Alternate Casual and Competitive Server Difficulty Elements
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">This Idea Is Not Even Refined Enough To Go In I&S</div>What would happen, hypothetically, if you set up a suite of gameplay elements for different difficulty rated servers, where the easy servers would help you aim (not much, just a moderate-weak magnetic effect when the crosshair was near a target), would give you hudhints, would show you what kind of areas were strong for ambush (considering lighting, wall angles, and spaciousness of the room, for instance), would auto-direct you instead of making the comm waypoint you, would give the comm suggestions for what to upgrade, and perhaps would auto-drop you meds (but not ammo) on call if you were hurt, but would do it slowly so that it didn't short out the commander's resources?
I'm not even in support of this idea yet, but I want to do a though experiment if anyone is interested. Servers flagged as competitive would of course have none of this.
I'm not even in support of this idea yet, but I want to do a though experiment if anyone is interested. Servers flagged as competitive would of course have none of this.
Comments
Aim assistance is why most PC FPS players consider Console FPS players a joke. It wouldn't be wise to invite that mentality into this community. People have to learn to play the game, not have the game be played for them.
Aim assistance is why most PC FPS players consider Console FPS players a joke. It would be wise to invite that mentality into this community. People have to learn to play the game, not have the game be played for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As well as this fine point made by fire there would also be no equivilant alien alternative to the suggestions provided.
Aim assistance is why most PC FPS players consider Console FPS players a joke. It would be wise to invite that mentality into this community....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the forums are a priority over a better influx of players if it would help to accomplish that. I don't see where it would cause chaos in the game if you clearly defined the servers when players were picking "here aim is easy" "here aim is harder". And it wouldn't have any effect on the competitive community, as it's only a starter setting, so that's not a good argument either.
<!--quoteo(post=1676403:date=Apr 21 2008, 09:59 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 21 2008, 09:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see why people are trying to go beyond the server labeling idea, assuming they want a soft solution. ... People have to learn to play the game, not have the game be played for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasoning behind this idea is almost NS-specific; if NS2 is to be strategic, what would be the harm in adding training wheels while players learn the overarching abstract elements of the game, and then letting them transition to real gameplay on intermediate or advanced servers? It would still be a soft option, but it would let new players get a grasp on the game in a less (as Flayra has described it) painful way than they currently have to, pensively distracted from the task at hand because they're busy trying to get a grasp on the major objectives in a somewhat daunting task for a newcomer. I think it would make <i>entry into the game</i> and the learning you're talking about far easier and quicker. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that it's worth talking about.
<!--quoteo(post=1676404:date=Apr 21 2008, 10:18 AM:name=PsympleJester)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PsympleJester @ Apr 21 2008, 10:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676404"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As well as this fine point made by fire there would also be no equivilant alien alternative to the suggestions provided.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Showing people where to ambush isn't an equivalent? Aliens is easy mode, and the purpose of this isn't to decrese skill, it varies widely from the objective of matchmaking, in that this gives new players a way to ignore the hardest technical elements of gameplay while they're <b>just getting started</b>. After that they can move on to normal or (if matchmaking is implemented in any form) advanced servers.
Firewater I think I understand where you're coming from, you seem to not want training wheels for players under the premise that games should require players to think on their feet, and in an ideal world I would agree, but please consider the environment many gamers are currently expecting - there are many games (in fact, currently the most popular ones) that require next to, or no skill to play - nor do they expect a player to have any more cognitive ability than an ant. If a skillful and complex game like I very much hope NS2 will be is to compete in an environment like that, I think that it's wise to discuss ways of helping new players along who are just stepping out of a dark chasm like World of Warcraft into the blinding light of a real challenge like I hope NS2 will be.
