Alternative Solutions for Fairness
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">skill communism vs skill capitalism</div>A little while ago I posted an article about Fairness and Balance[<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=105867&hl=" target="_blank">thread</a>][<a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090309/newheiser-a.shtml" target="_blank">article</a>] in games which I thought had some good discussion behind it. The main takeaway of the article was that fairness was perceived differently by newbie and competitive players. Newbie players always want a chance to win, otherwise how would the game be fun, and competitive players always want skill to be maximized and randomness minimized, otherwise what's the point of playing. I'm going to focus on solutions that minimize randomness because I think that real randomness(die rolls) is a bad solution. This is not to be confused with apparent randomness which results from player decisions.
<u>Match Making</u>
The consensus that resulted from the original thread was the soft ranking and/or matchmaking can allow players of like ability to play each other and have a good chance of winning while still basing the game on skill overall. The decision for "fair play" is in the hands of each player and can be subverted by each player.
<u>Newbie Counters</u>
I still think match making is a good approach, but <b>snoogums</b>'s mention of the infamous blue shells(<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107682&view=findpost&p=1733699" target="_blank">his description</a>) in MarioKart got me thinking about the topic again. The blue shell is trying to prevent allowing the race to be irrelevant for a losing player in a skill mismatch. I think the approach of the blue shell isn't necessarily bad(although I can't think of a good example of it OTOMH) but there are strengths and flaws:
<ul><li> Strength: Easy to use by new player</li><li> Strength: Can't be used by dominant player to "win the game more"(although still overpowered)</li><li> Necessary Evil: Negates skill of dominant player(Strength for newbie, Flaw for dominant player)</li><li> Necessary Evil: Newbie player is forcing version of "fair play"(Strength for newbie, Flaw for dominant player)</li><li> Flaw: Randomly assigned </li><li> Flaw: Best weapon in the game(overpowered)</li><li> Flaw: Doesn't have a <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html" target="_blank">yomi layer</a> counter</li></ul>
<u>Voluntary Handicaps</u>
So providing easy to use counters for high skill moves is a possible solution, but it seems excessively complicated if you have to design multiple counters because there are so many pitfalls. I also dislike the fact that the affected player is not the one making the choice. I think handicaps are a good way for two players of different skill levels to compete without diminishing the skill of the dominant player and putting the control back in the hands of the affected player. Common handicaps include tech level, resources, equipment, health, speed, and attack power. I think health, speed, and attack power should be avoided because I'd rather not change the way the game is played, but they can be more tailored to a single player which is desirable.
Sorry for the novel. Any suggestions for handicap systems or other ideas for "fairness"?
<u>Match Making</u>
The consensus that resulted from the original thread was the soft ranking and/or matchmaking can allow players of like ability to play each other and have a good chance of winning while still basing the game on skill overall. The decision for "fair play" is in the hands of each player and can be subverted by each player.
<u>Newbie Counters</u>
I still think match making is a good approach, but <b>snoogums</b>'s mention of the infamous blue shells(<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107682&view=findpost&p=1733699" target="_blank">his description</a>) in MarioKart got me thinking about the topic again. The blue shell is trying to prevent allowing the race to be irrelevant for a losing player in a skill mismatch. I think the approach of the blue shell isn't necessarily bad(although I can't think of a good example of it OTOMH) but there are strengths and flaws:
<ul><li> Strength: Easy to use by new player</li><li> Strength: Can't be used by dominant player to "win the game more"(although still overpowered)</li><li> Necessary Evil: Negates skill of dominant player(Strength for newbie, Flaw for dominant player)</li><li> Necessary Evil: Newbie player is forcing version of "fair play"(Strength for newbie, Flaw for dominant player)</li><li> Flaw: Randomly assigned </li><li> Flaw: Best weapon in the game(overpowered)</li><li> Flaw: Doesn't have a <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html" target="_blank">yomi layer</a> counter</li></ul>
<u>Voluntary Handicaps</u>
So providing easy to use counters for high skill moves is a possible solution, but it seems excessively complicated if you have to design multiple counters because there are so many pitfalls. I also dislike the fact that the affected player is not the one making the choice. I think handicaps are a good way for two players of different skill levels to compete without diminishing the skill of the dominant player and putting the control back in the hands of the affected player. Common handicaps include tech level, resources, equipment, health, speed, and attack power. I think health, speed, and attack power should be avoided because I'd rather not change the way the game is played, but they can be more tailored to a single player which is desirable.
