However, I disagree about server admins. Most server admins have the time to dedicated in the game. Thus they would be best suited to run the server as well as take care of any little nuances in game. Other than that, great post.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675200:date=Apr 6 2008, 04:51 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 6 2008, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I am disputing the social reprocussions that existed on this forum between casuals and competitive players. I am talking about is the disputes on this forum that the optional mp_blockscripts command caused. Imagine a ranking system that would quantifiable isolate players based on a stats system that would be broken.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think those divisions were always there and will continue to be there. Are you playing for fun, or to win? There are two very distinct play styles.
I think mp_blockscripts is disliked because it seemed more like "security theater" than anything. Scripts don't make good players good, and blocking them wasn't really any use to new players trying to learn. The change was completely transparent to the group it was for and aggravatingly visible to those who it wasn't.
<!--quoteo(post=1675257:date=Apr 7 2008, 12:52 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 7 2008, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675257"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think those divisions were always there and will continue to be there. Are you playing for fun, or to win? There are two very distinct play styles.
I think mp_blockscripts is disliked because it seemed more like "security theater" than anything. Scripts don't make good players good, and blocking them wasn't really any use to new players trying to learn. The change was completely transparent to the group it was for and aggravatingly visible to those who it wasn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly,
BUT. During its conception the mindset was "It is optional therefore it should please everyone" which seemed logical on paper but wind up causing lots of grief on this forum.
I am just trying to take what lessons that were already learned, and generalize it to other potential systems that I feel will have a similar/worse effect.
BUT. During its conception the mindset was "It is optional therefore it should please everyone" which seemed logical on paper but wind up causing lots of grief on this forum.
I am just trying to take what lessons that were already learned, and generalize it to other potential systems that I feel will have a similar/worse effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Matchmaking and autobalancing systems are the opposite though. They're invisible to higher level players(who know who they want to play with) and they're very visible to new players, who the system is actually useful to.
Regardless, you've posted another topic with a similar system and I'll post any further discussion there.{<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104062" target="_blank">link</a>}
Assuming a global ranking system was deemed by the devs to be worth perusing, what if, instead of interactions between players, the rankings were based on a standardized test of sorts?
Imagine a set of training missions or tests that aim to teach necessary skills and measure the player's ability to perform them. For example, a course on fade movement could begin by explaining the fade's controls and HUD indicators as well as describing how to effectively use blink and conserve adrenalin. Perhaps a good example of basic fade movement around a map could be viewed. Then the player would be promoted to travel through a few rooms and hallways. Perhaps there could be difficulty levels such as:
Easy - basic rooms and hallways Medium - rooms and hallways with unnecessary and annoying architecture Hard - rooms and hallways with unnecessary and annoying architecture with many turrets
Statistics such as times, number of collisions, and damage taken could be logged, or there could simply be a set of requirements to pass each level. The player's rank bracket could be determined by averaging the results of all the most recent tests.
Obviously, the time and effort necessary to create something such as this would not be trivial. Another concern would be if, by playing through or passing the training courses, the players really develop or display skills useful in actual play. There could also be glitches or tricks to shortcut or otherwise defeat the purpose of the training courses and unfairly influence ranks.
My initial thought is that such a system would be more interesting than your average training mission. Throwing in a rank could encourage participation and hopefully also help beginners to get a head start on the mechanics of the game. It may also be useful for non-beginners to better develop some of their skills. It could also just end up being a nuisance.
As for the uses for ranks, I personally envision a small, finite number of rank brackets that would be denoted by players' scoreboard icons and/or by player model decals (not so sure about the decals). I'm fairly sure there was an active thread about that exact idea several months ago. As was previously stated in this thread, or maybe in one of the others, the scoreboard icons would allow people to have a rough idea of the balance of the teams (assuming, of course, that the ranks are indeed an indication of player ability). I would also like to think that high ranks would help show the validity of good players and reduce the number of hackusations they encounter. Of course there would also be the inevitable e-peening and possible discriminations based on rank.
Giving server administrators the ability to exclude players based on rank is something that I am not comfortable with. Based on my experience with the NS community I think that ability would most commonly be used to protect newbie/training servers, or for the exclusion of the highest and/or lowest rank brackets. However, I think that most servers would not use it at all. I really just don't see much of a benefit in it.
I do think it would be interesting if a server could be given a rank based on the ranks of its community of players. Having said that, I'm not really convinced that creating a global ranking system would be a worthwhile exercise for any use.
<u>You are all over-complicating this issue to the extreme.</u>
There's no need to implement an <b>annoying</b>, <b>highly complex</b> (i mean, <i>5 patches</i> to get in working order complex) system just to matchmake for 1% of the players... <b>purely</b> because <b>a minority people have the inability to learn the game, read the easily available manual or are too stubborn to change servers when they are completely outclassed</b>.
You could probably read the manual through while the game installs and Steam updates, let alone during download time.
Natural-Selection has <b>NO RECOIL</b>. The game has <b>SUPPORT CLASSES FOR THE STARTING PLAYERS</b> for aliens, and a <b>SUPPORTIVE TEAM ENVIRONMENT</b> for marines.
If you do decide that we need to matchmake, do it in a way that won't frustrate the hell out of the <i>MAJOR MAJORITY</i> of the NS community. Think about it... The NS community is far more responsible than many FPS communities, and we rarely get griefed, at least that's the case on Australian servers.
We may end up with a rather decent portion of FPS trolls in the NS2 system, of course, but generally Natural-Selection players are more close-knit.
Think about it... when's the last time you remember somebody messing with your NS game intentionally WITHOUT the general opinion of the players being "Hey, this is different, and fun!"
Just put a flag next to the servers in a box.
<u>Green Flag</u> - Newbie Server <u>Yellow Flag</u> - Intermediate Server <u>Red Flag</u> - Professional Server
Let the player decide for himself if he is ready to move ahead into a higher difficulty server. You will find that generally the private servers that curious players start up will be Green, the official servers ISPs create will be Yellow, and the Clan and Tournament servers will flag Red.
Think about it... would YOU go into a 'Green Flag' server when all your NS buddies are playing on a 'Yellow/Red Flag' one, just to feel like a big fish in a little pond? Just how long do you think an <i>*cough*</i> Elitist <i>*cough*</i> would last in Johnny B. Newbie's server before getting kicked/banned anyway?
Don't punish us all for other players wanting you to fire nerfbats out of your HMG.
<!--quoteo(post=1675132:date=Apr 6 2008, 11:03 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Apr 6 2008, 11:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Notice we have two threads going which have now become the exact same discussion.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103976" target="_blank">Less Elitist Gameplay</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Notice also that neither of those threads (currently) deal with the OP's concerns/suggestions. ;P It's natural selection.
I agree mostly. There's no need to force people to do anything. It was previously mentioned that the players of the server could use a votekick/ban system to deal with griefers or disruptive newbies. The voting system would need some tweaking to make it less annoying and more intuitive, but it is much easier than setting up a complex system whose benefits are uncertain.
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, my opinion is that the usefulness of such a stat system will not be worth the effort and resources used to design, implement, and maintain it. This is without even considering the statistical validity of such a system. The idea is to assess cost:benefit before jumping in and trying to make changes to the way servers work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's really quite a strange thing to say. It's already one of their <b>goals</b> for NS2. They seem to think it's cost-effective. <!--QuoteBegin-'Unknown Worlds NS2 About page'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE('Unknown Worlds NS2 About page')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Instant Gratification</b>
Rated maps and powerful matchmaking allow you to play with people of any skill level. Play on servers from Easy to Expert or compete in tournaments. Play on the Internet, on a LAN or offline with any number of players. Clever bots will do the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you do segregate servers, you'll simply have the non-twitch skills being more significant - which they most likely already will be in NS2 - in deciding who kills who.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Possibly. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything, it encourages cooperation and coordination, and isn't that a good thing?
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(split the community in the process)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That is the most pointless and overused argument ever, and it's hardly applicable to this suggestion. For one thing, not everyone <b>wants</b> to be part of "a community", and not everyone's a hardcore gamer. A lot of people just want to jump on a random server with a low enough ping and some players and just play the game - and if you haven't noticed, UWE <b>are</b> trying to cater to that (the casual) market. For another thing, that suggests that it actually will split up the community - that somehow, all new players will stay new. Where's the logic behind that?
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alternatively, if you get some autobalance function that sorts players into teams of even "twitch skill"...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I personally don't like the autobalance feature, though. So I won't bother arguing with you on that point.
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, there's too much that is changing with NS2 that makes it really questionable to even discuss this kind of stat system without info about what will make NS2's rounds biased towards alien or marine victories. I think it's prudent to see how the game works first instead of thinking up a <b>faulty</b> way to balance NS1 - which is an old game that is pretty much dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The moment you said 'faulty' your argument lost weight. Your argument was that, since we don't know enough about NS2 we can't make accurate suggestions or judgments about suggestions - and fair enough, though arguable. However, your use of the word faulty demonstrated a <b>pre-disposed</b> bias against this idea. It undermined your argument in that it was you judging this idea, <b>without</b> knowing how the game works and how this idea might apply to the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1675090:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok. <b>The silent majority who quit were newbs who could not adjust to the learning curve</b> - it made the game inaccessible to many players. There was also mouse acceleration and sensitivity issues for alien lifeforms, but that's another story.. NS1 could have been much more successful if new players were catered to better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just stating the facts, which are, though somewhat subjective, true.
<!--quoteo(post=1675090:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead, for example, new players could be shown on-screen messages while playing (auto help). If they are in a server that is designated medium/advanced, they could be encouraged to seek a server designated for beginners. If they are doing poorly in beginner servers, perhaps a message could direct them to a tutorial about a particular class or life-form.
Triggers could be designed for auto help as well. For example, if a player dies far away from team-mates several times, auto help could suggest that the player try to cooperate with the team. If a player keeps getting killed by the same opponent or in the same area, perhaps a message could suggest a different approach including teamwork or attacking a different section of the map where other team-members are fighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I do like this idea. But it doesn't have to be exclusive of the ranked servers idea, necessarily. (Using the expansion of the idea - that there are more options for admins, eg. 'up to a certain skill level', 'only a certain skill level', or 'at least a certain skill level'.) Why though, do you advocate 'beginner servers' if you don't advocate ranked servers? I understand it's merely a naming convention, but in effect, isn't it the same?
