What makes a round of NS fun?
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">and how to promote it in servers</div>I think that a big misconception that is floating around is that balancing skill in a particular server will make games of NS more fun for players. I'd like to start by illustrating to all of you why this is not true.
First, let's assume (and this is a very unrealistic assumption btw) that we somehow balance twitch-skill in a particular server right to the point where we have a server full of players with exactly the same aiming ability and reflexes. Now, when the players pick teams, skill will be balanced and the game will be fun, right? Wrong. All other forms of skill will just be more important for determining which teams win and how they win. You might not have prohibitively good or prohibitively bad players that are orders of magnitudes better or worse at aiming. However, you will still have uneven distributions of players who can lerk well versus players who can fade well versus players who can command well, etc. etc. etc. Even if somehow access of players to a server were restricted based on their non twitch-skill abilities, it could very well be necessary to force them to play on a particular team and in a particular role to keep things balanced. Depending on how teams are chosen, there is still plenty of room for creating rounds that range from "terrible" to "good".
Notice how I put quotations around "terrible" and "good". This is because in speaking about the quality of rounds, we are assuming that we know what "terrible" and "good" means and that there is some universal scale that all players can agree upon. In fact, this isn't really true. We project these terms assuming that others will agree with our conception of the good game. When we think that games will be more fun when skill is about even between players, we assume that this is what all players would enjoy. What, then, about players who enjoy being inspired by other players who are better than them? What of those who enjoy a challenge? What of the players who enjoy having an adversary who they can curse at, use as a scapegoat, and blame for all of their failures? What of the players who enjoy being the heroes in a public server, mowing down enemies and saving the day for their team? What of those who take pride in crushing the egos of others (individuals or entire server populations) in a video game? And what of those who just want to hunt skulks in peace? These are all equally valid conceptions of the good game, albeit some more prevalent than others.
It has always been an inevitable truth that not everybody gets what they want. The ambitions of some conflict with those of most. Consequently, some players must endure compromises to their ability of pursuing the good game because the majority of players don't give a damn. For example, players who enjoy deploying aimbots are not received well in the majority of servers. It is reasonable to conceive that there exists a range of ambitions that do not appeal to the majority of players in a game community. However, the corollary is that there is some range of ambitions that is well-received by most community members. Furthermore, there also exists a range of ambitions that are reasonable, non-malevolent, and useful if they are provided their own niche in the game. It is the responsibility of developers to be aware of these ranges and their impact on the success of the game. Thereafter, it is important to foster game elements that promote the sustenance of the desirable player ambitions.
That was a long introduction - but important to set the stage for what follows. It is necessary to define the general game-play elements in NS that most people enjoy. Here are a few:
1. Having a fair chance to win.
2. Having a fair chance to frag other players.
3. Having the ability to choose what weapons/lifeforms to play with.
A controversial 4th: Having the ability to excel and become better than others at playing the game.
These three ambitions - winning, fragging, and role diversity - are governed by several other factors, such as:
Level of teamwork, skill level distribution of opposing team versus your own, and desire of team-members to play builder roles (which may be considered inferior to what most people like to do - i.e. hunt skulks as marines).
Now, the whole point of this is that we need to develop specific ideas that promote the achievement of the three main ambitions for as many players of the game as possible. The 4th ambition needs to be handled carefully in order for it not to violate the first three for others. I have already shown <a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104102" target="_blank">here</a>that restricting skill levels is not a practical or desirable way to nurture all of these ambitions. So, with this in mind, we must proceed towards identifying ideas that promote "fun" for the majority of non-malevolent players (appealing to the main ambitions) while also accommodating for the thirst of high achievers. After all, if treated well, the high achievers will strive to push the limits of the game and attract the attention of sponsors, tournaments, and more popularity for the game.
First, let's assume (and this is a very unrealistic assumption btw) that we somehow balance twitch-skill in a particular server right to the point where we have a server full of players with exactly the same aiming ability and reflexes. Now, when the players pick teams, skill will be balanced and the game will be fun, right? Wrong. All other forms of skill will just be more important for determining which teams win and how they win. You might not have prohibitively good or prohibitively bad players that are orders of magnitudes better or worse at aiming. However, you will still have uneven distributions of players who can lerk well versus players who can fade well versus players who can command well, etc. etc. etc. Even if somehow access of players to a server were restricted based on their non twitch-skill abilities, it could very well be necessary to force them to play on a particular team and in a particular role to keep things balanced. Depending on how teams are chosen, there is still plenty of room for creating rounds that range from "terrible" to "good".
Notice how I put quotations around "terrible" and "good". This is because in speaking about the quality of rounds, we are assuming that we know what "terrible" and "good" means and that there is some universal scale that all players can agree upon. In fact, this isn't really true. We project these terms assuming that others will agree with our conception of the good game. When we think that games will be more fun when skill is about even between players, we assume that this is what all players would enjoy. What, then, about players who enjoy being inspired by other players who are better than them? What of those who enjoy a challenge? What of the players who enjoy having an adversary who they can curse at, use as a scapegoat, and blame for all of their failures? What of the players who enjoy being the heroes in a public server, mowing down enemies and saving the day for their team? What of those who take pride in crushing the egos of others (individuals or entire server populations) in a video game? And what of those who just want to hunt skulks in peace? These are all equally valid conceptions of the good game, albeit some more prevalent than others.
It has always been an inevitable truth that not everybody gets what they want. The ambitions of some conflict with those of most. Consequently, some players must endure compromises to their ability of pursuing the good game because the majority of players don't give a damn. For example, players who enjoy deploying aimbots are not received well in the majority of servers. It is reasonable to conceive that there exists a range of ambitions that do not appeal to the majority of players in a game community. However, the corollary is that there is some range of ambitions that is well-received by most community members. Furthermore, there also exists a range of ambitions that are reasonable, non-malevolent, and useful if they are provided their own niche in the game. It is the responsibility of developers to be aware of these ranges and their impact on the success of the game. Thereafter, it is important to foster game elements that promote the sustenance of the desirable player ambitions.
That was a long introduction - but important to set the stage for what follows. It is necessary to define the general game-play elements in NS that most people enjoy. Here are a few:
1. Having a fair chance to win.
2. Having a fair chance to frag other players.
3. Having the ability to choose what weapons/lifeforms to play with.
A controversial 4th: Having the ability to excel and become better than others at playing the game.
These three ambitions - winning, fragging, and role diversity - are governed by several other factors, such as:
Level of teamwork, skill level distribution of opposing team versus your own, and desire of team-members to play builder roles (which may be considered inferior to what most people like to do - i.e. hunt skulks as marines).
Now, the whole point of this is that we need to develop specific ideas that promote the achievement of the three main ambitions for as many players of the game as possible. The 4th ambition needs to be handled carefully in order for it not to violate the first three for others. I have already shown <a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104102" target="_blank">here</a>that restricting skill levels is not a practical or desirable way to nurture all of these ambitions. So, with this in mind, we must proceed towards identifying ideas that promote "fun" for the majority of non-malevolent players (appealing to the main ambitions) while also accommodating for the thirst of high achievers. After all, if treated well, the high achievers will strive to push the limits of the game and attract the attention of sponsors, tournaments, and more popularity for the game.