Sorry for the novel. Any suggestions for handicap systems or other ideas for "fairness"?
Comments
However there are some interesting things the team is doing, not to close the skill gap between individual players, but to close the way the games tipping point affects the entire team. The power grid design allows the teams to take advantage of the other teams dominance to work against them. In this way there is a sort of negative feedback to allow a less skilled team to at least make a marginal come back and will probably lead to longer more satisfying games even if the individual skill levels are pretty off. Even a pwnzer player can't be everywhere at once, and hence the system self corrects the one player wins the game problem.
Sorry if this wasn't directly relevant to what you posted. I did in fact read your novel though! :P
When it comes to multiplayer games like FPS there is a large implementation gap between what makes a game accessible and what makes a game fair and balanced.
I'll use Counter-Strike as an comparison example:
Balance and fairness:
When a game loads everyone had 800 dollars and can only afford pistols.
Whoever wins the first round gets a money bonus and then has an advantage.
A new player joining later in a map will only have the starting 800 while others will have guns and money to spend, giving the new player an overall disadvantage.
Skill can still overcome any amount of disadvantage if the player is very smart and engages when he has a complete advantage, and he can close the gap by collecting weapons from fallen foes and opponents.
Knowing what is good to use also helps, and players who use weapons suited to them will win even if their choices are limited.
So CS is only fair and balanced when the game starts, but skill is enough to make a large impact.
Accessibility:
When a player joins the guns all work the same on a basic level (point and shoot) everyone moves the same speed and the game play is a lot like any other game.
Grenades, armor and other items function as expected so a new player can easily join and play the game, even if they die a lot because it is clear what they need to improve at.
Compared to NS:
Balance and fairness:
With asymmetrical game play the two sides will have an overall balance <i>if both teams are equally experienced and skilled</i>.
If you were to load a server with completely new players the odds are the Marines would dominate for a while.
Players would see an onos as overpowered if they didn't understand the costs behind making one effective.
Often players compare a single player to single player when determining fairness, so a Fade who kills 5 marines quickly will be seen as overpowered to new players, while a group of marines who hose down aliens at a distance would seem overpowered to new aliens even though the two approaches are different and overall balanced.
If you were to add in some complicated unbalancing feature (like bunny hopping due to it completely bypassing the speed settings for different units) it appears even more unbalanced to new players who haven't mastered that ability although it comes out balanced in competitive play where everyone knows how to do it.
Accessibility:
Since the alien team is so different from a standard FPS unit (except maybe AvP2) the learning curve is very high for newcomers and therefore accessibility is reduced.
Abilities that require multiple actions to complete increase that inaccessibility (the old weapon switching process that was replaced by +movement which increased accessibility while still leaving the skill difference intact).
Features that are used for unintended purposes (skulk elevators for gorges) that aren't apparent but widely used should be accounted for in accessibility because new players who are unaware of those uses can get frustrated by not understanding the game.
Community acceptance of new players is the biggest accessibility issues for new players. When a game as complex as Natural Selection has a new player join, the help and attitude of the players will affect the accessibility of the game. Helpful experienced players will show new players how to do things that are not obvious from reading about the game or to show things that are just known to experienced players like building SCs in vents is better because being bumped reveals them, and they are less likely for a marine to kill. It isn't just game play itself that makes something accessible.
NS should not have handicaps for new players in the way of bonuses or abilities that try to bridge the gap between experienced and new. Since teams are comprised of multiple players, the balance should rest in the spread of experience and a limit on how much the experience affects the games outcome (but it should have a noticeable effect). Having slightly more skill should not crush the opponents, and overall teamwork and upgrades should have the most effect.
In NS1 the early Fade was the deciding factor in most games, that is too much to be put into one position for a team based game. Just like the change from a single gorge to multiple temp gorges the goal of this game should be teamwork and both accessibility and balance should be based on the team aspect.
So some suggestions for NS2 balance regarding new players:
Keep all bonuses/increase in abilities open and obvious (I know the devs have said they want to avoid invisible damage modifiers like the 1/2 damage to hive type things). This allows new players to be more effective and adds to accessibility.
Keep the lower powered units relevant. No hard counters that make a single unit worthless.