It would effect both communities because neither are completely static. It would cause a social rift amongst the community, and these forums. This rift would be potentially harmful. "Its only a starter setting" is really poor as well. Combat was supposed to be made for 5v5 or less play. Now look how its evolved. Imagine the admin abuse that could exist with some built in aim-assistance. "If you are a favored member, you can get aim-assistance". No, this is a terrible idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reasoning behind this idea is almost NS-specific; if NS2 is to be strategic, what would be the harm in adding training wheels while players learn the overarching abstract elements of the game, and then letting them transition to real gameplay on intermediate or advanced servers? It would still be a soft option, but it would let new players get a grasp on the game in a less (as Flayra has described it) painful way than they currently have to, pensively distracted from the task at hand because they're busy trying to get a grasp on the major objectives in a somewhat daunting task for a newcomer. I think it would make <i>entry into the game</i> and the learning you're talking about far easier and quicker. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying that it's worth talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If NS is supposed to be so much more strategic, why even have the human component? Eliminating the skill gap in some servers is going to damage this game, and make it completely shallow. Think the game is stagnant now? With aim assistance, individual player skill won't matter as much, and tech will. Since the computer will be helping with the aiming, the only thing that will really matter is tech. Whats to stop LMG rushes? Hell my former team coined that strategy without aim assistance and pulled it off frequently. Imagine with Aim Assistance? Rush a hive spawn camp, cap nodes, tech. The marines would have a ridiculous advantage over the aliens assuming the same start up is still there.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Showing people where to ambush isn't an equivalent? Aliens is easy mode, and the purpose of this isn't to decrese skill, it varies widely from the objective of matchmaking, in that this gives new players a way to ignore the hardest technical elements of gameplay while they're <b>just getting started</b>. After that they can move on to normal or (if matchmaking is implemented in any form) advanced servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want the game telling me where to ambush. No it is not an equivalent to aim assistance at all. Despite its purpose not to decrease skill, you will in fact decrease skill. The conditioning a player receives in these servers as well as feelings of positive reinforcement will not generalize to servers without this aim assistance. These players may wander, and they may not enjoy the other servers where they get a sense of mastery and accomplishment, because there will most likely be none to have. A see a whole group of players staying on these aim assistance servers and not learn how to play the game properly. This will cause a split in the community, as well as negative social effects and a shallow and stagnant community.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firewater I think I understand where you're coming from, you seem to not want training wheels for players under the premise that games should require players to think on their feet, and in an ideal world I would agree, but please consider the environment many gamers are currently expecting - there are many games (in fact, currently the most popular ones) that require next to, or no skill to play - nor do they expect a player to have any more cognitive ability than an ant. If a skillful and complex game like I very much hope NS2 will be is to compete in an environment like that, I think that it's wise to discuss ways of helping new players along who are just stepping out of a dark chasm like World of Warcraft into the blinding light of a real challenge like I hope NS2 will be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are other ways to allow newer, more casual players have a good time while playing NS. There was a discussion of a tutorial that maybe included. I think that is a wonderful idea.
I plan on (if I have time) to re-launch an NSlearn equivalent to assist with the more advanced skills. techniques, and strategies/tactics that will eventually come up. Of course, if I cannot do this, someone else surely will.
Also, another way to allow server labeling. These newer players can flock to the casual/open servers where there will be a more tolerant community for newer players that are going to make mistakes.
But as far as aim-assistance, or having the computer tell you where to ambush? Sorry man, I CANNOT support that idea.
While I think auto-aim isn't a good idea for some of the reasons previously mentioned, ambush tips(or commander tips, not auto-med) are a different animal entirely. One of the early podcasts talked about giving players that don't seem to know what to do advice. This wouldn't split the community any more than cl_autohelp does now. As long as the play tips stay client side(which auto-aim would not) we won't run into a BS scenario.
I think you may be right overall, and like I said before, I don't even support this idea yet, at least not in the state it's defined in.
With that said though, I think you may be extrapolating too much from the current twilight age of NS into how NS2 would be in an early-to-prime age. Combat was added around version 3 if I remember right, which was after a very large span of time in natural selection's prime (cal) years. Adding a new style of gameplay ushered in a new style of player (the cs kiddie) just as many of the old school ns players would have been tapering off simply out of boredom toward an againg game. This happens with all games, NS is no exception. You seem to be looking at the NS populace as one group who suddenly migrated to co_ as soon as it was out, but I believe that's a mistake for the reasons I just mentioned, and even if some ns_ players did migrate to co_, the argument still holds as co_ was a different style of play, and a game does, no matter how deep, eventually get boring if you play it enough.