Comments
At least for me its more about learning to work as a team and to understand and react in both large scale rounds and single fights and having the twitch skill to pull off the moves that come to my mind. Its a good round if both teams play smart and well, no matter who wins. Obiviously winning means the you've learned something though.
This is why I don't want the game to be slow and simple; the fun is to have a dynamic gameplay with fast tempo and a lot of decisions and options.
I don't disagree that there is more to fun in NS than fragging, that's never what it was about for me. I agree with all of your post, except the first line: "I think that a big misconception that is floating around is that balancing skill in a particular server will make games of NS more fun for players." Even if you're just using skill in the twitch sense, balancing skills lead to fewer bad games because it reduces scenarios such as above. No system is 100% effective, but even a simple stats system would have positive impact.
In regards to the hypothetical situation given: the aim is not to balance rounds so that one team has roughly the same chance/ability to win - since, as many people have said, their enjoyment does not necessarily come from 'winning rounds' and that it is very possible to have fun while on a losing streak (as a team). <i>(<b>edit</b>: in that sense, objective One isn't as important - and I would like to propose that we rank the objectives in order of importance, for a better idea of what exactly we want to achieve.)</i> Rather, the aim is to balance players so as to give players roughly the same chance/ability to kill one another and complete the simpler objectives. Yes, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, that does encourage and put greater emphasis on non-twitch skills.
I've noticed Sarisel likes to argue about the 'definitions' of certain terms, or argue that you can't define them at all because doing so would be too subjective (ignoring the possibility that you can have 'common' or 'accepted' definitions, or definitions based on statistical 'trends'). Seems kinda pointless to me.
And well, this at first seemed to be simply a reiteration of what you (Sarisel) have already said in (an)other thread(s) ie. "Restricted Ranked Servers are a bad idea". Yes, you've made your opinion quite clear.
--
From the fourth paragraph onwards, however, (with a relapse near the end) I felt that the thread did bring something new and useful to the table, and it wasn't a waste after all.
As for the topic itself - to find out ways to promote the three or four objectives - where Ranked Servers are not accepted as a viable solution, and with the understanding that RSlots are not a solution at all... Well, I'll get back to you on that one.
In regards to the hypothetical situation given: the aim is not to balance rounds so that one team has roughly the same chance/ability to win - since, as many people have said, their enjoyment does not necessarily come from 'winning rounds' and that it is very possible to have fun while on a losing streak (as a team). <i>(<b>edit</b>: in that sense, objective One isn't as important - and I would like to propose that we rank the objectives in order of importance, for a better idea of what exactly we want to achieve.)</i> Rather, the aim is to balance players so as to give players roughly the same chance/ability to kill one another and complete the simpler objectives. Yes, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, that does encourage and put greater emphasis on non-twitch skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re: red text: What a comedic entrance. Narrow-mindedness as interpreted by one who makes a judgment of a post by the introductory sentence.
Now, onto the actual constructive part:
1. It's not an objective to win, it is an ambition for a <b>fair chance at winning</b>.
2. Having said that, I do not assign a particular ranking to the top three ambitions (the numbers should have been bullets). Doing so would require that I create a scale to rank the value of each - which differs from person to person.
3. I do not agree that we can rank the objectives, based on what I said in 2 and based on the third paragraph of my initial post. Balancing skill, however it is achieved, is not necessarily desirable and I will make another topic dedicated just to that point if necessary.
<!--quoteo(post=1675884:date=Apr 15 2008, 11:33 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 15 2008, 11:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675884"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've noticed Sarisel likes to argue about the 'definitions' of certain terms, or argue that you can't define them at all because doing so would be too subjective (ignoring the possibility that you can have 'common' or 'accepted' definitions, or definitions based on statistical 'trends'). Seems kinda pointless to me.
And well, this at first seemed to be simply a reiteration of what you (Sarisel) have already said in (an)other thread(s) ie. "Restricted Ranked Servers are a bad idea". Yes, you've made your opinion quite clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without awareness of the difficulties in defining certain terms, it is much more likely that topics will be derailed by sophistry. The discussion seems pointless only because you lack reading comprehension required to link discussions of definitions to the big picture presented in the post. This has become very clear from our last few encounters.
<!--quoteo(post=1675884:date=Apr 15 2008, 11:33 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 15 2008, 11:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675884"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From the fourth paragraph onwards, however, (with a relapse near the end) I felt that the thread did bring something new and useful to the table, and it wasn't a waste after all.
As for the topic itself - to find out ways to promote the three or four objectives - where Ranked Servers are not accepted as a viable solution, and with the understanding that RSlots are not a solution at all... Well, I'll get back to you on that one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The topic sets the stage for what needs to be accomplished.
<ul>Airspeed Control
Aim
Ambush Setup
Commanding
Map Control
Positioning</li></ul>
Losing any one of those aspects would completely destroy the game.
Mr. Cleveland has mentioned his respect for competitive Starcraft in the past, and seems inspired by it in NS and (presumably) NS2. Because NS2 will be first-person, it will necessarily need those elements in order to be anything more than one competitive player leading around hordes of mindless zombies. Pros don't enjoy carrying out mindless quests, which is why there's more tournament money in CS than in WoW.
<!--quoteo(post=1675942:date=Apr 15 2008, 09:07 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 15 2008, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Losing any one of those aspects would completely destroy the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ideas I'm looking for (to keep rounds of NS fun) are more general and assume that the aspects that you have mentioned will still be there to define the game. We're also presumably not just catering to pros and we're not turning NS into WoW.
So I guess I need to flesh out who the target audiences are, and how to make gameplay fun for each one of them, and finally, how to make all of those gameplay systems work in harmony together. In the past I've used the term Information Hiding to describe how this would function.
I would define the player groups into:
<ul>New Players
Casual Players
Veteran Players (including but not limited to pro's)
Bad Players</li></ul>
<u>New players</u> want nothing more than to be enthralled. I'll use myself as an example, when I pick up a new game like TF2, I simply want to have an enjoyable first glance at the game. I'm not interested in depth (as long as I know it's there for when I'm better) and I'm not interested in life cycles of games or how much strategy I can put into it. At this stage, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->I just want to have fun<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
<u>Casual players</u> never really mature out of the scrub phase of the game, but that's fine because they identify themselves as casual. They take pride in teamwork and are willing to compromise their thrill-level ingame by gorging or building, or guarding an area vs pushing out with a shotgun in the pressure team. These are fun people, who either don't have time to be perfecting their twitch skills, or who simply don't care. It's worth noting that casual players have no sense of balance whatsoever, no matter how much they emphatically insist that they do. This can be considered a counterpart of veteran players' inherent elitism and perceived arrogance. To play casually is to play without the degree of understanding that a veteran has. There is no escaping that. I, not being a casual player in most cases, can't give an example of myself or detail what I would want. I can speculate that casual players' desires are very similar to that of new players, they just want to have a good time, and are willing to help out and do what they need to do in order to give their all to their team.
<u>Veteran players</u> may simply play a lot, or may be competitive. <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->These are the people who value balance extremely highly<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, because the slightest imbalance will inherently ruin the games they play, since so much pressure hinges on everything that's done on both sides of the game, and small deviations in balance are magnified as much as possible. They are opportunistic in nature, and want to win. This is often confused with not caring about having fun, but it's just the opposite - winning is how these people have fun, they enjoy mastery and will work demonstratively hard toward that goal. It's valuable to point out that these people naturally expose the weaknesses of a game by virtue of how they play, and that those exposures are invaluable to developers, because they form an acid test by which the dev team can further refine an already good (read: fun) game. Last but not least, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->these players expect depth of gameplay<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, as perhaps the most important element of a game. Some pro players will play shallow games for the sake of prize money, which is fine, though I don't think it's ideal.