Keep abilities easy enough to use but situational. Autobite on leap for example makes a speedy entry into close combat more accessible for aliens by combining two actions they already do in most situations. Just like auto reload, not taking damage when landing from a jet pack, getting health from the Armory, auto healing from structures, etc. Keeping something more complex than necessary just to make it 'skill based' is not a good reason.
Matchmaking:
There's no real solution other than imposed by server admin since things like knowing when to do certain things aren't related to the ability to kill and stats would just make people behave differently (no reason to die as skulk if you can save for fade to improve your K : D...)
Handicaps are not good for NS game play. Either the team does well or doesn't. The RTS idea is to allow one team to dominate, and as long as the overall game play is balanced the better team should win. As long as the game is accessible to new players and the teams are balanced there will always be an influx of new players and skilled players will still dominate less skilled ones, just not the extent of NS1.
Your post is quite relevant :-). I hadn't thought of it before but it is interesting that the expansion risk/reward payoff is emphasized by the power grid - phase gates. I wouldn't quite call it negative feedback, but it is a good example of a "newbie friendly" counter that doesn't use randomness or nullify the skill of individuals.
NS already has tons of options (fades, onos, shotguns, HMGs, GLs, hand nades) that provides new players with huge individual handicaps. Add in the fact that NS is a team game that supports 15+ players and even a first time player can "win" a game.
The NS new-player experience is not flawed at the individual skill level. None of the players I have introduced to the game were frustrated by their inability to leap+bite, blink+swipe, bhop, dodge bites, or pistol skulks. Actually, they have always been quite intrigued by my ability to hop faster than them. They were always much more frustrated by their inability to simply understand what-the-###### was happening. Thus, its not a matter of catering micro game mechanics (bhopping, autobite, air control, etc) to new players but rather making the overall flow of the game much more obvious.
In truth, individual skill becomes most frustrating for mid level players (a lot of the people on these forums); players that have a full understanding of the game but still cannot compete with top players because of individual skill. Again, the new player skill issue is a myth. It actually exists more so with mid level players that like to complain about getting dominated. As for this problem, its not a problem at all; its great gameplay.
I'm going to guess your friend has competitively played another FPS or at least played it extensively. At low levels of play twitch skill is extremely important. This is a well-known aspect of FPS games.
<!--quoteo(post=1734167:date=Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS already has tons of options (fades, onos, shotguns, HMGs, GLs, hand nades) that provides new players with huge individual handicaps. Add in the fact that NS is a team game that supports 15+ players and even a first time player can "win" a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you advocate for a voluntary individual tech limiting? Fair enough, this is possible now. It would be interesting to see a formalized version and that's what I was talking about here.
<!--quoteo(post=1734167:date=Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The NS new-player experience is not flawed at the individual skill level. None of the players I have introduced to the game were frustrated by their inability to leap+bite, blink+swipe, bhop, dodge bites, or pistol skulks. Actually, they have always been quite intrigued by my ability to hop faster than them. They were always much more frustrated by their inability to simply understand what-the-###### was happening. Thus, its not a matter of catering micro game mechanics (bhopping, autobite, air control, etc) to new players but rather making the overall flow of the game much more obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but I would hate to see the overall flow of the game simplified too much either. I think the powerline system is expanding it rather than diminishing it for the most part so I don't have any complaints there. But I've seen a push by some vocal players to focus on micro game mechanics to the exclusion of tactical and strategic mechanics. NS1 has both and should keep both IMO.
<!--quoteo(post=1734167:date=Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In truth, individual skill becomes most frustrating for mid level players; players that have a full understanding of the game but still cannot compete with top players because of individual skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the <i>most</i> frustrating part is where a player doesn't know what he is doing or why he's getting killed.
I'm not disagreeing that there is a decent gap between mid-level players and "top" players, but a lot of it is still twitch(landing 90% of bullets instead of 50-70%) and being able to follow a jumping marine with good air control. I agree that an autoleap-bite could eliminate the aircontrol gap if it is implemented poorly and that's one of the reasons I'm wary of it. My goal with this topic is not to reduce that middle gap(that's a separate argument for a smooth learning curve which I don't currently have an opinion on), but simply give ways for players of varying skill to play the same game(in the case of matchmaking not on the same server though) and enjoy it.