<!--quoteo(post=1675190:date=Apr 7 2008, 05:13 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 7 2008, 05:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675190"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please refer to (the last couple posts of) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103976&pid=1675302&st=80&#entry1675302" target="_blank">this</a> thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1675247:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:22 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 8 2008, 01:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a tad too mainstream for NS, heh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This kinda saddens me. Do we not want NS2 to be popular? Do we only want a selection of maybe 6 servers with 6v6 games?
I skipped three of the very large posts (fuzzwobble, don_mac, necrosis) on this page, and I'll come back to those later. Getting a bit tired I guess.
For extra reading, (as if you haven't had enough) somewhat related, somewhat not.. try <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3604/fixing_online_gaming_idiocy_a_.php" target="_blank">this</a> article. (Maybe you've already read it?) And especially the comments. One person (who found the entry-level into many online games restrictive) actually suggested that games themselves make it easier for new players (buffing their defense, tracking, etc.) :/ While I think that's a bad idea, the reason for it is quite plain and an important concern to be considered.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's really quite a strange thing to say. It's already one of their <b>goals</b> for NS2. They seem to think it's cost-effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because match-making is a goal for UWE, it doesn't make them right for pursuing it. Appeals to authority are a form of logical fallacy.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Possibly. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything, it encourages cooperation and coordination, and isn't that a good thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because segregation by twitch-skill puts an emphasis on non-twitch-skills, doesn't mean that the players in such a server will be distributed in a way that makes games fair and fun. It's also likely that twitch-skill won't even be a major barrier for players in NS2, so why focus on segregating by it in the first place?
I would also dispute equal twitch-skill levels encouraging cooperation and coordination. That is much more contingent on the social abilities of the players and how long they have been working together. Hence, people who know how to cooperate and coordinate will group together for team selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(re: splitting the community) That is the most pointless and overused argument ever, and it's hardly applicable to this suggestion. For one thing, not everyone <b>wants</b> to be part of "a community", and not everyone's a hardcore gamer. A lot of people just want to jump on a random server with a low enough ping and some players and just play the game - and if you haven't noticed, UWE <b>are</b> trying to cater to that (the casual) market. For another thing, that suggests that it actually will split up the community - that somehow, all new players will stay new. Where's the logic behind that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're missing the point here. The presence or absence of a matchmaking system won't affect the casual gamer who wants to jump in and play a game. Just having icons next to servers that show them as beginner, intermediate, or advanced (without the implementation of barriers to stop players for joining) is enough to direct the casual player to where he wants to play. But when there is some calculated value that forces a player to play in one server rather than another, that prevents the player from experiencing all that the game has to offer.
I guess the other point here is a reversal of yours: there is a significant population of players who <b>will</b> want to be a part of a community (and they don't even have to be hard-core gamers), and if those players get too good they will be segregated from the group that they like to play with even if the community members do not mind. Sometimes, people like to have heroes to look up to or adversaries to plot against. Other times, they might just be a tightly knit group. NS isn't a deathmatch fragfest, unless you talk about combat. There is a lot of socialization that goes on.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(re: not arguing about how to best design a match-making system in a game whose mechanics we know little about) The moment you said 'faulty' your argument lost weight. Your argument was that, since we don't know enough about NS2 we can't make accurate suggestions or judgments about suggestions - and fair enough, though arguable. However, your use of the word faulty demonstrated a <b>pre-disposed</b> bias against this idea. It undermined your argument in that it was you judging this idea, <b>without</b> knowing how the game works and how this idea might apply to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course I'm biased - I'm taking a position: I do not want to try and balance skill levels to segregate players via twitch-skill because I don't think such a system would work even for NS1! Here is a topic that is trying to balance skill on NS2 servers based on knowledge about NS1 and based on ideas that probably wouldn't even work in NS1 to begin with (let alone NS2).
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why though, do you advocate 'beginner servers' if you don't advocate ranked servers? I understand it's merely a naming convention, but in effect, isn't it the same?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ranked servers automatically prevent lower-ranked players from joining higher-ranked servers, and vice versa for higher-ranked players. Why forcefully stratify servers when you can just have a soft system that indicates what level of play a player can expect in a particular server? Icons for beginner, intermediate, and advanced servers should be enough together with reserved slots.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One person (who found the entry-level into many online games restrictive) actually suggested that games themselves make it easier for new players (buffing their defense, tracking, etc.) :/ While I think that's a bad idea, the reason for it is quite plain and an important concern to be considered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a solution is to hire people (or at the very least strongly support community initiatives) to construct informative and interactive in-game tutorials that are engaging and fun. The end result of completing such tutorials might be to obtain a special customization ability (maybe access to change a particular aspect of your player model that was featured in the tutorial, for example, but without conferring an advantage in-game). Another possibility, as I mentioned before, is to direct poorly-performing players to these tutorials via in-game messages (these could be toggled on/off in options).
As for that article, with respect to poor player social behaviour in-game, the votekick ideas there are pretty good. Put the power into players' hands but regulate it to avoid abuse.
<!--quoteo(post=1675297:date=Apr 8 2008, 03:34 AM:name=fuzzwobble)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fuzzwobble @ Apr 8 2008, 03:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think about it... would YOU go into a 'Green Flag' server when all your NS buddies are playing on a 'Yellow/Red Flag' one, just to feel like a big fish in a little pond? Just how long do you think an <i>*cough*</i> Elitist <i>*cough*</i> would last in Johnny B. Newbie's server before getting kicked/banned anyway?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Misfortunately, NS is not alone in that like many FPS games, we attract our fair share of people who get their jollies by going into "easy" servers and ruining the fun by accident or intent.
Conversely, there are people who gatecrash a high tier server and end up doing the same thing.
Games like Halo regulate this by allowing players the ability to kick. It is, unfortunately, an essential part of the online gaming package.
Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675303:date=Apr 8 2008, 12:38 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Notice also that neither of those threads (currently) deal with the OP's concerns/suggestions. ;P It's natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually we're discussing the root cause of the problem rather than talking expressly about nerfing fades or other things that would probably be detrimental to the game. <!--quoteo(post=1675379:date=Apr 8 2008, 06:21 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 8 2008, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Misfortunately, NS is not alone in that like many FPS games, we attract our fair share of people who get their jollies by going into "easy" servers and ruining the fun by accident or intent.
Conversely, there are people who gatecrash a high tier server and end up doing the same thing.
Games like Halo regulate this by allowing players the ability to kick. It is, unfortunately, an essential part of the online gaming package. Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That really is the crux of it, and this is why matchmaking <i>is</i> for the casual gamer. I think <b>Sariel</b>'s post is spot on except for that one thing. Although I suspect the reason for that is the confusion of "matchmaking" with "tiered server". IMO it is a good goal for UWE to have once the first release of NS2 is out the door because it has so much potential for bringing the overall quality of games for casual players up, thus enticing them to stay.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because match-making is a goal for UWE, it doesn't make them right for pursuing it. Appeals to authority are a form of logical fallacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to have missed it. This is about cost-effectiveness, not kissing arse. Some players with a limited knowledge of the development process are either against it or for it. The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because segregation by twitch-skill puts an emphasis on non-twitch-skills, doesn't mean that the players in such a server will be distributed in a way that makes games fair and fun. It's also likely that twitch-skill won't even be a major barrier for players in NS2,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I had thought we were in agreement that we should not 'dumb down the game'? In which case, just as in NS, there will likely still be an importance placed on twitch skill - it wouldn't be NS (fast frenetic wide-range gameplay) without it.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also dispute equal twitch-skill levels encouraging cooperation and coordination. That is much more contingent on the social abilities of the players and how long they have been working together. Hence, people who know how to cooperate and coordinate will group together for team selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to be of the opinion that there is only ONE cause for every effect. Yes, as you say, that is contingent on the social abilities of players; but you said it yourself - the non-twitch skills (including 'teamwork') will be more significant in NS2; and this (ranked servers) is one such way to achieve that; one aspect of the whole.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're missing the point here. The presence or absence of a matchmaking system won't affect the casual gamer who wants to jump in and play a game. Just having icons next to servers that show them as beginner, intermediate, or advanced (without the implementation of barriers to stop players for joining) is enough to direct the casual player to where he wants to play. But when there is some calculated value that forces a player to play in one server rather than another, that prevents the player from experiencing all that the game has to offer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is only if they expect to stay in there forever. If you tell a player, make it clear that there are rated servers with restrictions; IF they've been playing on ONE ranked server EXCLUSIVELY (really...), when they graduate from a certain server level, they'll know that they have to move on, they'll even have an idea when; they already expected that. There's no sense of loss or regret.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess the other point here is a reversal of yours: there is a significant population of players who <b>will</b> want to be a part of a community (and they don't even have to be hard-core gamers), and if those players get too good they will be segregated from the group that they like to play with even if the community members do not mind. Sometimes, people like to have heroes to look up to or adversaries to plot against. Other times, they might just be a tightly knit group. NS isn't a deathmatch fragfest, unless you talk about combat. There is a lot of socialization that goes on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a solution for the players/servers that wish to build up strong in-game communities comprised of players of all skill levels - they have the option to just not play/use the ranked server feature.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course I'm biased - I'm taking a position: I do not want to try and balance skill levels to segregate players via twitch-skill because I don't think such a system would work even for NS1! Here is a topic that is trying to balance skill on NS2 servers based on knowledge about NS1 and based on ideas that probably wouldn't even work in NS1 to begin with (let alone NS2).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but that doesn't change that that particular argument failed. You have an opinion about a game surrounded with plenty of speculation, as do I. To argue that we shouldn't argue about it because we know too little about it, is hypocritical.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranked servers automatically prevent lower-ranked players from joining higher-ranked servers, and vice versa for higher-ranked players. Why forcefully stratify servers when you can just have a soft system that indicates what level of play a player can expect in a particular server? Icons for beginner, intermediate, and advanced servers should be enough together with reserved slots.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But your logic fails because you will have two situations: A) it works, and in effect it's the same as an imposed restriction (ideal but unlikely). or B) since there's no way to control the level of skill in the server (don't bring up admins, not every game is well-administrated or can be expected to be) it becomes a server with players of all skill levels - which defeats the purpose of the naming convention.