Additionally, an admin can abuse anything - that argument is no more valid than saying that administrators can give themselves extra health or invulnerability or cloaking with no sensory chambers.
<!--quoteo(post=1676412:date=Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If NS is supposed to be so much more strategic, why even have the human component? Eliminating the skill gap in some servers is going to damage this game, and make it completely shallow. ... Rush a hive spawn camp, cap nodes, tech. The marines would have a ridiculous advantage over the aliens assuming the same start up is still there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aiming is hard. These servers would be catering to new players. New players' technical incompetence is multiplied while they're just starting out. I don't think you'd see this scenario as much as you're insinuating. You essentially seem to be mixing scenarios from clan play with examples clearly defined as being newbie-oriented, and while <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->aim assistance would be horrible if it actually did make its way into competitive play<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, I'm not so sure it would, especially if a very explict naming convention such as "training mode" were implemented instead of calling the server "casual players play here".
<!--quoteo(post=1676412:date=Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The conditioning a player receives in these servers as well as feelings of positive reinforcement will not generalize to servers without this aim assistance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does an 8 year old learning to ride a bike get negative conditioning once he's ready to ride without training wheels? Does he finally learn to enjoy mountain biking where training wheels get in the way more than help, and balancing the bike so that he can make sharper turns? Do you have so little faith in the cognitive ability of a given player in the <b>dawn</b> rather than twilight of a game, that you think that he or she will never give up the training wheels? I guess that's the position you hold, and I guess you may be correct, and I guess there's no way to really know one way or the other, but I guess I'm not necessarily of the same opinion, at least not at this point.
<!--quoteo(post=1676412:date=Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 21 2008, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There was a discussion of a tutorial that maybe included. I think that is a wonderful idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A tutorial is essentially what I'm suggesting here, but it would be a multiplayer variant. It's possible that it would work fine without aim assistance and ambush hints - would that work as well? It very well might. Firewater I understand and agree with you on how important deep skill is in a game, and I realize after experiencing NS's untimely death to Combat it's more than reasonable to be a little defensive, but I'm not at all sure that history would repeat itself if another system which was clearly marked as being for training purposes only, were implemented in a new game with a new set of players.
Thank you, I'll go a little bit more in depth.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With that said though, I think you may be extrapolating too much from the current twilight age of NS into how NS2 would be in an early-to-prime age. Combat was added around version 3 if I remember right, which was after a very large span of time in natural selection's prime (cal) years. Adding a new style of gameplay ushered in a new style of player (the cs kiddie) just as many of the old school ns players would have been tapering off simply out of boredom toward an againg game. This happens with all games, NS is no exception. You seem to be looking at the NS populace as one group who suddenly migrated to co_ as soon as it was out, but I believe that's a mistake for the reasons I just mentioned, and even if some ns_ players did migrate to co_, the argument still holds as co_ was a different style of play, and a game does, no matter how deep, eventually get boring if you play it enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Combat's purpose was to provide a game that can be played with a small amount of players. I'll address this later in the post.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Additionally, an admin can abuse anything - that argument is no more valid than saying that administrators can give themselves extra health or invulnerability or cloaking with no sensory chambers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only way to do this is to actually "hack" the server with 3rd party plugins. No first party software actually supports this. If aim assistance is in, then that would be first party. Currently there are no admin plugins that allow a player to get access to perfect aim.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aiming is hard. These servers would be catering to new players. New players' technical incompetence is multiplied while they're just starting out. I don't think you'd see this scenario as much as you're insinuating. You essentially seem to be mixing scenarios from clan play with examples clearly defined as being newbie-oriented, and while <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->aim assistance would be horrible if it actually did make its way into competitive play<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, I'm not so sure it would, especially if a very explict naming convention such as "training mode" were implemented instead of calling the server "casual players play here".
Does an 8 year old learning to ride a bike get negative conditioning once he's ready to ride without training wheels? Does he finally learn to enjoy mountain biking where training wheels get in the way more than help, and balancing the bike so that he can make sharper turns? Do you have so little faith in the cognitive ability of a given player in the <b>dawn</b> rather than twilight of a game, that you think that he or she will never give up the training wheels? I guess that's the position you hold, and I guess you may be correct, and I guess there's no way to really know one way or the other, but I guess I'm not necessarily of the same opinion, at least not at this point.