In regard to <u>bad players</u>, I'll try to be as objective as I can, though I harbor a fair amount of animosity toward them personally, simply because they remove the most important element of any game: fun. A bad player, without going into excruciating psychological detail, simply wants to win without effort, and to have fun doing it. While I've shown the virtues of casual, veteran, and new players (where the virtue of a new player is exploration and the desire for fun), there honestly is no virtue to extol in regard to bad players. They're selfish, short-tempered, easily bored, and generally don't lend themselves to an enjoyable atmosphere no matter if you're trying to be competitive or casual. Similarly they want to think they're good, so they expect games to be balanced around their shallow interpretation of a given set of events. Their common cry is "lame" or some form of scapegoat as defined <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. The reason I bring them up here is not for the sake of inflammatory rhetoric, but because the internet unfortunately has a fair distribution of these people, and that they still need entertainment, and for those reasons bad players show up fairly often especially in FPS games (see Counter-Strike).
There are of course degrees of each of these styles in everyone, but from my experience most people fall primarily into one category or another.
That was an excruciatingly-long, and no doubt very controversial introduction, but it's necessary to define those four iconic styles before progressing.
<b><i>Information Hiding</i></b> solves most of the above mentioned conflicts. In this case I'm using it to mean showing the fun, basic elements of gameplay at its surface, and making it take effort to find anything more difficult. In essence this is what I was trying to accomplish with Rank-Locked Server systems, and basically it was a good concept, but I believe the recent alternate propositions are better.
Information Hiding's usage can be best explained with examples. The first is <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->airspeed control<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. The UWE team is currently of the opinion that bunny hop is bad because it is unintuitive, but I would argue just the opposite; that because it has the two elements of being a) not required for a good (fun) game and b) game-breaking for advanced styles of play (in airspeed control, not in bhop itself) that it's a perfect example of the usage of information hiding to let new players play a fun game, while simultaneously letting advanced players play the exact same game in totally different ways. It's possible to raise the argument that because bhop is <i>so</i> unintuitive ("I move sideways to go forward?") that its removal is feasibly good, but even if that is the case, the removal of airspeed control would be nothing short of idiotic, because of how well it fits as a hidden but initially unimportant gameplay element.
Other examples would be <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->wavedash<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> in SSBM, patterns and prediction in <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->Poker<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, build orders and <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->micro-management<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> (including unit assemblage) in Starcraft, <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->mobility/spray<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> prediction in Counter-Strike... The list is virtually endless, but the common thread is how these elements only surface to the trained eye.
Essentially my point is that the most advanced parts of a game should only be visible to (accessed by) advanced players. This lets new players play a simple, straightforward, intuitive game, while leaving veterans a tool chest with which to outsmart and outplay one another, making the game more than a shooter, but a deep experience with a great deal of replay value for even the most analytical minds.
If that model is followed for any game (such as NS2), it will please new players and casual players alike, since it does not conflict with generating a fun game, and in fact lends itself to that end. Similarly it will give veterans the chance to continue playing for a great deal of time while still enjoying themselves. As to bad players, they will never be happy because their mindset keeps them in a victimized state no matter how the game is balanced. Further, they don't understand balance, they only use it as a way to escape responsibility for change, so balancing a game for these players is not only futile, but wasteful as it alienates players who will necessarily be more beneficial to the game as a whole, and more importantly, to the community at heart.
Yes, but where are the core elements of a teamplay-based game? Strategy differences? Communication? A squad that has practiced tactics together? Structure placement? Timing? Flanking? Rushing? Defensive holding? <i>Team </i>effort? Luck?
Where the #### are all the other factors?!?!?
<!--quoteo(post=1675855:date=Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Notice how I put quotations around "terrible" and "good". This is because in speaking about the quality of rounds, we are assuming that we know what "terrible" and "good" means and that there is some universal scale that all players can agree upon. In fact, this isn't really true. We project these terms assuming that others will agree with our conception of the good game. When we think that games will be more fun when skill is about even between players, we assume that this is what all players would enjoy. What, then, about players who enjoy being inspired by other players who are better than them? What of those who enjoy a challenge? What of the players who enjoy having an adversary who they can curse at, use as a scapegoat, and blame for all of their failures? What of the players who enjoy being the heroes in a public server, mowing down enemies and saving the day for their team? What of those who take pride in crushing the egos of others (individuals or entire server populations) in a video game? And what of those who just want to hunt skulks in peace? These are all equally valid conceptions of the good game, albeit some more prevalent than others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forgot the people who like to build. In fact there's a group of people I know who have grown sick of the boring routine way of doing things and typical rude hostility towards other players in many servers. This group has migrated to bot servers where they can have some fun chatting amongst themselves casually and working as a team to pull off creative base relocations, insane offensives, and perfected defenses.
Now personally I prefer the enemy team to be capable of adaptive thinking. I love blitz offenses as much as last stand defenses (esp. when you make a comeback from it). Most of all I love those games where both teams are clearly thinking about the strategy.
However, I find it sad that typical public play in NS is becoming so typical and routine. There are exceptions of course, but speaking from what I have observed... your average public NS v3.2 game -- which forms the foundation of this community -- has become more and more predictable over the years to the point where people give up if the first contact when conflicting for resource control ends badly for their team. (i.e.: quitters and whiners at about 2-3min into the game) It's frustrating the players trying to lead and motivate the team because once that happens the game is set up for people to stop trying to get resources. If it's the marines loosing you see F4's, rambos, armory humping, commander ejection, etc. If it's the aliens loosing you see F4's, wandering skulks, resource hoarding (i.e.: when most of the team has 50+ resources and you are not in control of the map, there is a problem), gorge forts in random vents (usually when DC is available), etc. This seems really unfair to the few people who try to stick it out, and granted it's always been a problem in NS to some degree. I just hope there will be incentives and disincentives to influence behaviors for the better in NS2. Anything that helps encourage people to work as a team helps, no?
<!--quoteo(post=1675855:date=Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It has always been an inevitable truth that not everybody gets what they want. The ambitions of some conflict with those of most. Consequently, some players must endure compromises to their ability of pursuing the good game because the majority of players don't give a damn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I'd say many players do give a damn, it just depends on how much of a damn they are inclined to give. And with that said I'd say I can offer evidence of to counter the claim that is most as much as I could offer evidence that supports that is most. There's too much ambiguity and layering of hypothetical’s here to make any certainty of mass-motive psyche of the masses. Not to mention we are technically talking the future here with NS2, so add the descriptor "tentative prediction" on top of that entire logic statement.
Besides what is gained from debating something so trivial -- and ultimately an irrelevant -- when there are real issues which are far more pressing?