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think a solution is to hire people (or at the very least strongly support community initiatives) to construct informative and interactive in-game tutorials that are engaging and fun. The end result of completing such tutorials might be to obtain a special customization ability (maybe access to change a particular aspect of your player model that was featured in the tutorial, for example, but without conferring an advantage in-game). Another possibility, as I mentioned before, is to direct poorly-performing players to these tutorials via in-game messages (these could be toggled on/off in options).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I like those ideas (I'm sure there are even people on these forums that can be expected to create those tutorials), but again, they don't have to be exclusive of ranked servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1675379:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:21 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 9 2008, 07:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you. In fact, I completely agree with you. I made a similar if less-well-thought-out point just above. It's just the way you said it <i>"Perhaps a tad too mainstream for NS, heh."</i>, felt like you were resigning NS2 to obscurity <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1675390:date=Apr 9 2008, 10:14 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 9 2008, 10:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO it is a good goal for UWE to have once the first release of NS2 is out the door because <b>it has so much potential for bringing the overall quality of games for casual players up, thus enticing them to stay.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to have missed it. This is about cost-effectiveness, not kissing arse. Some players with a limited knowledge of the development process are either against it or for it. The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's another appeal to authority. And that's not the same as kissing arse, just so you know. "The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it" - therefore my idea is good.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had thought we were in agreement that we should not 'dumb down the game'? In which case, just as in NS, there will likely still be an importance placed on twitch skill - it wouldn't be NS (fast frenetic wide-range gameplay) without it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not even arguing about dumbing down the game.. why raise that point at all? Just because I don't support dumbing down the game, doesn't mean that it will not happen and it doesn't mean that it won't be made accessible enough to players to make twitch-skill much less significant. I raised it as a possibility based on what I take Charlie and Max are trying to do with the game. There's a very real possibility that NS as you know it will not exist in NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be of the opinion that there is only ONE cause for every effect. Yes, as you say, that is contingent on the social abilities of players; but you said it yourself - the non-twitch skills (including 'teamwork') will be more significant in NS2; and this (ranked servers) is one such way to achieve that; one aspect of the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok... my argument was really that if non-twitch skills are much more influential than twitch-skills, then it makes no sense to create a ranking system based on an inferior indicator (twitch-skill). And I'm now of the opinion of single causes for every effect? That's a long logical leap.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is only if they expect to stay in there forever. If you tell a player, make it clear that there are rated servers with restrictions; IF they've been playing on ONE ranked server EXCLUSIVELY (really...), when they graduate from a certain server level, they'll know that they have to move on, they'll even have an idea when; they already expected that. There's no sense of loss or regret.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The argument isn't about whether or not a player can cope with loss (in this case, loss of access to a community he "graduates" from). It is about the morality of inducing such a loss. These are two completely different concepts that you've mixed up here.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a solution for the players/servers that wish to build up strong in-game communities comprised of players of all skill levels - they have the option to just not play/use the ranked server feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly - and that is what I think most successful servers will do - they won't use the ranking feature. That's pretty much it.. if this happens, the devs' work will have been a waste of time.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but that doesn't change that that particular argument failed. You have an opinion about a game surrounded with plenty of speculation, as do I. To argue that we shouldn't argue about it because we know too little about it, is hypocritical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing hypocritical about suggesting both an alternative view to an argument and at the same time also suggesting that there are flaws in even discussing the argument itself in the first place. In fact, the former can help convince everyone of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But your logic fails because you will have two situations: A) it works, and in effect it's the same as an imposed restriction (ideal but unlikely). or B) since there's no way to control the level of skill in the server (don't bring up admins, not every game is well-administrated or can be expected to be) it becomes a server with players of all skill levels - which defeats the purpose of the naming convention.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming that people will randomly flock to any open server regardless of what its label is. To some extent this is true and it should be, since players want to have an idea of what a particular level of play feels like. There's no need for an imposed restriction if you can implement server icons, reserved slots, a voting system, and maybe some sort of indicator of player experience and average k:d ratio. However, the latter doesn't imply that the indicator should be used to prevent the players from joining servers. That's as far as I have conceded in other topics in the Ideas and Suggestions section.
This exchange has escalated to an extent where I don't really want to participate in it anymore to argue over semantics and technicalities. Apparently, there just isn't enough evidence to sway either side and the conversation just becomes pointless this way very quickly.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 06:22 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 06:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's another appeal to authority. And that's not the same as kissing arse, just so you know. "The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it" - therefore my idea is good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would like to point out that while appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, what <b>Harimau</b> is doing is more like citing an expert than a logical fallacy. It is a fact that the devs will know what's worth their time more than forumgoers because they have a better idea of how long it will take.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This exchange has escalated to an extent where I don't really want to participate in it anymore to argue over semantics and technicalities. Apparently, there just isn't enough evidence to sway either side and the conversation just becomes pointless this way very quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then before you leave: <!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly - and that is what I think most *community-based* servers will do - they won't use the ranking feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed. I think the problem is that we're looking at it from two very different viewpoints. I'm looking at it from a mainstream point of view, where a majority of servers and players will be hosting/playing public or casual 'set up and forget' servers (hosted by big server names, or ISPs). You're looking at it from the perspective of the smaller community servers and the more, dare I say it, 'elitist' players and communities. So for you, it would be a waste of time. For me, it would be time well spent. The point locally raised earlier was great: if you make the casual experience better for players then they're more likely to stay - you don't seem to place as much importance on this aspect.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's nothing hypocritical about suggesting both an alternative view to an argument and at the same time also suggesting that there are flaws in even discussing the argument itself in the first place. In fact, the former can help convince everyone of the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." You oppose making judgments or arguing about a game surrounded with speculation; and yet do those very things.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're assuming that people will randomly flock to any open server regardless of what its label is. To some extent this is true and it should be, since players want to have an idea of what a particular level of play feels like. There's no need for an imposed restriction if you can implement server icons, reserved slots, a voting system, and maybe some sort of indicator of player experience and average k:d ratio. However, the latter doesn't imply that the indicator should be used to prevent the players from joining servers. That's as far as I have conceded in other topics in the Ideas and Suggestions section.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I'm saying that because there aren't restrictions, either one of those situations will occur. ie. (it works and) it's really the same as an imposed restriction (nice, but unlikely) OR servers will be full of players of different skill levels, with no system in place to prevent this (it doesn't work)
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675432:date=Apr 9 2008, 11:47 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 9 2008, 11:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would like to point out that while appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, what <b>Harimau</b> is doing is more like citing an expert than a logical fallacy. It is a fact that the devs will know what's worth their time more than forumgoers because they have a better idea of how long it will take.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how you're citing an expert. UWE is no expert - they have recently acquired an office and now their first major investment. The devs have limited experience with ranking systems, because they have <b>NEVER USED ONE BEFORE</b>. Hence they are not experts. Argue as you like, but the point will always stand until/if they make a success of NS2 <b>WITH SUCH A RANKING SYSTEM</b>. Only afterwards will they be "experts" (and even that is questionable) with respect to this topic. Right now, saying that their support for the idea proves the idea's worth is <b>worthless</b> as a logical argument and is a fallacy.
I'm going to be as concise as possible here.
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fixed. I think the problem is that we're looking at it from two very different viewpoints. I'm looking at it from a mainstream point of view, where a majority of servers and players will be hosting/playing public or casual 'set up and forget' servers (hosted by big server names, or ISPs). You're looking at it from the perspective of the smaller community servers and the more, dare I say it, 'elitist' players and communities. So for you, it would be a waste of time. For me, it would be time well spent. The point locally raised earlier was great: if you make the casual experience better for players then they're more likely to stay - you don't seem to place as much importance on this aspect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are assuming that the ranking system is beneficial to un-admin'ed servers and casual players. This assumption is arguable. I don't think it will be better at all. In fact, it will just allow less choice.
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." You oppose making judgments or arguing about a game surrounded with speculation; and yet do those very things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.</i>
If you're going to call me a hypocrite, then at least use the right definition. You're arguing about making changes to a game that you know very little about. I was arguing against your proposed changes to counter them and stating that the arguments used do not have much backing. It's called hypothesizing while acknowledging weaknesses in the hypothesis itself. If that's hypocrisy, at least it is better than idiocy - where the premise is to assume that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.
While you're at it, why not call me a hypocrite for answering poorly written "last words" when I said I am not interested in arguing here anymore? If using the straw man argument makes your stance so much stronger, then why not use it, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, I'm saying that because there aren't restrictions, either one of those situations will occur. ie. (it works and) it's really the same as an imposed restriction (nice, but unlikely) OR servers will be full of players of different skill levels, with no system in place to prevent this (it doesn't work)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An imposed restriction is something that server operators or developers impose on their players - it is different from a democratic system where players choose who they want to play with. Secondly, there is NOTHING wrong with having players of different skill levels in a server. If the players are okay with this, then there is no problem! If they're not okay with it, then they can vote off the person(s) that they don't like.
I may have said that i don't approve of the dramatically altering affects of the ranking system, but i never once said i didn't have faith in Cleveland and the gang.
Remember, they created NS, and they weren't very experienced at the time... but they have made a unique, in-depth game that even today has a cult following. The only other FPS mod that can claim that lifetime realistically today is Counter-Strike, and to be honest, every CS fan I've introduced to this game finds CS almost unplayable by comparison, and starts his wall-climbing, shotgun-toting misadventures happily.
I have no doubt that UWE could make the system work (if the UWE team made NS2 with such a system that is)... but at the same time, it's just in my flat opinion that it's like getting a world renowned Symphony Orchestra to perform 'Chopsticks' for a concert hall. Sure, the people playing the music are fantastic, and the stadium it's being played at is spectacular, but it's still just a god damned rendition of chopsticks...
...and trust me, it would be the kind of thing that sounds hilarious until you have to deal with it.
Yay! Something different! What a novelty which may prove fantastic... then you've got to put up with 'Chopsticks' and you're sitting there dumbfounded for a while, hoping it's all a bad dream... ...then you leave the performance and tear up your ticket.