A tutorial is essentially what I'm suggesting here, but it would be a multiplayer variant. It's possible that it would work fine without aim assistance and ambush hints - would that work as well? It very well might. Firewater I understand and agree with you on how important deep skill is in a game, and I realize after experiencing NS's untimely death to Combat it's more than reasonable to be a little defensive, but I'm not at all sure that history would repeat itself if another system which was clearly marked as being for training purposes only, were implemented in a new game with a new set of players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're not talking about 8 year olds. We're talking teenagers and adults mostly. Your example is flawed because you are assuming that the majority of players playing this game will have 0 FPS experience. Also a kid learning to ride a bike is not in a game where one side wins, and the other loses. No sense of mastery is developed by watching someone get sent into the spawn queue based on your/your team's merit. A kid learning to ride a bike is learning just to ride a bike, without any competition. Training wheels for bikes are all good and fine, but as far as an online game goes? Make a single player tutorial, and allow players to enjoy the game with everyone else.
You again, say for a specific purpose. The community does not care about specific purpose, for training, combat or whatever. Combat as evolved into this retarded red-headed step child, when in the beginning had so much promise. Your training mode would no doubt become abused.
Tutorials and all are great, but they should be completed off-line. If people have questions the majority of players would be more than happy to answer them. But as far making a special server mode for a tutorial? I really don't see the point. New players don't need to babied, they need to receive information. When they get conditioned to a certain thing I think that will be severely different for a player to go into a regular server without their computer aided guides to do anything. And that is assuming the computer aided training is actually useful.
I'm hardly being defensive, as NS's time was hardly infinite. My whole point is that when something is released to be used for a "purpose" it can/will be abused because people feel like abusing it.
1. Mouse acceleration (for a lot of people)
2. Differences in the POV from marines to different forms of aliens. Many competitive players recognized this and got scripts to change sensitivity automatically when playing particular alien lifeforms versus marines.
3. Netcode glitches and inconsistencies
Looking at this idea in terms of learning...
I don't think that novice marines need that extra "edge" from magnetic aim to shoot what would be bad lerks, bad skulks, and bad fades. They need to practice aiming at things. From an alien perspective, novices desperately need to practice tracking and timing their attacks with melee weapons. Using magnetized aim isn't going to help very much with that.
Now, I understand that the point might be to introduce players to the game in a less stressful environment, but magnetizing aim really alters the feeling of the game and is going to introduce bad habits in players. Not only that, but what if we spawn an entire subsection of the community that plays on training wheels? I'm personally not against this, since I think that people will decide to play whatever they like most anyway (for example, if combat wasn't there, then the players would just go and find something else - and it wouldn't be NS if they didn't like NS).
The question is: if such a training mode existed and was readily available to server admins (as combat was along with the numerous retarded plugins later on), what incentive would players have to play on more challenging servers?
The hardest thing i found on more (pro) servers was the speed the game developed. If theres a good comm and a team of players that know what theyre doing, everything happens fast tactically speaking, nodes get capped, hives get built/rushed or seiged ect.
If there were to be a beginner mode on some servers, id look to add loads of hints as already mentioned, and slow the rate of the game down, to all players to get their bearings.
I dont think a competeing community would develope for a beginner mode because no one wants to be assocated with a beginner mode in a fan or competative sence.
The main issue i see with a beginner mode is it could detract from the game experience. Players could come to it, and decide they dont like it, or its too different from the normal game play, it could give the wrong impression about the game, it could allow the development of tactics that have no effect in the real game. Although i doubt a beginner mode would develope a different community it could cut players off from ns2
one idea maight be a team AI assistant. rather than just having a system of tips for individuals and AI could be created to give tips to individual as part of a team strategy. So the comm could get a choice, he could make the team AI assistant select a stratergy, such as, take hive position1 or cap nodes, or some other item, or possibly two items, then the AI could administer tips to individuals to set them on the task of acheiveing the goals the comm had sett, then the comm coudl just develope more complex strategies if needed, change the AIs goals when he needed, and get used to his other tasks
Three reactions came to mind after reading that.
Auto-aim?
HELL NO! (even on a trainer server. How would you ever learn?!)