<!--quoteo(post=1675855:date=Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 14 2008, 11:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675855"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is reasonable to conceive that there exists a range of ambitions that do not appeal to the majority of players in a game community. However, the corollary is that there is some range of ambitions that is well-received by most community members. Furthermore, there also exists a range of ambitions that are reasonable, non-malevolent, and useful if they are provided their own niche in the game. It is the responsibility of developers to be aware of these ranges and their impact on the success of the game. Thereafter, it is important to foster game elements that promote the sustenance of the desirable player ambitions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Am I correct in summarizing this as "everybody is different and has a different reason for playing"?
<!--quoteo(post=1675886:date=Apr 15 2008, 12:08 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 15 2008, 12:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Re: red text: What a comedic entrance. Narrow-mindedness as interpreted by one who makes a judgment of a post by the introductory sentence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, I can almost hear that backslap from here... *zing!*
>_<
<!--quoteo(post=1675942:date=Apr 15 2008, 09:07 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 15 2008, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In response to the topic title:<ul>Airspeed Control
Aim
Ambush Setup
Commanding
Map Control
Positioning</li></ul>Losing any one of those aspects would completely destroy the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
&$^@U&^$&*^#$&*$^#&*!!!
What is wrong with you?! Not that those are aspects of the game, but dude--
--ok. *pause* I'll let you try to explain this to me. Where in the <i>hell</i> do things I feel are far more critical like... oh let's say... <i>teamwork</i> aspects fit into your list of what you specifically feel that are vital to have in NS2 to make it truly Natural-Selection-esque?
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1676019:date=Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would define the player groups into:<ul>New Players
Casual Players
Veteran Players (including but not limited to pro's)
Bad Players</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You put a lot of thought and effort into your categorical definitions. That's good. However, if I may speak critically, isn't that ultimately futile? What I mean is that there are a number of factors which aren't being taken into account. Yes the community has influence but the developers are the ones making the product the community plays. Neither is more important than the other. If you prefer a metaphor: one is technically at the helm, but the other makes up the hull that keep the whole ship afloat. Since NS2 is about the future, what good does it do to stereotype current players so we can project towards the future? Server administrators tend to treat players as unique anyways.
If you are saying the community and developers need to work together to consider a target audience to market NS2 towards, then yes I agree. In fact consider both <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=101442" target="_blank">this topic</a> and (to a larger degree) the creation of the whole NS2 E-Team forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1676019:date=Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Information Hiding's usage can be best explained with examples. The first is <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->airspeed control<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. The UWE team is currently of the opinion that bunny hop is bad because it is unintuitive, but I would argue just the opposite; that because it has the two elements of being a) not required for a good (fun) game and b) game-breaking for advanced styles of play (in airspeed control, not in bhop itself) that it's a perfect example of the usage of information hiding to let new players play a fun game, while simultaneously letting advanced players play the exact same game in totally different ways. It's possible to raise the argument that because bhop is <i>so</i> unintuitive ("I move sideways to go forward?") that its removal is feasibly good, but even if that is the case, the removal of airspeed control would be nothing short of idiotic, because of how well it fits as a hidden but initially unimportant gameplay element.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good lord, not ANOTHER ####ing debate about bhop. Lay it to rest will ya'? I've must have stated my compromise opinion on this every few months it seems... Besides I disagree that bhop is related to information hiding. I mean hell cheddar cheese is related to Nicole Kidman too in a strange convoluted way too, but so what?
<!--quoteo(post=1676019:date=Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Essentially my point is that the most advanced parts of a game should only be visible to (accessed by) advanced players. This lets new players play a simple, straightforward, intuitive game, while leaving veterans a tool chest with which to outsmart and outplay one another, making the game more than a shooter, but a deep experience with a great deal of replay value for even the most analytical minds.
If that model is followed for any game (such as NS2), it will please new players and casual players alike, since it does not conflict with generating a fun game, and in fact lends itself to that end. Similarly it will give veterans the chance to continue playing for a great deal of time while still enjoying themselves. As to bad players, they will never be happy because their mindset keeps them in a victimized state no matter how the game is balanced. Further, they don't understand balance, they only use it as a way to escape responsibility for change, so balancing a game for these players is not only futile, but wasteful as it alienates players who will necessarily be more beneficial to the game as a whole, and more importantly, to the community at heart.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An extremely broad point. It could be a policy for the best or worst ideas. In theory it sounds great... but, well you tell me: what is a possible con that this policy could create?
I also remember Firewater being upset about the concept of developer's having say of where you can and can't play. How would you address that argument?
For me I feel that population management is the domain of the server admins, not the developers. Do they need better management tools for NS2? OMG YES!!! But let us all (developers and community) agree to empower admins.
Oh yeah almost forgot...
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->There are many things that make a round of NS fun for me.
It's easier to say what elements make-up the <i>most</i> fun for me.
Such things include (unordered):<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><ul><li>hanging out with friends in the virtual ready room</li><li>sneaking up on a marine from above while he's/she's distracted</li><li>getting that lucky last shot on an escaping fade or lerk</li><li>building a well designed defense and getting others involved in its maintainance</li><li>leading a squad of marines or a pack of aliens on an offensive and watching out for everybody</li><li>motivating teammates in trying to complete an objective</li><li>saving a teammate from death</li><li>saving the team from death ^_^</li><li>when everybody on the team is putting in effort for the team's benefit rather than themselves</li><li>playing against an enemy team that thinks and adapt their strategy just as my team is thinking and adapting</li><li>games that last a long time because map control is shifting constantly (take one area, they take one of yours)</li><li>the arms races to get tech-ed up (it actually doesn't matter how long it takes as long as it's a close tie; a slow moving close tie is best, a fast moving lopsided slaughter is worst)</li><li>when your team comes back because they believed they could and put in more effort than the enemy which got lazy and complacent</li><li>making new friends from being in a squad together in a long game</li><li>in Combat mode, being that lead player that the entire enemy team hates (although isn't fun unless the enemy is a genuine challenge) </li><li>xenociding marines (can't get enough of it & causes enemy marines players to hate me in combat)</li><li>building an SC grid that covers most of the map and helps your team slaughter inattentive marine leadership (think of it like cellphone towers: more bars in more places!)</li><li>blitz shotgun rushing the first hive @ start of the game</li><li>blitz gorge rushing marine start @ start of the game</li><li>lerk-lifting (a plugin) a skulk and dropping him as a xenocide bomb at the right moment to kill >3 marines (you must have good voice communication & coordination for this)</li><li>relocating the marine base (MS is boring every game!) and having a team practiced in pulling it off</li><li>helping train new players wanting to learn (and putting effort into it)</li><li>being a referee in a scrim</li><li>being in a scrim (win or loose, preferably win though because getting pounded sucks)</li><li>killing a complacent spawn camper</li></ul><_<
>_>
>_<
arg I can't think of any more right now... I'm generally an optomistic player who's easy to get along with. I know everybody would have more fun if they just really tried to follow my life motto all the time:
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><i>"Just have fun and do you best!"</i><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->x5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<!--quoteo(post=1676032:date=Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but where are the core elements of a teamplay-based game? Strategy differences? Communication? A squad that has practiced tactics together? Structure placement? Timing? Flanking? Rushing? Defensive holding? <i>Team </i>effort? Luck?
Where the #### are all the other factors?!?!?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there are more elements. The part of my post that you quoted dealt with showing why balancing via skill is not practical even in the simplified case that was presented.