A lot of nice points, but I'd just like to add a real simple thing:
While balancing or not balancing have their own merits, one extremely easy way to get people to play NS is to be nice to them. So please, if you read this, try to be friendly to everyone, not just noobs or your pals or someone you like :-)
<!--quoteo(post=1675593:date=Apr 11 2008, 12:15 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 11 2008, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how you're citing an expert. UWE is no expert - they have recently acquired an office and now their first major investment. The devs have limited experience with ranking systems, because they have <b>NEVER USED ONE BEFORE</b>. Hence they are not experts. Argue as you like, but the point will always stand until/if they make a success of NS2 <b>WITH SUCH A RANKING SYSTEM</b>. Only afterwards will they be "experts" (and even that is questionable) with respect to this topic. Right now, saying that their support for the idea proves the idea's worth is <b>worthless</b> as a logical argument and is a fallacy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're forgetting <b>again</b>, that this is about whether <b>trying to</b> implement the system is worth it from a costs-to-benefits point of view - whether it's worth taking that risk.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are assuming that the ranking system is beneficial to un-admin'ed servers and casual players. This assumption is arguable. I don't think it will be better at all. In fact, it will just allow less choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Many points have already been made in regards to how *rated servers* would be beneficial to un-administrated servers and casual players. On the other hand, you've given nothing to support your assumption that it would not be beneficial or worse. And another thing: less choice isn't always necessarily bad. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy</a> <i>- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.</i> If you're going to call me a hypocrite, then at least use the right definition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." Mine <b>was</b> the right definition. Yours was the wrong definition because yours was a very specific definition in regards to religion or character. Learn the language before you argue on it with me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're arguing about making changes to a game that you know very little about. I was arguing against your proposed changes to counter them and stating that the arguments used do not have much backing. It's called hypothesizing while acknowledging weaknesses in the hypothesis itself. If that's hypocrisy, at least it is better than idiocy - where the premise is to assume that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are arguing in one of two ways - that I'm: A) Making <b>changes</b> to a game that <b>doesn't exist</b>? I'm sure you see how that doesn't make sense. or B) Making changes to Natural Selection, in which case your assumption that I know very little about it is incorrect. One last thing, you're assuming that I'm making the assumption 'that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.' No. This is my opinion. And my opinion is also that from independent game developers like UWE, we've come to expect some degree of <b>innovation</b> - innovation means exploring the unknown, meaning, there <b>is no evidence</b> to support an innovative idea. We can, as you say, only make hypotheses.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While you're at it, why not call me a hypocrite for answering poorly written "last words" when I said I am not interested in arguing here anymore? If using the straw man argument makes your stance so much stronger, then why not use it, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're getting personally offended for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't my intention to insult, just to call attention to the fact that certain arguments of yours are flawed and contradictory - inviting you to discard them or amend them, neither of which you've done.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An imposed restriction is something that server operators or developers impose on their players - it is different from a democratic system where players choose who they want to play with. Secondly, there is NOTHING wrong with having players of different skill levels in a server. If the players are okay with this, then there is no problem! If they're not okay with it, then they can vote off the person(s) that they don't like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Democracy in a video game... Democracy in a server for a game where tensions are high and aggression is the common, expected and encouraged behaviour... Democracy really doesn't work in video games. You're not choosing who you're playing with, you're choosing which server you're playing on; never forget that. Or did you mean the votekick system? Other than the obvious flaws, ie. abuse, how annoying it is, and how lazy players are or more likely how little they care..; Votekicking is really meant for griefers, abusers, cheaters etc. - not to kick too-good players. Rather than <b>preventing</b> situations where players' experiences are ruined by a pro player come to pwn some noobs (which you acknowledge does happen), instead you'd choose to put the game on hold and <b>punish</b> someone for playing too well on a server.
And really, arguing democracy in game servers from someone advocating Reserve Slots?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're forgetting <b>again</b>, that this is about whether <b>trying to</b> implement the system is worth it from a costs-to-benefits point of view - whether it's worth taking that risk. Many points have already been made in regards to how *rated servers* would be beneficial to un-administrated servers and casual players. On the other hand, you've given nothing to support your assumption that it would not be beneficial or worse. And another thing: less choice isn't always necessarily bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're diverting the argument - you were clearly appealing to authority to justify an idea. You're also cherry picking, in that you're pretending that the benefits suggested for ranked servers are real and closing your eyes to the arguments that have been raised against your idea. If you actually take a moment to read over the commentary that has taken place over several topics now, there are many issues that have been raised against ranked servers - <b>including but not by any means limited to the decrease in player choice, which you already mentioned as <i>not always being necessarily bad</i> when it is in many cases</b>.
If you're suddenly going to go back to cost-to-benefit POVs, then I think that really kills your argument because the benefits are unsound and the costs are already real.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." Mine <b>was</b> the right definition. Yours was the wrong definition because yours was a very specific definition in regards to religion or character. Learn the language before you argue on it with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's funny that you claim to know the language <i>better</i> and that this somehow makes your definition the <i>right one</i>. With your definition you can find hypocrisy everywhere, including in your own posts. That inflates the meaning of hypocrisy as an accusation.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are arguing in one of two ways - that I'm: A) Making <b>changes</b> to a game that <b>doesn't exist</b>? I'm sure you see how that doesn't make sense. or B) Making changes to Natural Selection, in which case your assumption that I know very little about it is incorrect. One last thing, you're assuming that I'm making the assumption 'that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.' No. This is my opinion. And my opinion is also that from independent game developers like UWE, we've come to expect some degree of <b>innovation</b> - innovation means exploring the unknown, meaning, there <b>is no evidence</b> to support an innovative idea. We can, as you say, only make hypotheses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re:A) Way to go on a completely pointless tangent that doesn't address the context of the quote.
Re:B) You know nothing about how NS2 will work in terms of skill and gameplay that is relevant to the arguments that you have been making. There's also a difference between having an opinion and arguing that the opinion is correct. In this case, you seem to be arguing that restricting player access to servers via rank will make for fun and fair games - which isn't true. If there is no evidence to support your view on an "innovative idea", then don't pretend that your idea is flawless and ignore arguments against it.
There's a difference in just "having an opinion" and arguing about the validity of it and other opinions. If you're going to assume that your opinion is "correct" and others are "incorrect", you'll need some good arguments to back that up - I am not convinced by your arguments. Unfortunately, in this case you are proposing the introduction of a system that hasn't been used before - which puts the onus on you to make a convincing argument about why the system would be beneficial (and especially why it is better than others in accomplishing some or other goals, if you're going that far).
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're getting personally offended for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't my intention to insult, just to call attention to the fact that certain arguments of yours are flawed and contradictory - inviting you to discard them or amend them, neither of which you've done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you have a pathological tendency to make flawed logical arguments. I have yet to see how my arguments are "flawed and contradictory".
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Democracy in a video game... Democracy in a server for a game where tensions are high and aggression is the common, expected and encouraged behaviour... Democracy really doesn't work in video games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is based on what data?
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're not choosing who you're playing with, you're choosing which server you're playing on; never forget that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's good as a personal note, considering your ranking system idea is meant to restrict server choice. .
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or did you mean the votekick system? Other than the obvious flaws, ie. abuse, how annoying it is, and how lazy players are or more likely how little they care..; Votekicking is really meant for griefers, abusers, cheaters etc. - not to kick too-good players. Rather than <b>preventing</b> situations where players' experiences are ruined by a pro player come to pwn some noobs (which you acknowledge does happen), instead you'd choose to put the game on hold and <b>punish</b> someone for playing too well on a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here once again you are assuming what the votekicking system is for, who uses it, and what its limitations are - which is disagreeable. Voting doesn't have to put the game on hold, nor does it have to be used to punish good players (voting systems can be tweaked to avoid abuse), nor is there only one way (<i>your way</i>) to prevent really good players from preying on inexperienced casuals.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And really, arguing democracy in game servers from someone advocating Reserve Slots?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ha? Straw man? So you can't have reserved slots and democracy at the same time anymore? As though somehow the two completely annihilate one another when combined.. I'd think by now you'd have realized that a single idea doesn't solve everything.
Irony about reserve slots and democracy. Most servers that handed out reserve slots based on their definitions of merit actually had a voting process in place to determine who got reserve slots and who didn't.
First, RSlots always have been and always will be based on meritocracy. Either because they like your style, or you're always online, or you're just downright fun to play with. I've seen people with atrocious skill be given RSlots because they tried their best and didnt muck it up for other people.
Second, even if the community comes up with the greatest RSlot/Ranking system EVAR, if UWE don't like it, it won't go in. If they like it, or want it to work, we'll see the rumblings. But if its rejected by the team then its effectively dead, no matter how much we love it.
(3rd party software to the rescue! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )
<!--quoteo(post=1675849:date=Apr 14 2008, 10:15 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 14 2008, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675849"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just two small points.
First, RSlots always have been and always will be based on meritocracy. Either because they like your style, or you're always online, or you're just downright fun to play with. I've seen people with atrocious skill be given RSlots because they tried their best and didnt muck it up for other people. Second, even if the community comes up with the greatest RSlot/Ranking system EVAR, if UWE don't like it, it won't go in. If they like it, or want it to work, we'll see the rumblings. But if its rejected by the team then its effectively dead, no matter how much we love it.
(3rd party software to the rescue! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I disagree with your first point. There are people who are handed out reserve slots because they donate money to the server as well.
Your right about UWE not liking a feature. I'm hoping that they are considering building in reserve slots to the function of the game, like for example allowing admins to add reserve slots on the fly, as opposed to Rconing the box and adding players that way.
A response either way would be really nice to hear from the devs.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1675893:date=Apr 15 2008, 01:12 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 15 2008, 01:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A response either way would be really nice to hear from the devs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For what it's worth, this is the reply from the devs in the first page of the topic that started it all: <!--quoteo(post=1673741:date=Mar 20 2008, 02:01 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Mar 20 2008, 02:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah this is a common problem for people. I'd really like to address this by adding in matchmaking and possibly skill-assessment/tracking so we can put people in games with other people of the same skill level. This isn't an easy or quick thing to do but I bet we'll do this eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do wonder if RSS would be considered for incorporation sooner than a matchmaking system though.
Firewater, you're quite correct in that I completely overlooked paying for slots. Naturally, my excuse is that I've never paid for a slot and thus it hadn't occurred to me, haha.
I wonder what the dev viewpoint is on paying to enter a server. Its not ideal, but its a quick way to trim out a lot of casual players, thats for sure.
I do concur that it would be interesting to see a dev response to these threads in general, just something to let us know if we're debating a futile point, or if we're making progress.
RSS...... sort of provides a matchmaking service, in that you play with your regulars and thus the entire group achieves a sort of skill equilibrium. Yes, its a bit of a fudge, but the end result is generally the same.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
The success of RSS depends mostly on the admins - the system itself can work just fine for promoting a particular skill level and even attitudes given that the admins have integrity. When you introduce paying for slots and favouritism in admins, then it becomes a big mess.