<!--quoteo(post=1734167:date=Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, the new player skill issue is a myth. It actually exists more so with mid level players that like to complain about getting dominated. As for this problem, its not a problem at all; its great gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish you wouldn't end your posts with troll statements like this though. It just demeans the conversation.
Nope, casual gamer. Plays CS:S maybe a few times a month but mostly plays console games; less experience than the target NS audience.
<!--quoteo(post=1734169:date=Oct 27 2009, 11:13 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 27 2009, 11:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734169"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wish you wouldn't end your posts with troll statements like this though. It just demeans the conversation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if I don't layer my claims in passive bull###### like most people.
Basically, your goal of making a competitive game enjoyable for new players vs expert players is not worth pursuing.
Popular athletic sports serve as a great model for any competitive game. Just as soccer, basketball, football, or baseball should not strive to make it enjoyable for an amateur team to play a professional team neither should NS. Such is a necessary evil to allow any enjoyment from a competition.
Instead, the best and only solution is to keep a healthy playerbase with a range of different players.. For this, I am suggesting the issue is not between a player and his opponent but rather a player and his own understanding.
Some people are naturals at twitch gaming if your friend actually exists it hardly makes him representative.
<!--quoteo(post=1734172:date=Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734172"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry if I don't layer my claims in passive bull###### like most people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if I don't consider you a champion of "the truth".
<!--quoteo(post=1734172:date=Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734172"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically, your goal of making a competitive game enjoyable for new players vs expert players is not worth pursuing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you're entitled to your opinion just as I'm entitled to mine. I'd say NS2 is aiming for a broader audience than Warsow though, and handicapping would allow for exactly that.
<!--quoteo(post=1734172:date=Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734172"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Popular athletic sports serve as a great model for any competitive game. Just as soccer, basketball, football, or baseball should not strive to make it enjoyable for an amateur team to play a professional team neither should NS. Such is a necessary evil to allow any enjoyment from a competition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And rules in all of those sports are changed at lower levels of play. Your point doesn't really follow.
I agree with this point only in that there aren't any "official" steps taken to dumb down sports from professional to amateur. HOWEVER, there is a large framework in place to almost completely insulate skill mismatches from happening (using american football as an example: ameteur, high school division, college division 1; division 2; division3; NFL league...) Each of which only plays against each other. Now it is possible to have such a framework in NS2 in the form of pubs vs. clan/competitive play, but its definitely not going to be as good an insulator as those in place for athletic sports.
That being said I think NS2 should take on more of a "your team is only as strong as its weakest link." Not as a stringent design philosophy, but just to bring some homology to how skill is distributed over an entire team. A team of mediocre players should be able to beat a team of nubs with one pro player. If your familiar with some probability distribution theory I'm basically saying that the weighted average of "skill" should be more important than the maximum value.
<!--quoteo(post=1734172:date=Oct 27 2009, 08:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 08:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734172"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry if I don't layer my claims in passive bull###### like most people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess that makes you a rebel? seriously dude, you just proved locallyunscene right :P
NS already has tons of options (fades, onos, shotguns, HMGs, GLs, hand nades) that provides new players with huge individual handicaps. Add in the fact that NS is a team game that supports 15+ players and even a first time player can "win" a game.
The NS new-player experience is not flawed at the individual skill level. None of the players I have introduced to the game were frustrated by their inability to leap+bite, blink+swipe, bhop, dodge bites, or pistol skulks. Actually, they have always been quite intrigued by my ability to hop faster than them. They were always much more frustrated by their inability to simply understand what-the-###### was happening. Thus, its not a matter of catering micro game mechanics (bhopping, autobite, air control, etc) to new players but rather making the overall flow of the game much more obvious.
In truth, individual skill becomes most frustrating for mid level players (a lot of the people on these forums); players that have a full understanding of the game but still cannot compete with top players because of individual skill. Again, the new player skill issue is a myth. It actually exists more so with mid level players that like to complain about getting dominated. As for this problem, its not a problem at all; its great gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
interesting..