Commander upgrade tips?
Great idea! Sounds like a nice an addition to cl_autohelp 1.
Auto-med & auto-resupply?
Like the PhaseEQ plugin currently used on some trainer servers?
This needs to be said:
Players <b>should not have to</b> turn to third-party or community-developed forums, sites, tutorials, etc. just to learn the game. Making entry easy for newer players is the job of the developers; and that's exactly what players- consumers- will expect.
<!--quoteo(post=1676449:date=Apr 22 2008, 03:22 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 22 2008, 03:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676449"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With that said though, I think you may be extrapolating too much from the current twilight age of NS into how NS2 would be in an early-to-prime age. Combat was added around version 3 if I remember right, which was after a very large span of time in natural selection's prime (cal) years. Adding a new style of gameplay ushered in a new style of player (the cs kiddie) just as many of the old school ns players would have been tapering off simply out of boredom toward an againg game. This happens with all games, NS is no exception. You seem to be looking at the NS populace as one group who suddenly migrated to co_ as soon as it was out, but I believe that's a mistake for the reasons I just mentioned, and even if some ns_ players did migrate to co_, the argument still holds as co_ was a different style of play, and a game does, no matter how deep, eventually get boring if you play it enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well-said.
And Firewater seems to have missed the point of Radix' '8 year old' example. It has nothing to do with 8 year olds, really. It's really about how <b>people</b> sometimes, perhaps often, need a helping hand when they want/have to learn something (eg. training wheels). It's the reason we have schools, apprenticeships, traineeships etc.; and the reason most people who are serious about learning to swim don't just 'jump in the deep end'.
The <b>game</b> should of course have a degree of challenge, but being a multiplayer game that challenge will come in the form of opponents; <b>learning</b> the game however should not be challenging at all, and one should never have to struggle against the game.
And I really don't understand this fixation with creating this fanciful and "tightly-knit" community - it's impossible <i>unless</i> you <b>shut out</b> other people. There's also the fact that, if you put people of all different mindsets in the same room, they're probably not going to get along, especially on the internet where anonymity gives you leave to be impolite.
If you really want a community without divisions (on the internet), then you can only have a community with like-minded individuals (which is how you could vaguely describe this one, a bunch of guys whose common interest is in playing a pretty much dead game).
But I personally think that you should cater to different people, different communities, different mindsets and styles of play - an overarching community (that isn't related to development) should take a backseat. "Dividing the community" really isn't as bad as you make it sound.
As for how dividing the community relates to training assistance, it doesn't - and I'm surprised anyone could yet again make that comparison. Training servers will clearly be for training - no one wants to be a trainee forever.
Auto aim-assistance is considerably controversial though, and I'm not sure I like the idea since it does change the consistency of the game. Tracking and aiming <b>should</b> be made easier somehow though. Maybe through a tracking crosshair (in which you will still have to move the mouse to follow the crosshair)?
I don't understand what the issue with having <b>more information</b> (eg. places which have the criteria for, and are marked as ideal for, an ambush) is. It's a great idea.
Aim magnets rely on location based damage. The magnet draws you to the body, whereas most players will want a headshot for more damage. This is how it works in most FPS games that use the feature. NS, of course, didn't quite work that way. However, if NS2 made very good use of location based damage then you could probably get away with magnets.
In addition, if NS2 was to make the jump to XBOX 360 (and why not?) then you have the issue of the console guys trying to use a thumbstick to match the player with a mouse. Quite a few "cross-platform" FPS games allow the console players the option to use a magnet as a way of trying to level the playing field (again, comparing the ease of shooting the body with the increased damage of a headshot).
On the whole, it must be noted that NS is a fairly fast and twitchy FPS experience. Its not like some games where you can afford to line up the headshot. In NS, by the time you've spotted a Skulk, it's on you. No magnet is going to help you, as it is a reflex game. Lets not even begin to get started on a Blinkhappy Fade.
I do however agree entirely that NS would benefit from a comprehensive training system. Note that I do not say it requires one (not a comprehensive one, tho I would say it requires a Commander one), but merely that it would benefit from one. Basic clearing, weapons training, guide to key targets on an enemy, Commanding, how not to block corridors as a Gorge, how not to get walked on by an Onos, and how to manage your upgrades.