At the very least I think UWE should make reserved slots more accessible, like Firewater said. Server administration overall should be much easier than it is in NS1 and HL mods.
<!--quoteo(post=1676136:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:09 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 18 2008, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The success of RSS depends mostly on the admins - the system itself can work just fine for promoting a particular skill level and even attitudes given that the admins have integrity. When you introduce paying for slots and favouritism in admins, then it becomes a big mess.
At the very least I think UWE should make reserved slots more accessible, like Firewater said. Server administration overall should be much easier than it is in NS1 and HL mods.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paying for slots I agree takes less merit, but the flip side to that is someone who is paying for a slot would be more likely to follow the rules over an individual who not investing some money into the server (be it a small amount, but still).
If other donators are complaining about another one that isn't behaving correctly, they would probably tell the admins that their donations would cease if they do not take action.
Most people who donate for reserve slots aren't looking to break anyone's chops, but sometimes they are. It would be up the admins to determine whether or not to revoke a slot. Most servers that take donations have pretty decent rules, and rarely make exceptions, but that could all change in NS2.
Reserve slots really is one easy way to give the power to the admins to promote the kind of play they want in their respective server communities. In doing so would promote a sort of homeostasis within the community and in the server.
Comments
However, I disagree about server admins. Most server admins have the time to dedicated in the game. Thus they would be best suited to run the server as well as take care of any little nuances in game. Other than that, great post.
Still, I'm happy to have contributed positively!
I think those divisions were always there and will continue to be there. Are you playing for fun, or to win? There are two very distinct play styles.
I think mp_blockscripts is disliked because it seemed more like "security theater" than anything. Scripts don't make good players good, and blocking them wasn't really any use to new players trying to learn. The change was completely transparent to the group it was for and aggravatingly visible to those who it wasn't.
I think mp_blockscripts is disliked because it seemed more like "security theater" than anything. Scripts don't make good players good, and blocking them wasn't really any use to new players trying to learn. The change was completely transparent to the group it was for and aggravatingly visible to those who it wasn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly,
BUT. During its conception the mindset was "It is optional therefore it should please everyone" which seemed logical on paper but wind up causing lots of grief on this forum.
I am just trying to take what lessons that were already learned, and generalize it to other potential systems that I feel will have a similar/worse effect.
BUT. During its conception the mindset was "It is optional therefore it should please everyone" which seemed logical on paper but wind up causing lots of grief on this forum.
I am just trying to take what lessons that were already learned, and generalize it to other potential systems that I feel will have a similar/worse effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matchmaking and autobalancing systems are the opposite though. They're invisible to higher level players(who know who they want to play with) and they're very visible to new players, who the system is actually useful to.
Regardless, you've posted another topic with a similar system and I'll post any further discussion there.{<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104062" target="_blank">link</a>}
Assuming a global ranking system was deemed by the devs to be worth perusing, what if, instead of interactions between players, the rankings were based on a standardized test of sorts?
Imagine a set of training missions or tests that aim to teach necessary skills and measure the player's ability to perform them. For example, a course on fade movement could begin by explaining the fade's controls and HUD indicators as well as describing how to effectively use blink and conserve adrenalin. Perhaps a good example of basic fade movement around a map could be viewed. Then the player would be promoted to travel through a few rooms and hallways. Perhaps there could be difficulty levels such as:
Easy - basic rooms and hallways
Medium - rooms and hallways with unnecessary and annoying architecture
Hard - rooms and hallways with unnecessary and annoying architecture with many turrets
Statistics such as times, number of collisions, and damage taken could be logged, or there could simply be a set of requirements to pass each level. The player's rank bracket could be determined by averaging the results of all the most recent tests.
Obviously, the time and effort necessary to create something such as this would not be trivial. Another concern would be if, by playing through or passing the training courses, the players really develop or display skills useful in actual play. There could also be glitches or tricks to shortcut or otherwise defeat the purpose of the training courses and unfairly influence ranks.
My initial thought is that such a system would be more interesting than your average training mission. Throwing in a rank could encourage participation and hopefully also help beginners to get a head start on the mechanics of the game. It may also be useful for non-beginners to better develop some of their skills. It could also just end up being a nuisance.
As for the uses for ranks, I personally envision a small, finite number of rank brackets that would be denoted by players' scoreboard icons and/or by player model decals (not so sure about the decals). I'm fairly sure there was an active thread about that exact idea several months ago. As was previously stated in this thread, or maybe in one of the others, the scoreboard icons would allow people to have a rough idea of the balance of the teams (assuming, of course, that the ranks are indeed an indication of player ability). I would also like to think that high ranks would help show the validity of good players and reduce the number of hackusations they encounter. Of course there would also be the inevitable e-peening and possible discriminations based on rank.
Giving server administrators the ability to exclude players based on rank is something that I am not comfortable with. Based on my experience with the NS community I think that ability would most commonly be used to protect newbie/training servers, or for the exclusion of the highest and/or lowest rank brackets. However, I think that most servers would not use it at all. I really just don't see much of a benefit in it.
I do think it would be interesting if a server could be given a rank based on the ranks of its community of players. Having said that, I'm not really convinced that creating a global ranking system would be a worthwhile exercise for any use.
There's no need to implement an <b>annoying</b>, <b>highly complex</b> (i mean, <i>5 patches</i> to get in working order complex) system just to matchmake for 1% of the players... <b>purely</b> because <b>a minority people have the inability to learn the game, read the easily available manual or are too stubborn to change servers when they are completely outclassed</b>.
You could probably read the manual through while the game installs and Steam updates, let alone during download time.
Natural-Selection has <b>NO RECOIL</b>. The game has <b>SUPPORT CLASSES FOR THE STARTING PLAYERS</b> for aliens, and a <b>SUPPORTIVE TEAM ENVIRONMENT</b> for marines.
If you do decide that we need to matchmake, do it in a way that won't frustrate the hell out of the <i>MAJOR MAJORITY</i> of the NS community. Think about it...
The NS community is far more responsible than many FPS communities, and we rarely get griefed, at least that's the case on Australian servers.
We may end up with a rather decent portion of FPS trolls in the NS2 system, of course, but generally Natural-Selection players are more close-knit.
Think about it... when's the last time you remember somebody messing with your NS game intentionally WITHOUT the general opinion of the players being "Hey, this is different, and fun!"
Just put a flag next to the servers in a box.
<u>Green Flag</u> - Newbie Server
<u>Yellow Flag</u> - Intermediate Server
<u>Red Flag</u> - Professional Server
Let the player decide for himself if he is ready to move ahead into a higher difficulty server. You will find that generally the private servers that curious players start up will be Green, the official servers ISPs create will be Yellow, and the Clan and Tournament servers will flag Red.
Think about it... would YOU go into a 'Green Flag' server when all your NS buddies are playing on a 'Yellow/Red Flag' one, just to feel like a big fish in a little pond? Just how long do you think an <i>*cough*</i> Elitist <i>*cough*</i> would last in Johnny B. Newbie's server before getting kicked/banned anyway?
Don't punish us all for other players wanting you to fire nerfbats out of your HMG.
That's just my thoughts on this.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103976" target="_blank">Less Elitist Gameplay</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice also that neither of those threads (currently) deal with the OP's concerns/suggestions. ;P It's natural selection.
It assumes that the players will actually want to put in the effort to get a higher ranking in obstacle courses.
<!--quoteo(post=1675297:date=Apr 7 2008, 10:34 PM:name=fuzzwobble)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fuzzwobble @ Apr 7 2008, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree mostly. There's no need to force people to do anything. It was previously mentioned that the players of the server could use a votekick/ban system to deal with griefers or disruptive newbies. The voting system would need some tweaking to make it less annoying and more intuitive, but it is much easier than setting up a complex system whose benefits are uncertain.
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, my opinion is that the usefulness of such a stat system will not be worth the effort and resources used to design, implement, and maintain it. This is without even considering the statistical validity of such a system. The idea is to assess cost:benefit before jumping in and trying to make changes to the way servers work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's really quite a strange thing to say. It's already one of their <b>goals</b> for NS2. They seem to think it's cost-effective.
<!--QuoteBegin-'Unknown Worlds NS2 About page'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE('Unknown Worlds NS2 About page')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Instant Gratification</b>
Rated maps and powerful matchmaking allow you to play with people of any skill level. Play on servers from Easy to Expert or compete in tournaments. Play on the Internet, on a LAN or offline with any number of players. Clever bots will do the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you do segregate servers, you'll simply have the non-twitch skills being more significant - which they most likely already will be in NS2 - in deciding who kills who.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Possibly. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything, it encourages cooperation and coordination, and isn't that a good thing?
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(split the community in the process)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That is the most pointless and overused argument ever, and it's hardly applicable to this suggestion.
For one thing, not everyone <b>wants</b> to be part of "a community", and not everyone's a hardcore gamer. A lot of people just want to jump on a random server with a low enough ping and some players and just play the game - and if you haven't noticed, UWE <b>are</b> trying to cater to that (the casual) market.
For another thing, that suggests that it actually will split up the community - that somehow, all new players will stay new. Where's the logic behind that?
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alternatively, if you get some autobalance function that sorts players into teams of even "twitch skill"...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I personally don't like the autobalance feature, though. So I won't bother arguing with you on that point.
<!--quoteo(post=1675088:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, there's too much that is changing with NS2 that makes it really questionable to even discuss this kind of stat system without info about what will make NS2's rounds biased towards alien or marine victories. I think it's prudent to see how the game works first instead of thinking up a <b>faulty</b> way to balance NS1 - which is an old game that is pretty much dead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The moment you said 'faulty' your argument lost weight. Your argument was that, since we don't know enough about NS2 we can't make accurate suggestions or judgments about suggestions - and fair enough, though arguable. However, your use of the word faulty demonstrated a <b>pre-disposed</b> bias against this idea. It undermined your argument in that it was you judging this idea, <b>without</b> knowing how the game works and how this idea might apply to the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1675090:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok. <b>The silent majority who quit were newbs who could not adjust to the learning curve</b> - it made the game inaccessible to many players. There was also mouse acceleration and sensitivity issues for alien lifeforms, but that's another story.. NS1 could have been much more successful if new players were catered to better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just stating the facts, which are, though somewhat subjective, true.