My friend was the exact same, he was interested in how i air strafed at a marine as a skulk and nailed him with a focus bite, he had prolly 5-25 as a skulk but o god it was funny when h esaid whats that huge thing makin large footsteps? on our team or thiers? i said go bite it! ITS WEAK!! *bites hmg HA with skulk*, i guess it was the thrill of the alien playstyle for him.
however he was confused half of the game i had to go do something and he like evolves to a gorge and just tries to use it to attack. Really left 4 dead tooltips would help big things saying *PICK UP THE PIPEBOMB!!!" and its outline etc.
or *Place a resource tower on this node for extra income*
*this is a hive room, it is a key area on the map, make sure its defended*
When you spawn as a marine for the first time
*follow the squad leader*
*build this armory, it provides you with ammunition and weaponry*
yea i know it does that but it appears in the smallest text at the side... like i only just relised i had tooltips going on a week or 2 ago because it was just so insignificant to me i did not pay attention during all the chaos. small things like This marine is really far away-parasite him.
It will help new players by literally telling them basic things to do.
also dont make it tiny text at the side. Big letters in the lower middle and KEYS and mouses with thier butotn highlighted help alot.
The idea that a team is only as strong as its weakest link got me thinking a bit, or at least that average skill across the team is worth more than maximum skill.
It's pretty optimal to satisfy the players in the team in a loss that way, in a human fashion we can then blame the loss on one person rather than feeling discontent ourselves by getting beaten, but rather that we were beaten because someone else on your team was 'worse' than you.
One game where this is really apparent is DotA/HoN. The general term of such a scapegoat for a loss in those games are called 'feeders', who gets killed over and over which makes the enemy team more powerful.
However it's not exactly a good method, since it would alienate and really turn off (your whole team is against you) those new players, but in general those who aren't that scapegoat may feel encouraged to play another game so to speak.
Anyway, really enjoying this discussion. It's very interesting.
It's pretty optimal to satisfy the players in the team in a loss that way, in a human fashion we can then blame the loss on one person rather than feeling discontent ourselves by getting beaten, but rather that we were beaten because someone else on your team was 'worse' than you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are absolutely correct, and in retrospect that was a terrible phrase for me to use there :P The average skill idea was more of what I was going for, so as long as that made sense.
*this is a hive room, it is a key area on the map, make sure its defended*
When you spawn as a marine for the first time
*follow the squad leader*
*build this armory, it provides you with ammunition and weaponry*
yea i know it does that but it appears in the smallest text at the side... like i only just relised i had tooltips going on a week or 2 ago because it was just so insignificant to me i did not pay attention during all the chaos. small things like This marine is really far away-parasite him.
It will help new players by literally telling them basic things to do.
also dont make it tiny text at the side. Big letters in the lower middle and KEYS and mouses with thier butotn highlighted help alot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that more emphasis needs to be put on those Help messages... maybe even add some audio in there if the budget permits. I really like FPS that have random AI voices of higher ranked individuals from their squad/division that are helping you out. A good example is COD4 when you're first trying out your guns at the shooting range and your Captain is walking you through all your weapons and is giving you basic hints such as "It will always be faster to switch to your knife then reload, and even faster to melee."
- If a player cares only about his team winning or losing, then NS is fair; it's close to 50:50 as far as the newbie is concerned, plus or minus some small contribution that they can make, but that may make all the difference in the world.
- If a player cares only about individually dominating, then NS is downright punishing; the newbie will almost never perform near the top of his team.
So, in NS, fairness isn't a problem if:
A) You care about a team win or loss, or
B) You can individually dominate
The key here is that understanding the flow of the game, and why your team wins and loses, is what makes a team-oriented fairness perspective rewarding, even for new players. And this is what NS makes difficult for them. It never was an issue with fairness, only complexity and transparency.
On new players,
<!--quoteo(post=1734167:date=Oct 27 2009, 01:37 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 27 2009, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They were always much more frustrated by their inability to simply understand what-the-###### was happening. Thus, its not a matter of catering micro game mechanics (bhopping, autobite, air control, etc) to new players but rather making the overall flow of the game much more obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- An in game tutorial that takes you through each tech upgrade and weaponry/life forms of each species. Not so much a single player game but a progression where each room would show you the advantages of said weapon/move/life form/tech upgrade and what structures were/see them in action.
- Once you run through this tutorial in game menus could help keep you on track (toggle able of course).
- Commanders have more animated ways to get you on track. Such as: Lit paths, mini map manipulation, or a commander HLTV view of what the player sees.
