut the pie everytime, almost on the defensive vs the offensive, but that's why a super fast player can eat me alive too, hehe.
I am only guessing you are making this statement because you think newer players are more "simple," or just "not as good," but that would be a bad ASS-umption. You would be suprised how a guy who maybe plays RTSs all day, might try his hand at NS2, go comm, and end up being a badass. By forgetting about how new players would approach a role, or by forgetting about the learning curve for building, not only would NS1 problems still exist in NS2, but there could be new ones...
I don't mean to slam your statement, but I really think this is unwise. <i>example:</i> If you invented a new way for electricity to travel and you had to test it, would you only test it with regular copper wires and not gold plated, or steel threaded, or thin telephone wires?? If so, then when it fails you have noone to blame but yourself. *shrug*