<!--quoteo(post=1675090:date=Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 5 2008, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead, for example, new players could be shown on-screen messages while playing (auto help). If they are in a server that is designated medium/advanced, they could be encouraged to seek a server designated for beginners. If they are doing poorly in beginner servers, perhaps a message could direct them to a tutorial about a particular class or life-form.
Triggers could be designed for auto help as well. For example, if a player dies far away from team-mates several times, auto help could suggest that the player try to cooperate with the team. If a player keeps getting killed by the same opponent or in the same area, perhaps a message could suggest a different approach including teamwork or attacking a different section of the map where other team-members are fighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I do like this idea. But it doesn't have to be exclusive of the ranked servers idea, necessarily. (Using the expansion of the idea - that there are more options for admins, eg. 'up to a certain skill level', 'only a certain skill level', or 'at least a certain skill level'.)
Why though, do you advocate 'beginner servers' if you don't advocate ranked servers? I understand it's merely a naming convention, but in effect, isn't it the same?
<!--quoteo(post=1675190:date=Apr 7 2008, 05:13 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 7 2008, 05:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675190"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But like blockscripts there were unintended social consequences that caused a split in the community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please refer to (the last couple posts of) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103976&pid=1675302&st=80&#entry1675302" target="_blank">this</a> thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1675247:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:22 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 8 2008, 01:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a tad too mainstream for NS, heh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This kinda saddens me. Do we not want NS2 to be popular? Do we only want a selection of maybe 6 servers with 6v6 games?
I skipped three of the very large posts (fuzzwobble, don_mac, necrosis) on this page, and I'll come back to those later. Getting a bit tired I guess.
For extra reading, (as if you haven't had enough) somewhat related, somewhat not.. try <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3604/fixing_online_gaming_idiocy_a_.php" target="_blank">this</a> article. (Maybe you've already read it?) And especially the comments. One person (who found the entry-level into many online games restrictive) actually suggested that games themselves make it easier for new players (buffing their defense, tracking, etc.) :/ While I think that's a bad idea, the reason for it is quite plain and an important concern to be considered.
Just because match-making is a goal for UWE, it doesn't make them right for pursuing it. Appeals to authority are a form of logical fallacy.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Possibly. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything, it encourages cooperation and coordination, and isn't that a good thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because segregation by twitch-skill puts an emphasis on non-twitch-skills, doesn't mean that the players in such a server will be distributed in a way that makes games fair and fun. It's also likely that twitch-skill won't even be a major barrier for players in NS2, so why focus on segregating by it in the first place?
I would also dispute equal twitch-skill levels encouraging cooperation and coordination. That is much more contingent on the social abilities of the players and how long they have been working together. Hence, people who know how to cooperate and coordinate will group together for team selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(re: splitting the community)
That is the most pointless and overused argument ever, and it's hardly applicable to this suggestion.
For one thing, not everyone <b>wants</b> to be part of "a community", and not everyone's a hardcore gamer. A lot of people just want to jump on a random server with a low enough ping and some players and just play the game - and if you haven't noticed, UWE <b>are</b> trying to cater to that (the casual) market.
For another thing, that suggests that it actually will split up the community - that somehow, all new players will stay new. Where's the logic behind that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're missing the point here. The presence or absence of a matchmaking system won't affect the casual gamer who wants to jump in and play a game. Just having icons next to servers that show them as beginner, intermediate, or advanced (without the implementation of barriers to stop players for joining) is enough to direct the casual player to where he wants to play. But when there is some calculated value that forces a player to play in one server rather than another, that prevents the player from experiencing all that the game has to offer.
I guess the other point here is a reversal of yours: there is a significant population of players who <b>will</b> want to be a part of a community (and they don't even have to be hard-core gamers), and if those players get too good they will be segregated from the group that they like to play with even if the community members do not mind. Sometimes, people like to have heroes to look up to or adversaries to plot against. Other times, they might just be a tightly knit group. NS isn't a deathmatch fragfest, unless you talk about combat. There is a lot of socialization that goes on.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(re: not arguing about how to best design a match-making system in a game whose mechanics we know little about)
The moment you said 'faulty' your argument lost weight. Your argument was that, since we don't know enough about NS2 we can't make accurate suggestions or judgments about suggestions - and fair enough, though arguable. However, your use of the word faulty demonstrated a <b>pre-disposed</b> bias against this idea. It undermined your argument in that it was you judging this idea, <b>without</b> knowing how the game works and how this idea might apply to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course I'm biased - I'm taking a position: I do not want to try and balance skill levels to segregate players via twitch-skill because I don't think such a system would work even for NS1! Here is a topic that is trying to balance skill on NS2 servers based on knowledge about NS1 and based on ideas that probably wouldn't even work in NS1 to begin with (let alone NS2).
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why though, do you advocate 'beginner servers' if you don't advocate ranked servers? I understand it's merely a naming convention, but in effect, isn't it the same?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ranked servers automatically prevent lower-ranked players from joining higher-ranked servers, and vice versa for higher-ranked players. Why forcefully stratify servers when you can just have a soft system that indicates what level of play a player can expect in a particular server? Icons for beginner, intermediate, and advanced servers should be enough together with reserved slots.
<!--quoteo(post=1675309:date=Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 8 2008, 01:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One person (who found the entry-level into many online games restrictive) actually suggested that games themselves make it easier for new players (buffing their defense, tracking, etc.) :/ While I think that's a bad idea, the reason for it is quite plain and an important concern to be considered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think a solution is to hire people (or at the very least strongly support community initiatives) to construct informative and interactive in-game tutorials that are engaging and fun. The end result of completing such tutorials might be to obtain a special customization ability (maybe access to change a particular aspect of your player model that was featured in the tutorial, for example, but without conferring an advantage in-game). Another possibility, as I mentioned before, is to direct poorly-performing players to these tutorials via in-game messages (these could be toggled on/off in options).
As for that article, with respect to poor player social behaviour in-game, the votekick ideas there are pretty good. Put the power into players' hands but regulate it to avoid abuse.
Misfortunately, NS is not alone in that like many FPS games, we attract our fair share of people who get their jollies by going into "easy" servers and ruining the fun by accident or intent.
Conversely, there are people who gatecrash a high tier server and end up doing the same thing.
Games like Halo regulate this by allowing players the ability to kick. It is, unfortunately, an essential part of the online gaming package.
Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.
Actually we're discussing the root cause of the problem rather than talking expressly about nerfing fades or other things that would probably be detrimental to the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1675379:date=Apr 8 2008, 06:21 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 8 2008, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Misfortunately, NS is not alone in that like many FPS games, we attract our fair share of people who get their jollies by going into "easy" servers and ruining the fun by accident or intent.
Conversely, there are people who gatecrash a high tier server and end up doing the same thing.
Games like Halo regulate this by allowing players the ability to kick. It is, unfortunately, an essential part of the online gaming package.
Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That really is the crux of it, and this is why matchmaking <i>is</i> for the casual gamer. I think <b>Sariel</b>'s post is spot on except for that one thing. Although I suspect the reason for that is the confusion of "matchmaking" with "tiered server". IMO it is a good goal for UWE to have once the first release of NS2 is out the door because it has so much potential for bringing the overall quality of games for casual players up, thus enticing them to stay.
You seem to have missed it. This is about cost-effectiveness, not kissing arse. Some players with a limited knowledge of the development process are either against it or for it. The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because segregation by twitch-skill puts an emphasis on non-twitch-skills, doesn't mean that the players in such a server will be distributed in a way that makes games fair and fun. It's also likely that twitch-skill won't even be a major barrier for players in NS2,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had thought we were in agreement that we should not 'dumb down the game'? In which case, just as in NS, there will likely still be an importance placed on twitch skill - it wouldn't be NS (fast frenetic wide-range gameplay) without it.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also dispute equal twitch-skill levels encouraging cooperation and coordination. That is much more contingent on the social abilities of the players and how long they have been working together. Hence, people who know how to cooperate and coordinate will group together for team selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be of the opinion that there is only ONE cause for every effect. Yes, as you say, that is contingent on the social abilities of players; but you said it yourself - the non-twitch skills (including 'teamwork') will be more significant in NS2; and this (ranked servers) is one such way to achieve that; one aspect of the whole.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're missing the point here. The presence or absence of a matchmaking system won't affect the casual gamer who wants to jump in and play a game. Just having icons next to servers that show them as beginner, intermediate, or advanced (without the implementation of barriers to stop players for joining) is enough to direct the casual player to where he wants to play. But when there is some calculated value that forces a player to play in one server rather than another, that prevents the player from experiencing all that the game has to offer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is only if they expect to stay in there forever. If you tell a player, make it clear that there are rated servers with restrictions; IF they've been playing on ONE ranked server EXCLUSIVELY (really...), when they graduate from a certain server level, they'll know that they have to move on, they'll even have an idea when; they already expected that. There's no sense of loss or regret.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess the other point here is a reversal of yours: there is a significant population of players who <b>will</b> want to be a part of a community (and they don't even have to be hard-core gamers), and if those players get too good they will be segregated from the group that they like to play with even if the community members do not mind. Sometimes, people like to have heroes to look up to or adversaries to plot against. Other times, they might just be a tightly knit group. NS isn't a deathmatch fragfest, unless you talk about combat. There is a lot of socialization that goes on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a solution for the players/servers that wish to build up strong in-game communities comprised of players of all skill levels - they have the option to just not play/use the ranked server feature.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course I'm biased - I'm taking a position: I do not want to try and balance skill levels to segregate players via twitch-skill because I don't think such a system would work even for NS1! Here is a topic that is trying to balance skill on NS2 servers based on knowledge about NS1 and based on ideas that probably wouldn't even work in NS1 to begin with (let alone NS2).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but that doesn't change that that particular argument failed. You have an opinion about a game surrounded with plenty of speculation, as do I. To argue that we shouldn't argue about it because we know too little about it, is hypocritical.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranked servers automatically prevent lower-ranked players from joining higher-ranked servers, and vice versa for higher-ranked players. Why forcefully stratify servers when you can just have a soft system that indicates what level of play a player can expect in a particular server? Icons for beginner, intermediate, and advanced servers should be enough together with reserved slots.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But your logic fails because you will have two situations: A) it works, and in effect it's the same as an imposed restriction (ideal but unlikely). or B) since there's no way to control the level of skill in the server (don't bring up admins, not every game is well-administrated or can be expected to be) it becomes a server with players of all skill levels - which defeats the purpose of the naming convention.