<!--quoteo(post=1676032:date=Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You forgot the people who like to build. In fact there's a group of people I know who have grown sick of the boring routine way of doing things and typical rude hostility towards other players in many servers. This group has migrated to bot servers where they can have some fun chatting amongst themselves casually and working as a team to pull off creative base relocations, insane offensives, and perfected defenses.
Now personally I prefer the enemy team to be capable of adaptive thinking. I love blitz offenses as much as last stand defenses (esp. when you make a comeback from it). Most of all I love those games where both teams are clearly thinking about the strategy.
However, I find it sad that typical public play in NS is becoming so typical and routine. There are exceptions of course, but speaking from what I have observed... your average public NS v3.2 game -- which forms the foundation of this community -- has become more and more predictable over the years to the point where people give up if the first contact when conflicting for resource control ends badly for their team. (i.e.: quitters and whiners at about 2-3min into the game) It's frustrating the players trying to lead and motivate the team because once that happens the game is set up for people to stop trying to get resources. If it's the marines loosing you see F4's, rambos, armory humping, commander ejection, etc. If it's the aliens loosing you see F4's, wandering skulks, resource hoarding (i.e.: when most of the team has 50+ resources and you are not in control of the map, there is a problem), gorge forts in random vents (usually when DC is available), etc. This seems really unfair to the few people who try to stick it out, and granted it's always been a problem in NS to some degree. I just <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->hope there will be incentives and disincentives to influence behaviors for the better in NS2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Anything that helps encourage people to work as a team helps, no?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that pub NS can be very sad. You are raising points about teamwork and that promoting it is important , with which I do agree.
<!--quoteo(post=1676032:date=Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually I'd say many players do give a damn, it just depends on how much of a damn they are inclined to give. And with that said I'd say I can offer evidence of to counter the claim that is most as much as I could offer evidence that supports that is most. There's too much ambiguity and layering of hypothetical’s here to make any certainty of mass-motive psyche of the masses. Not to mention we are technically talking the future here with NS2, so add the descriptor "tentative prediction" on top of that entire logic statement.
Besides what is gained from debating something so trivial -- and ultimately an irrelevant -- when there are real issues which are far more pressing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I think that you are quoting my post out of context here. I am arguing that not everybody can have what they want. I'm not arguing for a "mass-motive psyche of the masses" - but I am saying that we can identify some ambitions and come up with ideas to foster them. That includes teamwork.
I don't see how big differences in individual skill do not represent a real issue. It is as real of an issue as lack of teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=1676032:date=Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 16 2008, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Am I correct in summarizing this as "everybody is different and has a different reason for playing"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I'm actually saying that there is also some commonality in the reasons for playing. There may be different reasons, but there are also many common reasons that we can identify and seek to promote. And yes, I know there are different groups of reasons as well that are not necessarily compatible with one another.
For the rest of what was said - yes, I acknowledge that teamwork is an important part of NS and should be promoted. Is teamwork required to make a round of NS fun? Not for everybody. In contrast, is a fair environment for fragging and winning required to have fun? Well - if you get killed all the time regardless of the teamwork you put in, I'm not sure how fun that would be. Also, if you never have a chance to win, that isn't very fun either - if you know from the start that you will lose regardless of what you do. We're trying to identify some universal factors that are crucial for making a round of NS fun.
I'm going to let Radix defend himself if he wishes to do so - since I haven't really read his post fully yet.
But how is this even accomplished via Rank-Locked Server systems where most servers are unregulated, with only a minority being designated for beginners and the elites? I agree that "information hiding" could solve some problems (although most problems with players' attitudes themselves will be unsolved), but I disagree that ranked servers would accomplish "information hiding" unless the knowledge of these hidden concepts instantly propels a player into an elite state characterized by high twitch-skill. However, as you know, there is actually a big soup of different skills that makes a player effective, partially effective, or ineffective in any particular server (and the effectiveness varies between servers).
I really can't think of a system that is both ethical and that prevents advanced/veteran players from mingling and destroying casual players.
<!--quoteo(post=1676019:date=Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Essentially my point is that the most advanced parts of a game should only be visible to (accessed by) advanced players. This lets new players play a simple, straightforward, intuitive game, while leaving veterans a tool chest with which to outsmart and outplay one another, making the game more than a shooter, but a deep experience with a great deal of replay value for even the most analytical minds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I agree with you here just based on my experiences with NS (not really applicable to NS2, since we don't know how it will be). I also think that, in such a system, there would be the need for equal access of players to resources that will teach them how to become advanced players if they wish to be. The problem nevertheless lies in advanced players that have nothing better to do than play with casuals and new players.
Yay! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
In all seriousness though, teamplay is the cornerstone of the Natural-Selection experience. (has been for a long timel; even Charlie has reinforced by saying so explicitly; I know many other NS devs, PTs, server admins, and consties who also agree too) How could it <i>not</i> be in a discussion of what makes a round of NS fun?
<!--quoteo(post=1676050:date=Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676050"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that pub NS can be very sad. You are raising points about teamwork and that promoting it is important , with which I do agree.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aye, sad. But it's a bit more severe than that isn't it? The public scene is the foundation of the community. Heck it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the base is large enough and strong enough it not only makes the developers wealthy, but it also allows growth of additional layers:<ul><li>base of consumer-generated extra/custom content producers (called prosumers)</li><li>clan communities (more formal friendship groups for fun and/or competition)</li><li>competitive scrims</li><li>offical competitive matches</li><li>increased server diversity (due to more servers, which is due to increased demand for servers)</li><li>exclusive match and private servers</li><li>custom content websites</li><li>clan websites</li><li>modification websites (for plugin help, server help, custom downloads, etc.)</li><li>anti-cheat control communities</li><li>a division in leagues (due to increased clan interest and general popularity)</li><li>clans concerned about their ladder in leagues</li><li>advertisement sponsored matches (pro community)</li><li>paid-to-play players</li><li>attention from computer hardware developers (thus increased sponsorships)</li><li>attempted buy-outs from other greedy companies</li></ul>...but NONE of that will happen without the regular player who comes into a regular, public server to play a game. Lots of them.
NS is bizzare really because any other community would have collapsed by now. There are so very few new players comming in, and existing players continue to get better the "middle class" for all intents and purposes just doesn't exist in v3.2 today. For a FPS/RTS it's quite odd in my opinion. MMORPGs tend to maintain a top-heavy player base simply because you have a persistent character you invested a lot of time into creating. That doesn't exist in NS v3.2.
Yet, It doesn't have to be like that. One of the most interesting recent reads for me is was this book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/0300122233" target="_blank">Nudge</a> which talks about "persuasive achitecture" and "libertarian paternalism". I the context of NS2 it makes perfect sense to utilize this advice and implement a design that nudges players into exhibiting better behaviors in the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1676050:date=Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676050"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, I think that you are quoting my post out of context here. I am arguing that not everybody can have what they want. I'm not arguing for a "mass-motive psyche of the masses" - but I am saying that we can identify some ambitions and come up with ideas to foster them. That includes teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, perhaps I am taking in out of context. I just saw a point you wrote that I decided I needed to discuss more about.