These ideas are of course not original by any means but would solve some of the gripes people have about the games sharp learning curve. I do not like the idea of dumbing down moves or having things automatically happen in hopes of new players finding the game more appealing. Fix the base knowledge level, then if that doesn't work makes things easier. The game already lacks from the lack of a single player mode. It would be like expecting people to start off being able to compete online in Starcraft 2 without ever going through the single player mode. Take the same arguments here and paste them into the Starcraft 2 forums and you would get flamed instantly.
I base much of my assessment on the number of teammates in a given spot. If their all in one room I conclude that I need to be in that room too, and usually this works out and I end up right where the heat is to help my team. Perhaps an automated system that recognizes hot spots and automatically puts an orange waypoint on the players hud? Perhaps some kind of buddy system where the game (or the commander?) pairs off teammates who always appear as markers on each others hud, thus cutting the probability that neither of them know where to go down to 25% (under some assumptions*). I don't really know, those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.
It so nice that we finally have a discussion thread that isn't in dire need of euthanasia :P
assumption* : probability of any one person not knowing where to go = 50%.
*quick edit - with the colored sector idea, maybe the comm can upgrade and downgrade color as well.
Now THAT is an amazing idea...
Fair rules:
Arguably, Quake and Counter Strike applies the fair rules principle. Every person is dropped into a system where they are treated exactly equally, and they progress only based on their individual actions.
Fair outcomes:
Team Fortress 2 applies a degree of the fair outcomes principle, in the form of critical hits and random damage. While it can be argued that critical hits are somewhat skill based as the percentage chance of getting critical hits increases in a linear fashion proportionally to damage done in the last 12 seconds, the truth of the matter is that the game is still dice rolling based on probability to randomly give a player a 300% damage boost. Random damage is also used to further modify player outcomes, as instead of weapons doing fixed damages they are instead put on a damage spread (for example, the pipe bomb launcher does between 80 and 120ish damage randomly for the same hit at the same distances). Even with the effects of individual actions not being completely disregarded, there is still a massive influence of probability added to gameplay due to the dice roll effect.
Personally, I have played two games competitively. I played Battlefield 2 from 2005 to 2007 and I have played competitive Team Fortress 2 from 2007 to now. Battlefield is a game that follows the fair rules principles relatively closely, when compared to Team Fortress 2. When assuming that each game had comparable level of relative skill within the competitive aspect of their communities, I would argue that the average Team Fortress 2 player is much less skilled in comparison to the average Battlefield 2 player. The reason for this is because Team Fortress 2 has fostered an approach in which it is essentially alright to not do well, as you'll still earn some points. Battlefield 2, on the other hand, will not give any points for a player who isn't comparably better than the people who you are playing agaisnt. While moving emphasis of a video game from being successful to having fun isn't necessarily a bad thing, in Team Fortress 2's case it has created a community of lone wolfs who are essentially just trying to have fun while in Battlefield 2 players even while lone wolfing tend to act in the interest of the team in order to score higher. This has lead me to conclude that while the system is not necessarily flawed because it encourages a more casual type of play, it is flawed in that it does not encourage players to play the game better. It is my general belief that this could be rectified by having Team Fortress 2's incentive system to simply reward productive behavior more than non productive behavior (IE give the same amount of points for healing just one person, but give even more points for healing more people).
Now I can't see NS2 fostering a low-skill community, especially from playing only on public servers where the skill level is pretty damn high.
Fair outcomes: ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I REALLY like that assessment of the situation. It actually sparked a little bit of mathematical intuition. I think we can very neatly describe the differences between 'fair rules' and 'fair outcomes' in a quantitative/statistical way in terms of mean player skill and win percentages. The fair rules vs. fair outcomes would be decided by a single parameter which would define the spread of some Gaussian and depend on only those parameters of the game which serve to add automation/randomness.
I can write something more formal up if anyone is the least bit interested in seeing the formal mathematical machinery I have in mind. Otherwise I wont garble the thread with math nerding :P
In elaboration of my contextual example: Battlefield 2 did an excellent job of this - medic revives and healing were highly valued in terms of points, and even more highly valued when you take into consideration the fact that if a player is forced to respawn that directly hurts the team (respawn tickets will decline). Team Fortress 2, on the other hand, did not do as good of a job using incentive based motivation in order to modify behavior to be beneficial to the entire team. In TF2's case, the medic class recieves what could be considered even less of an incentive for healing as it does for helping players kill other players. While their is nothing wrong with assisting, it is strange that the "healing" class is still focused around killing rather than keeping players alive. It isn't wrong that assisting kills gives points, but it isn't helping the team when a player acts in his own interest to keep just one player alive in order to reap the benefits of kill assist points rather than healing all the players around him in order to benefit the team as a whole.