<!--quoteo(post=1675346:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think a solution is to hire people (or at the very least strongly support community initiatives) to construct informative and interactive in-game tutorials that are engaging and fun. The end result of completing such tutorials might be to obtain a special customization ability (maybe access to change a particular aspect of your player model that was featured in the tutorial, for example, but without conferring an advantage in-game). Another possibility, as I mentioned before, is to direct poorly-performing players to these tutorials via in-game messages (these could be toggled on/off in options).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I like those ideas (I'm sure there are even people on these forums that can be expected to create those tutorials), but again, they don't have to be exclusive of ranked servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1675379:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:21 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 9 2008, 07:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimau - Everyone would like NS2 to be mainstream and an established franchise. The problem is that big hire servers cannot afford to keep admins online as part of their service. Likewise, the renter will not want to have to spend time Admin-ing when he could be playing. The more work involved in running a server, the less mainstream a game can be. You want to be as "launch and forget" as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you. In fact, I completely agree with you. I made a similar if less-well-thought-out point just above. It's just the way you said it <i>"Perhaps a tad too mainstream for NS, heh."</i>, felt like you were resigning NS2 to obscurity <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1675390:date=Apr 9 2008, 10:14 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 9 2008, 10:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IMO it is a good goal for UWE to have once the first release of NS2 is out the door because <b>it has so much potential for bringing the overall quality of games for casual players up, thus enticing them to stay.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point.
That's another appeal to authority. And that's not the same as kissing arse, just so you know. "The developers, who seem to know exactly what they're doing, seem to be for it" - therefore my idea is good.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had thought we were in agreement that we should not 'dumb down the game'? In which case, just as in NS, there will likely still be an importance placed on twitch skill - it wouldn't be NS (fast frenetic wide-range gameplay) without it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not even arguing about dumbing down the game.. why raise that point at all? Just because I don't support dumbing down the game, doesn't mean that it will not happen and it doesn't mean that it won't be made accessible enough to players to make twitch-skill much less significant. I raised it as a possibility based on what I take Charlie and Max are trying to do with the game. There's a very real possibility that NS as you know it will not exist in NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be of the opinion that there is only ONE cause for every effect. Yes, as you say, that is contingent on the social abilities of players; but you said it yourself - the non-twitch skills (including 'teamwork') will be more significant in NS2; and this (ranked servers) is one such way to achieve that; one aspect of the whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok... my argument was really that if non-twitch skills are much more influential than twitch-skills, then it makes no sense to create a ranking system based on an inferior indicator (twitch-skill). And I'm now of the opinion of single causes for every effect? That's a long logical leap.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is only if they expect to stay in there forever. If you tell a player, make it clear that there are rated servers with restrictions; IF they've been playing on ONE ranked server EXCLUSIVELY (really...), when they graduate from a certain server level, they'll know that they have to move on, they'll even have an idea when; they already expected that. There's no sense of loss or regret.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The argument isn't about whether or not a player can cope with loss (in this case, loss of access to a community he "graduates" from). It is about the morality of inducing such a loss. These are two completely different concepts that you've mixed up here.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a solution for the players/servers that wish to build up strong in-game communities comprised of players of all skill levels - they have the option to just not play/use the ranked server feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly - and that is what I think most successful servers will do - they won't use the ranking feature. That's pretty much it.. if this happens, the devs' work will have been a waste of time.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but that doesn't change that that particular argument failed. You have an opinion about a game surrounded with plenty of speculation, as do I. To argue that we shouldn't argue about it because we know too little about it, is hypocritical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing hypocritical about suggesting both an alternative view to an argument and at the same time also suggesting that there are flaws in even discussing the argument itself in the first place. In fact, the former can help convince everyone of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1675397:date=Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 9 2008, 01:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675397"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But your logic fails because you will have two situations: A) it works, and in effect it's the same as an imposed restriction (ideal but unlikely). or B) since there's no way to control the level of skill in the server (don't bring up admins, not every game is well-administrated or can be expected to be) it becomes a server with players of all skill levels - which defeats the purpose of the naming convention.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming that people will randomly flock to any open server regardless of what its label is. To some extent this is true and it should be, since players want to have an idea of what a particular level of play feels like. There's no need for an imposed restriction if you can implement server icons, reserved slots, a voting system, and maybe some sort of indicator of player experience and average k:d ratio. However, the latter doesn't imply that the indicator should be used to prevent the players from joining servers. That's as far as I have conceded in other topics in the Ideas and Suggestions section.
This exchange has escalated to an extent where I don't really want to participate in it anymore to argue over semantics and technicalities.
Apparently, there just isn't enough evidence to sway either side and the conversation just becomes pointless this way very quickly.
I would like to point out that while appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, what <b>Harimau</b> is doing is more like citing an expert than a logical fallacy. It is a fact that the devs will know what's worth their time more than forumgoers because they have a better idea of how long it will take.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This exchange has escalated to an extent where I don't really want to participate in it anymore to argue over semantics and technicalities.
Apparently, there just isn't enough evidence to sway either side and the conversation just becomes pointless this way very quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then before you leave:
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly - and that is what I think most *community-based* servers will do - they won't use the ranking feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed.
I think the problem is that we're looking at it from two very different viewpoints. I'm looking at it from a mainstream point of view, where a majority of servers and players will be hosting/playing public or casual 'set up and forget' servers (hosted by big server names, or ISPs). You're looking at it from the perspective of the smaller community servers and the more, dare I say it, 'elitist' players and communities. So for you, it would be a waste of time. For me, it would be time well spent.
The point locally raised earlier was great: if you make the casual experience better for players then they're more likely to stay - you don't seem to place as much importance on this aspect.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's nothing hypocritical about suggesting both an alternative view to an argument and at the same time also suggesting that there are flaws in even discussing the argument itself in the first place. In fact, the former can help convince everyone of the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." You oppose making judgments or arguing about a game surrounded with speculation; and yet do those very things.
<!--quoteo(post=1675413:date=Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 9 2008, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're assuming that people will randomly flock to any open server regardless of what its label is. To some extent this is true and it should be, since players want to have an idea of what a particular level of play feels like. There's no need for an imposed restriction if you can implement server icons, reserved slots, a voting system, and maybe some sort of indicator of player experience and average k:d ratio. However, the latter doesn't imply that the indicator should be used to prevent the players from joining servers. That's as far as I have conceded in other topics in the Ideas and Suggestions section.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm saying that because there aren't restrictions, either one of those situations will occur. ie. (it works and) it's really the same as an imposed restriction (nice, but unlikely) OR servers will be full of players of different skill levels, with no system in place to prevent this (it doesn't work)
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thank you locally<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how you're citing an expert. UWE is no expert - they have recently acquired an office and now their first major investment. The devs have limited experience with ranking systems, because they have <b>NEVER USED ONE BEFORE</b>. Hence they are not experts. Argue as you like, but the point will always stand until/if they make a success of NS2 <b>WITH SUCH A RANKING SYSTEM</b>. Only afterwards will they be "experts" (and even that is questionable) with respect to this topic. Right now, saying that their support for the idea proves the idea's worth is <b>worthless</b> as a logical argument and is a fallacy.
I'm going to be as concise as possible here.
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fixed.
I think the problem is that we're looking at it from two very different viewpoints. I'm looking at it from a mainstream point of view, where a majority of servers and players will be hosting/playing public or casual 'set up and forget' servers (hosted by big server names, or ISPs). You're looking at it from the perspective of the smaller community servers and the more, dare I say it, 'elitist' players and communities. So for you, it would be a waste of time. For me, it would be time well spent.
The point locally raised earlier was great: if you make the casual experience better for players then they're more likely to stay - you don't seem to place as much importance on this aspect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are assuming that the ranking system is beneficial to un-admin'ed servers and casual players. This assumption is arguable. I don't think it will be better at all. In fact, it will just allow less choice.
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa." You oppose making judgments or arguing about a game surrounded with speculation; and yet do those very things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy</a>
<i>- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.</i>
If you're going to call me a hypocrite, then at least use the right definition. You're arguing about making changes to a game that you know very little about. I was arguing against your proposed changes to counter them and stating that the arguments used do not have much backing. It's called hypothesizing while acknowledging weaknesses in the hypothesis itself. If that's hypocrisy, at least it is better than idiocy - where the premise is to assume that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.
While you're at it, why not call me a hypocrite for answering poorly written "last words" when I said I am not interested in arguing here anymore? If using the straw man argument makes your stance so much stronger, then why not use it, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1675482:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 10 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, I'm saying that because there aren't restrictions, either one of those situations will occur. ie. (it works and) it's really the same as an imposed restriction (nice, but unlikely) OR servers will be full of players of different skill levels, with no system in place to prevent this (it doesn't work)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An imposed restriction is something that server operators or developers impose on their players - it is different from a democratic system where players choose who they want to play with. Secondly, there is NOTHING wrong with having players of different skill levels in a server. If the players are okay with this, then there is no problem! If they're not okay with it, then they can vote off the person(s) that they don't like.
Remember, they created NS, and they weren't very experienced at the time... but they have made a unique, in-depth game that even today has a cult following.
The only other FPS mod that can claim that lifetime realistically today is Counter-Strike, and to be honest, every CS fan I've introduced to this game finds CS almost unplayable by comparison, and starts his wall-climbing, shotgun-toting misadventures happily.
I have no doubt that UWE could make the system work (if the UWE team made NS2 with such a system that is)... but at the same time, it's just in my flat opinion that it's like getting a world renowned Symphony Orchestra to perform 'Chopsticks' for a concert hall. Sure, the people playing the music are fantastic, and the stadium it's being played at is spectacular, but it's still just a god damned rendition of chopsticks...
...and trust me, it would be the kind of thing that sounds hilarious until you have to deal with it.
Yay! Something different! What a novelty which may prove fantastic... then you've got to put up with 'Chopsticks' and you're sitting there dumbfounded for a while, hoping it's all a bad dream...
...then you leave the performance and tear up your ticket.