<!--quoteo(post=1676050:date=Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 16 2008, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676050"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the rest of what was said - yes, I acknowledge that teamwork is an important part of NS and should be promoted. Is teamwork required to make a round of NS fun? Not for everybody. In contrast, is a fair environment for fragging and winning required to have fun? Well - if you get killed all the time regardless of the teamwork you put in, I'm not sure how fun that would be. Also, if you never have a chance to win, that isn't very fun either - if you know from the start that you will lose regardless of what you do. We're trying to identify some universal factors that are crucial for making a round of NS fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that must be the part about everybody being different then <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Also to say casual players have no grasp of balance is misleading. Balance often manifest themselves in the form of trends that are visible to everyone. Also balance of casual gameplay can often be improved without effecting competitve gameplay(+movement) just as balance at the competitve levels often has minimal impact on casual games. That said a lot of casual players would probably say the fade is OP and make other claims that aren't true.
I think your description of "bad players" is not quite complete. The best word you used IMO was selfish. I think a player who joins a newbie server to rack up kills is just as "bad" as a player who spends the whole time complaining and wants people to stoop to his/her level.
<!--quoteo(post=1676019:date=Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Information Hiding's usage can be best explained with examples. The first is <!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->airspeed control<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. The UWE team is currently of the opinion that bunny hop is bad because it is unintuitive, but I would argue just the opposite; that because it has the two elements of being a) not required for a good (fun) game and b) game-breaking for advanced styles of play (in airspeed control, not in bhop itself) that it's a perfect example of the usage of information hiding to let new players play a fun game, while simultaneously letting advanced players play the exact same game in totally different ways. It's possible to raise the argument that because bhop is <i>so</i> unintuitive ("I move sideways to go forward?") that its removal is feasibly good, but even if that is the case, the removal of airspeed control would be nothing short of idiotic, because of how well it fits as a hidden but initially unimportant gameplay element.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're confusing airspeed control and BHop. Airspeed control is an important combat depth adding feature, bhop is just a skillmove.
Now, either these kinds of events have to be prevented/discouraged - so that competitive players find playing with casuals undesirable compared to other things that they could be doing - or the game has to be made more accessible and/or dumbed down (the two terms don't mean the same thing) so that the difference between competitive and casual is not great enough to cause significant problems.
And a third option would be the "skill preview" system described in other threads, that way new players will know to stay out of the big boy servers, and veterans will know what servers will bring frustration due to incompetence. After arguing with you and Firewater over the point, I think that (in combination with a self-defined server "skill level" and server "values", and his RSS system) is the best answer to the problem.
Now who's playing the strawman card?
It's actually pretty simple. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it. If you're too narrow-minded, why should I give you the time of day?
<!--QuoteBegin-Radix+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In essence this is what I was trying to accomplish with Rank-Locked Server systems, and basically it was a good concept, but I believe the recent alternate propositions are better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I must have missed it. <b>What</b> alternate propositions? The only thing I can think of was the recording of player's statistics and achievements and representing them as icons so that players will ostensibly try to balance teams - a 'softer' branch of Stix' idea - it was the only good proposition made recently (where ranked servers aren't recognised as a good idea and neither are enforced team-balances, and with the understanding that RSlots are not actually a solution). Of course that's not to say players won't still get owned - they would, quite regularly - but it might help <b>some</b>.
Now, I know that post was all about 'what makes a round of NS fun' - the title of the thread, but strangely enough, it doesn't have much to do with the purpose of the thread itself. Basically Sarisel already answered his own question, and is asking you for a solution to enforce the things that make rounds of NS fun.
So. Information Hiding is all fine, but where is the solution to the issue that you yourself raised (or the issue of the thread)? If someone has more 'information' than someone else, then the former is naturally a better player than the latter; and to play them one against the other would be quite unfair and probably unfun.
Unless we're allowed to derail the thread and try to come up with solutions to alternative interpretations of what makes NS fun. Do we get your okay on that, Mr. Sarisel?
<!--QuoteBegin-the_x5+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->--ok. *pause* I'll let you try to explain this to me. Where in the hell do things I feel are far more critical like... oh let's say... teamwork aspects fit into your list of what you specifically feel that are vital to have in NS2 to make it truly Natural-Selection-esque?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Teamwork (whatever that is) is more a means to an end, and really has no bearing on what you yourself can do - there's not really much depth to be found there. You could have all the "teamwork" in the world but if your teammates didn't cooperate or choose to follow <b>your</b> lead, you're as good as a rambo.
Actually, teamwork isn't exactly an inherent element of the game itself. It's not exactly coded in. It's not something developers 'enforce', or to use Firewater's argument, not something they <b>should</b> enforce. If you wanna rambo, go rambo. Choice, right? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-the_x5+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since NS2 is about the future, what good does it do to stereotype current players so we can project towards the future? Server administrators tend to treat players as unique anyways.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah. I'd say those are accurate generalisations (present in all games, including first person shooters) based on his experiences online - not specific to NS itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-the_x5+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean hell cheddar cheese is related to Nicole Kidman too in a strange convoluted way too, but so what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What have you got against Nicole Kidman?
<!--QuoteBegin-the_x5+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For me I feel that population management is the domain of the server admins, not the developers. Do they need better management tools for NS2? OMG YES!!! But let us all (developers and community) agree to empower admins.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Myeh. Assuming all servers are well-administrated. Hope all you want, it won't happen; so don't turn it into an expectation. Well-administrated servers are indicative of healthy communities, sure, but not necessarily a healthy game. If every server is well-administrated, then you probably don't have many servers, and very few players - and you've got a problem. Get the game right, bring the players in, then they can organise their own communities; and you could, if you choose to, make that easier for them. I wouldn't consider it a priority for the initial release though.
<!--QuoteBegin-the_x5+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The public scene is the foundation of the community. Heck it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the base is large enough and strong enough it not only makes the developers wealthy, but it also allows growth of additional layers:
base of consumer-generated extra/custom content producers (called prosumers)
clan communities (more formal friendship groups for fun and/or competition)
competitive scrims
offical competitive matches
increased server diversity (due to more servers, which is due to increased demand for servers)
exclusive match and private servers
custom content websites
clan websites
modification websites (for plugin help, server help, custom downloads, etc.)
anti-cheat control communities
a division in leagues (due to increased clan interest and general popularity)
clans concerned about their ladder in leagues
advertisement sponsored matches (pro community)
paid-to-play players
attention from computer hardware developers (thus increased sponsorships)
attempted buy-outs from other greedy companies
...but NONE of that will happen without the regular player who comes into a regular, public server to play a game. Lots of them.
<i>NS is bizzare really because any other community would have collapsed by now.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright, I jumped the gun. You <b>do</b> understand their importance.
As for the italics, I don't think NS is very unique in that sense. lol I think you're giving NS too much credit. <b>Many</b> games have cult followings. If it's bizarre that a first person shooter has a cult following, you could attribute that to 'sequels'. Will you still be playing NS when NS2 comes out?
<!--QuoteBegin-locallyuscene+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyuscene)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That said a lot of casual players would probably say the fade is OP and make other claims that aren't true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's an honest deduction, though. 'True' is always relative. If you and three other marines are getting owned by a lone fade, then it's 'true' that that fade is OP. Of course that has a lot to do with the skill of the fade itself, and since the only fades that survive (or are any use) are the skilled ones, you've got a high benchmark, so you have to assume they overlook that and figure it's OP, which is true, for them.
I've gotta know, Sarisel, are you against Ranked servers in general, or just because the given proposal was based on twitch-skill? If there were an implementation based on achievements or a wider variety of statistics or something else, would you find that okay? Or is your only argument 'choice'?