Some of these could be interactive (Marines would be the easiest, due to being fairly mundane), but you could get away with a few training videos to cover any holes. These could no doubt be accessed from the main screen, rather than requiring a visit elsewhere.
Players <b>should not have to</b> turn to third-party or community-developed forums, sites, tutorials, etc. just to learn the game. Making entry easy for newer players is the job of the developers; and that's exactly what players- consumers- will expect.
Well-said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, the developers will not learn the most complex strategies, and advanced techniques, they don't have to. Who better to teach the community than the players who find these tactics and techniques? The developers can go over the basics sure, but the advanced techniques come from the community.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And Firewater seems to have missed the point of Radix' '8 year old' example. It has nothing to do with 8 year olds, really. It's really about how <b>people</b> sometimes, perhaps often, need a helping hand when they want/have to learn something (eg. training wheels). It's the reason we have schools, apprenticeships, traineeships etc.; and the reason most people who are serious about learning to swim don't just 'jump in the deep end'.
The <b>game</b> should of course have a degree of challenge, but being a multiplayer game that challenge will come in the form of opponents; <b>learning</b> the game however should not be challenging at all, and one should never have to struggle against the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point except for the fact that given in NS when there was no training, there was a pool of advanced players that were able to step up and figure out the nuances of the game. I understood the analogy perfectly, but it was still flawed. Sarisel said it best when a player was doing well on these "trainer servers" what would compell them to leave? Even with the training wheels, its often the PARENTS not the child that encourages them to try a 2 wheel bike. The younger child would be happy just to ride the bike on the training wheels.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And I really don't understand this fixation with creating this fanciful and "tightly-knit" community - it's impossible <i>unless</i> you <b>shut out</b> other people. There's also the fact that, if you put people of all different mindsets in the same room, they're probably not going to get along, especially on the internet where anonymity gives you leave to be impolite.
If you really want a community without divisions (on the internet), then you can only have a community with like-minded individuals (which is how you could vaguely describe this one, a bunch of guys whose common interest is in playing a pretty much dead game).
But I personally think that you should cater to different people, different communities, different mindsets and styles of play - an overarching community (that isn't related to development) should take a backseat. "Dividing the community" really isn't as bad as you make it sound.
As for how dividing the community relates to training assistance, it doesn't - and I'm surprised anyone could yet again make that comparison. Training servers will clearly be for training - no one wants to be a trainee forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This "fixation" comes from the thesis of NS1. As addressed EARLIER, the developers wanted this to be a unique social experience focused around a communities and such. This fits in perfectly with the FPS/RTS model as there theoretically always a new tactic to talk about, or a new strategy etc.. etc...
I'm all for segregation of the community, if it were completely possible (i.e. seperate competitive and casual players) but unfortunately both groups have a thing in common that causes controversy. Each group has their own idea of what "balance" feels like in the game and they both argue their sides accordingly. Best thing we can do is provide incentives for those to stick with the play style they feel comfortable with (via. SERVER LABELING and RESERVE SLOTS).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Auto aim-assistance is considerably controversial though, and I'm not sure I like the idea since it does change the consistency of the game. Tracking and aiming <b>should</b> be made easier somehow though. Maybe through a tracking crosshair (in which you will still have to move the mouse to follow the crosshair)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should this be the case?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand what the issue with having <b>more information</b> (eg. places which have the criteria for, and are marked as ideal for, an ambush) is. It's a great idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My main concern is that the information provided will be "giving a man a fish" rather than "teaching a man to fish"
If the game gives out X amount of ambush spots etc... it teaches the player where to go. A half way decently smart marine is going to know where these spots are because the game would have taught them. That marine simply needs to play a logic game to figure out where the "newbie" skulk is because of the ambush spots the game would tell them (assuming these spots are EFFECTIVE).
Having the game tell a player what to do at all time will not increase quality of play, it will simply increase predictability. I do not know of an in game system that can teach the theory of playing NS, but I certainly know a few programs that can teach just that. This is why I am against automated spots because the computer can only show the spot, not teach the theory behind it, which is infinitely more important than a few predictable hiding spots.
Take that concept and generalize to the whole auto-help system that would be designed for strategy and tactics.