In summary:
If it's fun, encourage it.
If it's fun and good for the team, encourage it more.
If it's fun and good for the team and can be improved, encourage it even more*
*Encourage the action and simultaneously make it known that improvement is possible
This general form of enforcement allows actions that are beneficial to the entire team to be encouraged to a level where people do them out of their own self interest, and unknowingly benefit the entire team. You don't think people in BF2 spam revives, med packs, and ammo packs just because they can? They do it because it gives them more points. The ironic side of this is that those exact things help other players achieve other actions also in their own self interest, which creates a positive-sum interaction that players are often completely unaware of. The important aspects of these gameplay aspects is that they need to be easy but with a high skill ceiling so that improvement is always possible, and that improvement actually shows direct feedback in the form of points.
I can write more on this later, it's pretty ###### late here and I have morning classes. <3
Arguably, Quake and Counter Strike applies the fair rules principle. Every person is dropped into a system where they are treated exactly equally, and they progress only based on their individual actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a little extra point for the discussion: CS allows newbies to gain instant moments of success by camping. It's not optimal or widely agreeable, but it still allows people to score even if they didn't particularly outplay the opponent or play for the team objective.
NS on the other hand is built around skulk 'camping', so it doesn't allow such instant easy frags. On marines it works to some extend, but the varying map situation, higher lifeforms and such make it a lot more ineffective way of fragging than in CS.
*quick edit - with the colored sector idea, maybe the comm can upgrade and downgrade color as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm.
This may possibly be the best Thing to ever come out of this thread, possibly this whole forum :P
Maybe abit of a overstatement
Fair outcomes:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree for the most part. That's a pretty elegant characterization of games. That's why I said solutions that minimize randomness in the OP. I knew that I didn't want NS2 to become a 20 min coin flip, but I didn't have a good vocabulary to say that.
Your description of TF2 is interesting. You think that crits effect quality of player joining competitve, thus bringing the whole thing down? When I was playing(right after the beta ended), the competitive config turned off crits in any match so it wasn't really a factor then.
NS on the other hand is built around skulk 'camping', so it doesn't allow such instant easy frags. On marines it works to some extend, but the varying map situation, higher lifeforms and such make it a lot more ineffective way of fragging than in CS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In CS camping only worked if the teams weren't working towards objectives, as if the bomb was down and a Terrorist was camping all the CTs had to do was watch the bomb, and if a CT was camping the Terrorists just had to plant...
But yeah, in NS ambushing is important for skulks although just like CS they need to ambush in a location that will help the team, either by denying an advancement, protecting a node location or other important place. Just getting kills in NS doesn't mean you are winning.
I also don't buy Homicide's story, the new player got a positive K : D on the first game and was just a casual player? Must of either had some really bad opponents or stuck with other players that covered his back.
Really not my words, they're the general simplification of "fairness" from sociology and economics and many other social sciences.
<!--quoteo(post=1734240:date=Oct 28 2009, 06:48 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 28 2009, 06:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1734240"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your description of TF2 is interesting. You think that crits effect quality of player joining competitve, thus bringing the whole thing down? When I was playing(right after the beta ended), the competitive config turned off crits in any match so it wasn't really a factor then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The effect critical hits had on TF2's community skill base is fairly complex. The first thing it did was make outcomes more equal, as regardless of player skill there is always that base 1 in 20ish chance to roll a shot that does 3 times more damage to an opponent for no real reason. This has two simultaneous effects. The effect on the player who rolled the critical hit is that they recieve positive reinforcement of their current actions, regardless of the actual effect they are having from within the game. The exact opposite effect is enforced on the opposite player, who is punished just as randomly by suddenly receiving positive punishment for something that was arguably completely out of their control and due to no actions on their part. From a competitive standpoint, and why the competitive TF2 scene removes random criticals and the random damage spread, this randomness is removed because it truly has no bearing on actual player skill since one player is helped and another harmed based on the actions of neither. What this did for the TF2 community is not necessarily decrease the amount of skill found in that community, but it did decrease the amount of incentives for getting better. Note that the skill input for the community is taken to be relatively the same as in all shooters, which may not be the case, and that the result is a stagnation of skill levels because outcomes are randomly distributed at least in part.