Also, I'm getting sick of the assumption that because it's NS2, and not NS1, we know absolutely nothing about it, even if we know NS1. As if the "2" is all that matters, and the "Natural Selection" doesn't count for ######. Yes they will be different games, but not <b>completely</b> different and entirely unrecognisable. Or do you disagree?
What's the "skill preview" system? I haven't had time to go on the Ideas and Suggestions forum lately. And again, RSS is <b>not</b> a solution, even in part, <b>why</b> bring it up?
Now, this isn't really my idea, kinda twisted it from a comment I saw for an article. And I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm throwing it out anyway:
Keep ranked servers. But, in accordance with Sarisel's wishes, do not restrict players from joining them.
Instead, players lower than the server's rank receive 'buffs' (more health, etc. - things mostly related to survivability); and/or players higher than the server's rank receive 'debuffs' (lower damage, etc. - things mostly related to their threat level)
Oo.. Controversial, I know.
It's actually pretty simple. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it. If you're too narrow-minded, why should I give you the time of day?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm actually waiting for you to stop giving me "the time of day" because you can't seem to make a logical argument. In this case, the straw man card or "attacking the straw man" involves attacking a flaw in someone's character or something completely unrelated to the argument and then thinking that the main argument is won or the opponent's point is refuted. I was just pointing out how pompous you were, but I did address the main argument promptly afterwards.
<!--quoteo(post=1676173:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now, I know that post was all about 'what makes a round of NS fun' - the title of the thread, but strangely enough, it doesn't have much to do with the purpose of the thread itself. Basically Sarisel already answered his own question, and is asking you for a solution to enforce the things that make rounds of NS fun.
So. Information Hiding is all fine, but where is the solution to the issue that you yourself raised (or the issue of the thread)? If someone has more 'information' than someone else, then the former is naturally a better player than the latter; and to play them one against the other would be quite unfair and probably unfun.
Unless we're allowed to derail the thread and try to come up with solutions to alternative interpretations of what makes NS fun. Do we get your okay on that, Mr. Sarisel?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point of the thread is to give a general idea of what most players need to make a round of NS fun. With this general idea, it would be possible to have a better direction for suggestions on how to achieve these player needs.
<!--quoteo(post=1676173:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've gotta know, Sarisel, are you against Ranked servers in general, or just because the given proposal was based on twitch-skill? If there were an implementation based on achievements or a wider variety of statistics or something else, would you find that okay? Or is your only argument 'choice'?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at the other topic I made that shows the flaws of ranked servers, you'll see that I think the whole idea is not practical or desirable to implement. Yes - basing ranked servers on twitch-skill is bad, but that's just the beginning. There are PLENTY of arguments in the other thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1676173:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I'm getting sick of the assumption that because it's NS2, and not NS1, we know absolutely nothing about it, even if we know NS1. As if the "2" is all that matters, and the "Natural Selection" doesn't count for ######. Yes they will be different games, but not <b>completely</b> different and entirely unrecognisable. Or do you disagree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point of saying that NS2 might be different is that IF you choose to develop a ranking system before you know what's really going on in terms of game balance and individual contributions, there's a big possibility of getting a useless or badly flawed system. It's important to keep this in mind and not be too confident about whether something will work or not work. If you become overconfident, you start blocking out valid criticisms because you think the idea can't be wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1676173:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's the "skill preview" system? I haven't had time to go on the Ideas and Suggestions forum lately. And again, RSS is <b>not</b> a solution, even in part, <b>why</b> bring it up?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There really is no single solution to making rounds of NS fun. However, RSS definitely does help by building communities of regulars who play the game in an agreeable way amongst themselves. If implemented correctly, RSS can also be used to grant access to players with certain levels of proficiency in NS.
The skill preview system involves giving players a chance to see how mainstream or competitive servers play. Every account will have a choice (not forced by any ranking system) of playing on protected "novice" servers or graduating to "mainstream" servers. Once you choose to graduate, you cannot go back unless you appeal through NSGuides. This idea isn't very developed at this point and was just briefly mentioned in the I&S forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1676173:date=Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Apr 18 2008, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now, this isn't really my idea, kinda twisted it from a comment I saw for an article. And I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm throwing it out anyway:
Keep ranked servers. But, in accordance with Sarisel's wishes, do not restrict players from joining them.
Instead, players lower than the server's rank receive 'buffs' (more health, etc. - things mostly related to survivability); and/or players higher than the server's rank receive 'debuffs' (lower damage, etc. - things mostly related to their threat level)
Oo.. Controversial, I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That changes the consistency of the game and will irritate players who have different ranks of "skill" (again, the problem already exists in defining this - twitch-skill isn't very good). Now it's going to be "bad to be good" and "good to be bad".
Basketball is a great example of a simple, balanced game (get your friends, find a court, find a ball) that can be so much fun and have so much more depth and meaning with enforced rules and a pool of motivated, like-minded players as it reaches higher plateaus of competitive play. Comparing NS to a sport like basketball probably isn't fair - this is just my train of thought.
It has nothing to do with being pompous or not. If you lack the ability to accept input from others (read: narrow-minded), then any further discussion with you is pointless.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point of the thread is to give a general idea of what most players need to make a round of NS fun. With this general idea, it would be possible to have a better direction for suggestions on how to achieve these player needs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To give <b>your</b> idea of what makes NS fun, you mean, of course. Which is fine. I just needed that cleared up. Other interpretations, and their related solutions, can go in another thread.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you look at the other topic I made that shows the flaws of ranked servers, you'll see that I think the whole idea is not practical or desirable to implement. Yes - basing ranked servers on twitch-skill is bad, but that's just the beginning. There are PLENTY of arguments in the other thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so,
Q: Are you against Ranked servers in general? Is your only argument 'choice'?
A: Answer too ambiguous. Probably yes.
Q: Are you against it if (as in the given proposal) it were based on twitch-skill?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you be against it if there were an implementation based on achievements or a wider variety of statistics (or something else)?
A: No answer given.
Mind clearing things up?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point of saying that NS2 might be different is that IF you choose to develop a ranking system before you know what's really going on in terms of game balance and individual contributions, there's a big possibility of getting a useless or badly flawed system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you overlooking the fact that by the time we 'know what's really going on in terms of game balance and individual contributions' the game will be in final stages, or probably already have shipped?
I thought the point of suggestions was to bring something new and untried to the table while it's still in its developmental stage; not to debate that an idea <b>will</b> <i>not</i> work since there is no past evidence to support it working, or because we can't yet quantify certain aspects of the idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There really is no single solution to making rounds of NS fun. However, RSS definitely does help by building communities of regulars who play the game in an agreeable way amongst themselves. If implemented correctly, RSS can also be used to grant access to players with certain levels of proficiency in NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you agree then, that it isn't a solution?