While balancing or not balancing have their own merits, one extremely easy way to get people to play NS is to be nice to them. So please, if you read this, try to be friendly to everyone, not just noobs or your pals or someone you like :-)
You're forgetting <b>again</b>, that this is about whether <b>trying to</b> implement the system is worth it from a costs-to-benefits point of view - whether it's worth taking that risk.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are assuming that the ranking system is beneficial to un-admin'ed servers and casual players. This assumption is arguable. I don't think it will be better at all. In fact, it will just allow less choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many points have already been made in regards to how *rated servers* would be beneficial to un-administrated servers and casual players. On the other hand, you've given nothing to support your assumption that it would not be beneficial or worse.
And another thing: less choice isn't always necessarily bad.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy</a>
<i>- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.</i>
If you're going to call me a hypocrite, then at least use the right definition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa."
Mine <b>was</b> the right definition. Yours was the wrong definition because yours was a very specific definition in regards to religion or character. Learn the language before you argue on it with me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're arguing about making changes to a game that you know very little about. I was arguing against your proposed changes to counter them and stating that the arguments used do not have much backing. It's called hypothesizing while acknowledging weaknesses in the hypothesis itself. If that's hypocrisy, at least it is better than idiocy - where the premise is to assume that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are arguing in one of two ways - that I'm:
A) Making <b>changes</b> to a game that <b>doesn't exist</b>? I'm sure you see how that doesn't make sense.
or B) Making changes to Natural Selection, in which case your assumption that I know very little about it is incorrect.
One last thing, you're assuming that I'm making the assumption 'that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.' No. This is my opinion. And my opinion is also that from independent game developers like UWE, we've come to expect some degree of <b>innovation</b> - innovation means exploring the unknown, meaning, there <b>is no evidence</b> to support an innovative idea. We can, as you say, only make hypotheses.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While you're at it, why not call me a hypocrite for answering poorly written "last words" when I said I am not interested in arguing here anymore? If using the straw man argument makes your stance so much stronger, then why not use it, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're getting personally offended for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't my intention to insult, just to call attention to the fact that certain arguments of yours are flawed and contradictory - inviting you to discard them or amend them, neither of which you've done.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An imposed restriction is something that server operators or developers impose on their players - it is different from a democratic system where players choose who they want to play with. Secondly, there is NOTHING wrong with having players of different skill levels in a server. If the players are okay with this, then there is no problem! If they're not okay with it, then they can vote off the person(s) that they don't like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Democracy in a video game... Democracy in a server for a game where tensions are high and aggression is the common, expected and encouraged behaviour... Democracy really doesn't work in video games.
You're not choosing who you're playing with, you're choosing which server you're playing on; never forget that.
Or did you mean the votekick system? Other than the obvious flaws, ie. abuse, how annoying it is, and how lazy players are or more likely how little they care..; Votekicking is really meant for griefers, abusers, cheaters etc. - not to kick too-good players.
Rather than <b>preventing</b> situations where players' experiences are ruined by a pro player come to pwn some noobs (which you acknowledge does happen), instead you'd choose to put the game on hold and <b>punish</b> someone for playing too well on a server.
And really, arguing democracy in game servers from someone advocating Reserve Slots?
Many points have already been made in regards to how *rated servers* would be beneficial to un-administrated servers and casual players. On the other hand, you've given nothing to support your assumption that it would not be beneficial or worse.
And another thing: less choice isn't always necessarily bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're diverting the argument - you were clearly appealing to authority to justify an idea.
You're also cherry picking, in that you're pretending that the benefits suggested for ranked servers are real and closing your eyes to the arguments that have been raised against your idea. If you actually take a moment to read over the commentary that has taken place over several topics now, there are many issues that have been raised against ranked servers - <b>including but not by any means limited to the decrease in player choice, which you already mentioned as <i>not always being necessarily bad</i> when it is in many cases</b>.
If you're suddenly going to go back to cost-to-benefit POVs, then I think that really kills your argument because the benefits are unsound and the costs are already real.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of opposing or not purporting a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time, or vice versa."
Mine <b>was</b> the right definition. Yours was the wrong definition because yours was a very specific definition in regards to religion or character. Learn the language before you argue on it with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's funny that you claim to know the language <i>better</i> and that this somehow makes your definition the <i>right one</i>. With your definition you can find hypocrisy everywhere, including in your own posts. That inflates the meaning of hypocrisy as an accusation.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are arguing in one of two ways - that I'm:
A) Making <b>changes</b> to a game that <b>doesn't exist</b>? I'm sure you see how that doesn't make sense.
or B) Making changes to Natural Selection, in which case your assumption that I know very little about it is incorrect.
One last thing, you're assuming that I'm making the assumption 'that a particular hypothesis is correct without any evidence to support it.' No. This is my opinion. And my opinion is also that from independent game developers like UWE, we've come to expect some degree of <b>innovation</b> - innovation means exploring the unknown, meaning, there <b>is no evidence</b> to support an innovative idea. We can, as you say, only make hypotheses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re:A) Way to go on a completely pointless tangent that doesn't address the context of the quote.
Re:B) You know nothing about how NS2 will work in terms of skill and gameplay that is relevant to the arguments that you have been making. There's also a difference between having an opinion and arguing that the opinion is correct. In this case, you seem to be arguing that restricting player access to servers via rank will make for fun and fair games - which isn't true. If there is no evidence to support your view on an "innovative idea", then don't pretend that your idea is flawless and ignore arguments against it.
There's a difference in just "having an opinion" and arguing about the validity of it and other opinions. If you're going to assume that your opinion is "correct" and others are "incorrect", you'll need some good arguments to back that up - I am not convinced by your arguments. Unfortunately, in this case you are proposing the introduction of a system that hasn't been used before - which puts the onus on you to make a convincing argument about why the system would be beneficial (and especially why it is better than others in accomplishing some or other goals, if you're going that far).
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're getting personally offended for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't my intention to insult, just to call attention to the fact that certain arguments of yours are flawed and contradictory - inviting you to discard them or amend them, neither of which you've done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you have a pathological tendency to make flawed logical arguments. I have yet to see how my arguments are "flawed and contradictory".
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Democracy in a video game... Democracy in a server for a game where tensions are high and aggression is the common, expected and encouraged behaviour... Democracy really doesn't work in video games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is based on what data?
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're not choosing who you're playing with, you're choosing which server you're playing on; never forget that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's good as a personal note, considering your ranking system idea is meant to restrict server choice. .
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or did you mean the votekick system? Other than the obvious flaws, ie. abuse, how annoying it is, and how lazy players are or more likely how little they care..; Votekicking is really meant for griefers, abusers, cheaters etc. - not to kick too-good players.
Rather than <b>preventing</b> situations where players' experiences are ruined by a pro player come to pwn some noobs (which you acknowledge does happen), instead you'd choose to put the game on hold and <b>punish</b> someone for playing too well on a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here once again you are assuming what the votekicking system is for, who uses it, and what its limitations are - which is disagreeable. Voting doesn't have to put the game on hold, nor does it have to be used to punish good players (voting systems can be tweaked to avoid abuse), nor is there only one way (<i>your way</i>) to prevent really good players from preying on inexperienced casuals.
<!--quoteo(post=1675758:date=Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 14 2008, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And really, arguing democracy in game servers from someone advocating Reserve Slots?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ha? Straw man? So you can't have reserved slots and democracy at the same time anymore? As though somehow the two completely annihilate one another when combined.. I'd think by now you'd have realized that a single idea doesn't solve everything.
I think Haramau should quit while he's ahead.
First, RSlots always have been and always will be based on meritocracy. Either because they like your style, or you're always online, or you're just downright fun to play with. I've seen people with atrocious skill be given RSlots because they tried their best and didnt muck it up for other people.
Second, even if the community comes up with the greatest RSlot/Ranking system EVAR, if UWE don't like it, it won't go in. If they like it, or want it to work, we'll see the rumblings. But if its rejected by the team then its effectively dead, no matter how much we love it.
(3rd party software to the rescue! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )
First, RSlots always have been and always will be based on meritocracy. Either because they like your style, or you're always online, or you're just downright fun to play with. I've seen people with atrocious skill be given RSlots because they tried their best and didnt muck it up for other people.
Second, even if the community comes up with the greatest RSlot/Ranking system EVAR, if UWE don't like it, it won't go in. If they like it, or want it to work, we'll see the rumblings. But if its rejected by the team then its effectively dead, no matter how much we love it.
(3rd party software to the rescue! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I disagree with your first point. There are people who are handed out reserve slots because they donate money to the server as well.
Your right about UWE not liking a feature. I'm hoping that they are considering building in reserve slots to the function of the game, like for example allowing admins to add reserve slots on the fly, as opposed to Rconing the box and adding players that way.
A response either way would be really nice to hear from the devs.
For what it's worth, this is the reply from the devs in the first page of the topic that started it all:
<!--quoteo(post=1673741:date=Mar 20 2008, 02:01 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Mar 20 2008, 02:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1673741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah this is a common problem for people. I'd really like to address this by adding in matchmaking and possibly skill-assessment/tracking so we can put people in games with other people of the same skill level. This isn't an easy or quick thing to do but I bet we'll do this eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do wonder if RSS would be considered for incorporation sooner than a matchmaking system though.
I wonder what the dev viewpoint is on paying to enter a server. Its not ideal, but its a quick way to trim out a lot of casual players, thats for sure.
I do concur that it would be interesting to see a dev response to these threads in general, just something to let us know if we're debating a futile point, or if we're making progress.
RSS...... sort of provides a matchmaking service, in that you play with your regulars and thus the entire group achieves a sort of skill equilibrium. Yes, its a bit of a fudge, but the end result is generally the same.
At the very least I think UWE should make reserved slots more accessible, like Firewater said. Server administration overall should be much easier than it is in NS1 and HL mods.
At the very least I think UWE should make reserved slots more accessible, like Firewater said. Server administration overall should be much easier than it is in NS1 and HL mods.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paying for slots I agree takes less merit, but the flip side to that is someone who is paying for a slot would be more likely to follow the rules over an individual who not investing some money into the server (be it a small amount, but still).
If other donators are complaining about another one that isn't behaving correctly, they would probably tell the admins that their donations would cease if they do not take action.
Most people who donate for reserve slots aren't looking to break anyone's chops, but sometimes they are. It would be up the admins to determine whether or not to revoke a slot. Most servers that take donations have pretty decent rules, and rarely make exceptions, but that could all change in NS2.
Reserve slots really is one easy way to give the power to the admins to promote the kind of play they want in their respective server communities. In doing so would promote a sort of homeostasis within the community and in the server.