Certainly when I play as Marine, I'm checking my favourite lurking spots. Being primarily an Alien player, when I do go Marine I know where I hide my chambers, where I have healstations for the Fades, etc etc..
Aim assistance is why most PC FPS players consider Console FPS players a joke. It wouldn't be wise to invite that mentality into this community. People have to learn to play the game, not have the game be played for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT
Umm, let me emphasise bits of the piece of my post that you quoted.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This needs to be said:
Players should not have to turn to third-party or community-developed forums, sites, tutorials, etc. <i>just to learn the game</i>. <b>Making entry easy for newer players</b> is the job of the developers; and that's exactly what players- consumers- will expect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interesting point except for the fact that given in NS when there was no training, there was a pool of advanced players that were able to step up and figure out the nuances of the game. I understood the analogy perfectly, but it was still flawed. Sarisel said it best when a player was doing well on these "trainer servers" what would compell them to leave? Even with the training wheels, its often the PARENTS not the child that encourages them to try a 2 wheel bike. The younger child would be happy just to ride the bike on the training wheels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a very good point about that analogy. So I agree, the analogy is flawed. But you haven't really addressed what I've said in that quote, so again, you're missing the point. Simply put, the <b>basis</b> for that analogy, is <b>not</b> flawed.
And putting it that way, you could say that new players are both the young children and their parents; young children will not understand that they should move onto a 2-wheel bike; but I'm assuming players are mature enough to understand that it's simply training - they are the 'parents' to themselves. So again, no one wants to be a trainee forever.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This "fixation" comes from the thesis of NS1. As addressed EARLIER, the developers wanted this to be a unique social experience focused around a communities and such. This fits in perfectly with the FPS/RTS model as there theoretically always a new tactic to talk about, or a new strategy etc.. etc...
I'm all for segregation of the community, if it were completely possible (i.e. seperate competitive and casual players) but unfortunately both groups have a thing in common that causes controversy. Each group has their own idea of what "balance" feels like in the game and they both argue their sides accordingly. Best thing we can do is provide incentives for those to stick with the play style they feel comfortable with (via. SERVER LABELING and RESERVE SLOTS).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, no, by your reasoning the best thing we can do is make separate games for competitive and casual players. ie. balance games separately for competitive and casual players; meaning you're introducing a clear definition for competitive and casual servers, and not just a labelling. *shrug* It's an interesting thought.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why should this be the case?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because "aiming is <b>hard</b>". It's especially true in NS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My main concern is that the information provided will be "giving a man a fish" rather than "teaching a man to fish"
If the game gives out X amount of ambush spots etc... it teaches the player where to go. A half way decently smart marine is going to know where these spots are because the game would have taught them. That marine simply needs to play a logic game to figure out where the "newbie" skulk is because of the ambush spots the game would tell them (assuming these spots are EFFECTIVE).
Having the game tell a player what to do at all time will not increase quality of play, it will simply increase predictability. I do not know of an in game system that can teach the theory of playing NS, but I certainly know a few programs that can teach just that. This is why I am against automated spots because the computer can only show the spot, not teach the theory behind it, which is infinitely more important than a few predictable hiding spots.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. It's not telling new players <b>what to do</b>. It's telling players what they <b>can</b> do. New players <b>do not understand</b> that ambushes are an important tactic and often crucial to winning engagements. If you give them information then quite probably they'll learn 'patterns' or 'trends' - they'll learn from the onset that ambushes can occur, and that they're important; it no longer becomes a trial by fire.
In fact, in regards to that example you've given (marines knowing the noob skulks' ambush spots), you could even give tips of where to 'tread lightly', ie. where you could be ambushed. So that no side has a clear advantage in information.
<!--QuoteBegin-Necrosis+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, after a few rounds playing as both sides, most players catch on pretty fast as to what constitutes an interesting hiding spot.
Certainly when I play as Marine, I'm checking my favourite lurking spots. Being primarily an Alien player, when I do go Marine I know where I hide my chambers, where I have healstations for the Fades, etc etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahah. Good point.
Essentially, you can encourage certain behaviours and tactics when you give new players the information necessary for such. You're not telling them <b>what to do</b>, just what they can do, and how they can do it.