Since the problem was about prohibitive gaps in skill level making the game un-fun for novice (and other) players. So RSS is entirely irrelevant.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The skill preview system involves giving players a chance to see how mainstream or competitive servers play. Every account will have a choice (not forced by any ranking system) of playing on protected "novice" servers or graduating to "mainstream" servers. Once you choose to graduate, you cannot go back unless you appeal through NSGuides.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds good. Sounds stupid. Doesn't sound bad though.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That changes the consistency of the game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for stating the obvious. <b>*</b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and will irritate players who have different ranks of "skill"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see it irritating better players (relative). But you would think that better players would be playing on better servers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(again, the problem already exists in defining this - twitch-skill isn't very good).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have faith.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now it's going to be "bad to be good" and "good to be bad".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>Warning: liberal use of the subjective words 'good' and 'bad'.</i>
You're simplifying it too much. Actually: It's going to be bad to be good but playing on a bad server. And it's going to be good to be bad but playing on a good server. <b>Ideally</b>, they balance out. So if you're playing on a bad server, you're going to be just as bad as everyone else. If you're playing on a good server, you're going to be just as good as everyone else.
"It's going to be bad to be good but playing on a bad server." Actually, this part of the idea *really is* about irritating better players that want to pwn noobs. It acts in discouraging good players from playing on bad servers. (As well as the following: )
"And it's going to be good to be bad but playing on a good server." This part though, is about giving novice players the chance to hold their own against better players.
I used and/or for a reason though. If you think implementing only one part works, or both parts work, or to not implement it at all, then say so.
Before you throw out the 'griefers' or advanced players creating new accounts and such arguments, remember that these are anomalies.
Again, I'm not sure if I fully support the idea, for <b>that*</b> reason; but I thought I'd throw out the idea anyway.
I think the biggest change this would create is uncertainty. For example, it would mean the bite/para combo may not necessarily guarantee you a kill because of your debuff(s) or other players' buff(s). Still, uncertainty isn't always bad.
This is a very interesting statement. I'd say a game that is too simple would be more likely to die down after a year. A complex game with simple objectives, like StarCraft, should be the goal IMO.
<!--quoteo(post=1676201:date=Apr 18 2008, 04:30 PM:name=tenciter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tenciter @ Apr 18 2008, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676201"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basketball is a great example of a simple, balanced game (get your friends, find a court, find a ball) that can be so much fun and have so much more depth and meaning with enforced rules and a pool of motivated, like-minded players as it reaches higher plateaus of competitive play. Comparing NS to a sport like basketball probably isn't fair - this is just my train of thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is the higher levels of play aren't there without the complexity unless you want to make the game more like Quake/UT with twitch skill dominating.
The point is the higher levels of play aren't there without the complexity unless you want to make the game more like Quake/UT with twitch skill dominating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the players make it complex. basketball or chess by itself are extremely simple games; NS by itself has a lot going on (especially compared to other, more popular FPS games). This thread is about what makes a round of NS fun, so I was just throwing the idea out there that maybe the RTS/FPS genre can't be fun for the masses due to its complexity. Sort of like a young kid who just wants to play checkers because they can't get around the complexity of chess. I'd be curious to see which is the more popular game in north america considering all age groups: chess or checkers?
a good antilag like in call of duty, aequitas,
with this features pubbers play better.
Thats not the question, that question implys "If you had to pick a game to play what would you pick chess or checkers" the better question would be "do you play chess or checkers regularly?"
This will show im sure that chess is a better game (as i am assuming that chess is played regularly by a much larger audience than checkers). If your asking what people would play if they HAD to it does not show a representation of a good game becasue it is on a one of occasion in which they are being forced to pick between two games they do not even care about.
Whether people actualy play it on a regular basis does show representation of a good game becasue they CHOSE to play it regularly proving that is provides good entertainment and they dont get bored of it.
And no basket ball is not less complicated than NS, when we have about 18 referees in NS all holding a stopwatch for different time based rules and then 17 more referees just to watch the game then you can call it LESS complicated. <ol type='1'><li>Basket ball has statergy, so does NS.</li><li>Basket ball is a Very fast game, so too can NS be a very fast game.</li><li>Basket ball is about offence and deffence.. guess what??</li><li>Basket ball is a team game, that relies on team work.... must i say it?</li><li>Basket ball needs to be moderated for unsports man like conduct... You know what im gonna say...</li><li>Basket ball requires invenative and dynamic game play... Ns... Yes...</li><li>OMG NS has DIFFERENT LIFE FORMS THOUGH AND GUNS!!!, Deffence players and offence players?</li><li>OMG BUT IT TAKES TIME FOR NS TO UPGRADE AND STUFF, Dont even bother trying to beat basket ball on any complexity level to do with timers and stopwatches...</li><li>NS has a commander!!! team Captain and coach?</li><li>NS has gorges!!! cheer leaders?</li><li>NS IS THE BEST EVER, opinion... some people think basket ball is good.</li></ol>Oh and the viva la resistance... Basket ball is played by real people not a computer that means they have FLUID MOVEMENT and are not limited to commands programmed within the game... people playing basket ball can see their feet...
Anyway i dont really follow basket ball and if i had to ide say a game of NS over a game of basket ball... but dont start saying stupid ###### like NS is more complecated than basket ball... becasue it MIGHT be but to say it is... is stupid...
What im getting at is that Basket ball is good becasue its complex, notice that Basket ball is a huge sport and net ball is played by girls in high school... that cos one is complex and the other is simple... ("Oh btw girls when you have the ball you arnt allowed to move, just to make it easy for you")
Chess has HUGE player following even though its so stupidly old becasue at one point as a kid you get bored of checkers becasue its too simple...
Would a rubix cube be fun if it was 2x2x2 as opposed to 3x3x3... NO it bloody wouldnt!!! is the answer... I know that your for some reason in favour of making the game less complecated to increase players and that all these are really stupid examples but to be fair if NS reduced its Real Time Statergy hold over the game and made it more of a straight First Person Shooter... Why the hell would anyone play NS over CS??? And with the new Aliens game coming out then they could just play that for a First Person Shooter + Aliens...
What im getting at is there are more and more games with First Person Shooter and Aliens or one of the other small things NS offers... What there isnt is a First Person Shooter + Real Time Stratergy combination that can compair to NS so that should be the thing we build on... Not reduce...
In regards to building or reducing the complexity of NS for NS2: you're missing the point. No one wants to 'dumb down' NS. We just want to make the game less complex, or <b>appear</b> less complex, when you're a <b>beginner</b>. As Radix would describe it: <i>Information Hiding</i>.
Since we're using the chess analogy, the 'chess pieces' are the players at ground level, while the 'chess player' is a combination of the commander and the individual actions of ground level players.
In chess, it's simple enough because you've got a set number of pieces that move in a set number of ways; with a set number of rules and objectives - it's easy enough to pick up. The complexity in chess comes from the way your pieces and your opponent's pieces interact on the board and how you reach the objectives - this is what takes mastering.
But for NS, there's complexity both at the ground level, and at the entry level - which is problematic esp. for newer players. And in regards to overall strategy and winning games: there's also the fact that the 'rules' are less defined because of individual players' (pieces') ability; and that 'pieces' really move any way they want, without regard for an overall strategy (what the commander and text/voice communication attempt to remedy, but may fall short with).
removing all exploitable and net cvars, and introducing a serius anticheater, <b>this makes a round of NS fun</b>.
my2cent
bb
The idea was that he was grouping "chess and basketball" in the same group of complexity while chess is turn based and basketball is lots of people moving very fast independantly and that it is unfair to make comments on complexity when your idea of complex games is quite false.
It was quite unimportant to everyone except tenciter.