The counter example for this is of course Quake 3 Arena. The game has no system for providing equilized outcomes, and so the player's situation in game is largely a result of their own actions. This situation causes a case where in order to well, players must improve to the "status quo" level of the players they are playing with. Team Fortress 2 is not immune from this situation where players must improve to the status quo of the players arround them. The difference is primarily in the fact that because incentives for improvement are diminished after a point - the point where a player's benefit from improvement is lessened because of the prescence of critical hits and the damage spread. Because this does not exist in Quake, players continually strive to get better at all levels and therefore the status quo of skill levels is constantly rising. The same cannot be said for Team Fortress 2 on the same scale, because even if skill improvement is occuring it isn't occuring at a nearly relative rate simply because the benefit for Team Fortress 2 players on improvement is considerably less than for Quake players.
These are the basic arguments that this theory is based upon:
- Take for granted the assumption that players enjoy video games just for sake of playing video games.
- Also take for granted the assumption that players in the short term enjoy their experience more with a video game that the already enjoy if they are doing well in the game.
Now here's where all of this ties back into competitive gaming. In competitive Team Fortress 2, where the random elements have been removed, players have recieved huge incentives to improvement on an individual and team level when compared to straight public vanilla server play. This discrepancy between public and competitive play has created what appears to be two communities within the same game. While the public community and the competitive community within Team Fortress 2 started out with similar skill levels, the average skill within the competitive community is amazingly high compared to that of the public community.
Naturally, these skill level discrepancies are to be expected when looking at casual versus competitive players. The sad part of Team Fortress 2's situation is that the casual players have been left so far behind that they essentially have to learn what the consider a completely different game when compared to public Team Fortress 2. From a competitive player's standpoint this argument is laughable, largely because they realize that they aren't actually playing a different game but instead have simply changed the way they play to be the most optimized for their team's benefit.
The competitive vs pub gap is standard in all online games and has nothing to do with the TF2 implementation. The gap is created by the competitive players knowing enough additional detail and being able to take advantage of that knowledge that makes the gap so large. In NS and CS a competitive player will often appear to a casual player to be cheating simply because the gap in knowledge such as what movement nullifies cloaking, where common spots are to hide chambers, the better siege points, timing of swipe as a fade an when to run, etc.
The effect critical hits had on TF2's community skill base is fairly complex. The first thing it did was make outcomes more equal, as regardless of player skill there is always that base 1 in 20ish chance to roll a shot that does 3 times more damage to an opponent for no real reason. This has two simultaneous effects. The effect on the player who rolled the critical hit is that they receive positive reinforcement of their current actions, regardless of the actual effect they are having from within the game. The exact opposite effect is enforced on the opposite player, who is punished just as randomly by suddenly receiving positive punishment for something that was arguably completely out of their control and due to no actions on their part. From a competitive standpoint, and why the competitive TF2 scene removes random criticals and the random damage spread, this randomness is removed because it truly has no bearing on actual player skill since one player is helped and another harmed based on the actions of neither. What this did for the TF2 community is not necessarily decrease the amount of skill found in that community, but it did decrease the amount of incentives for getting better. Note that the skill input for the community is taken to be relatively the same as in all shooters, which may not be the case, and that the result is a stagnation of skill levels because outcomes are randomly distributed at least in part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I get the basic characterization of how crits fit in TF2 wrt fair outcomes and think it's pretty accurate.
The more complex point you're trying to get across is that casual players had less of an incentive to join competitive play because there was a smaller skill gap on public servers, correct? Basically, if there was much depth to the game, it would be obscured by crits?
It isn't that casual players had less of an incentive to join competitive play, but that they had less of an incentive to actually improve and become better players because the benefit within their context was lessened by the random aspects themselves. And I'm not talking simply about skill in terms of raw ability to frag, I'm talking about improvement as an overall of combined movement, aiming, tactics, and in-depth knowledge of class roles and abilities in terms of how they interact with the team as an overall. And Team Fortress 2 actually does have a huge amount of depth, the problem is that certain aspects of the game (like crits and the damage spread) create a large decrease in the incentives to take advantage of this depth and actually improve to a higher level.