Of course, it all comes down to implementation. <b>If</b> they only 'give a man a fish' then of course there's a problem, but if the writers of these tips understand that they need to 'teach a man to fish' then I'm sure they'll do it right.
So, quoting myself:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand what the issue with having more information (eg. places which have the criteria for, and are marked as ideal for, an ambush) is. It's a great idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's already been covered how an admin could decide to give auto-aim to his mates and leave it off for everyone else. But having an aimbot in the game would make it a lot easier for hackers to simply find a way to eneble it for themselves.
The next thing is that it can create a level of dependancy for certain players. In using this system they are not evolving in the slightest, so if they ever do decide to go to a server where this isn't enabled, most will find themselves completely outclassed -not because the players are naturally more talented, but because they have spent longer playing the game as it should be played.
---
Finally this can actually cause a sense of frustration because autoaim doesn't fit that well with fast-paced multiplayer (Halo 3, for example, I haven't noticed having it). I've been testing a PC port of a console game recently that has carried over the aim-assist of the original console versions. I can tell you that on a number of occasions I've found myself auto-aiming at completely the wrong enemy when 2 are next to eachother, simply because the game chooses to aim at the closer enemy of the two, regardless of whether it is the more dangerous. You have to remember that in NS all the different player classes present a different threat, so the player NEEDS the option to fire at exactly whichever enemy he chooses. An auto-assist function would take away this selection process, effectively breaking the game.
You mentioned ambush points, for example. Now if you were told on arrival that you were in danger of being ambushed, you would lose that shock factor of being ambushed, and the learning process that goes with it. Getting ambushed the first time is frustrating for a new player, but in a good way. The next time they get to that spot they may think to check the ambush spot and take another enemy player by surprise, which is rewarding. If you take away that learning process the game is ultimately less interesting and less rewarding.
I think the tooltips thing would be the most beneficial thing to implement. Imagine if the first time a player saw an Onos an on-screen prompt came up telling them new information was available. This would be displayed in the pause menu, so they could choose when to take a look at it. The sort of information would be a brief rundown of the Onos's strengths and weaknesses, something that wouldn't take too long to read, but that would let them know that they shouldn't attempt to take it on single-handed with an LMG.
The same could go for structures, etc. Just the basics to let new players understand what might be considered a waste of res, or what might be better to ask first before dropping.
I mean, it'll be on Source, so consider (if you will) a training map with "dev commentary" telling you "This is a good hiding spot! Why is it good? Because X, Y, Z! See if you can find some more in this map!" followed by an objective to find 5 waypoints lurking on the map.
Its not a thing that will work well in the main game. Well, barring aim magnets, which would be necessary for <b>consoles only</b>. To be honest, half the problem with aiming in NS isnt that skulks move fast (they're meant to!) but is that new players aren't fully clued up on the hitboxes.
To be honest, I got a lot better at Marine <i>very</i> quickly when I used custom skins with the sweet spots painted neon. Now knowing where to shoot, I could go back to using my fine Aliens and Predator skins, heehee.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's all as peachy as you believe it to be. So I'll have to disagree with you there.
If, however, the incomer can foresee this possibility and pre-empt it, with the possibility of killing the ambusher, then there's no reason to throw in a tutorial to invalidate that sort of intelligent thinking. There are many ways to do this, throw a grenade, walk or stop and listen for movements, motion tracking, run forward and then jump backwards, or simply go round the corner firing.
Why should the player be denied the ability to better themselves and out-think the other player simply because there is a risk they will die when rounding a corner? Dying in a multiplayer isn't as severe as dying in a singleplayer in terms of player frustration (depending on respawn time). When you die and respawn it's a soft punishment that helps you learn. There really doesn't need to be a tutorial message every time you enter a dangerous area, or the danger is removed and somewhere a part of the game's atmosphere dies.
The only possible concession I'd make to this suggestion would be a simple 'distance to Hive' graphic on the HUD that lets you know how close you are to the nearest spotted Hive. This way you can come to your own conclusion that a corridor 20m from the Hive is more likely to contain a Skulk than a corridor outside the Marine start. This isn't playing the game for you, instead it's just giving you information and letting you do the math.