Mainstream vs Indie
brownymaster
Join Date: 2009-07-11 Member: 68110Members
Join Date: 2009-07-11 Member: 68110Members
<div class="IPBDescription">aspects you want to see mixed/matched</div>This is the current state of gaming:
<img src="http://i46.tinypic.com/2mz5vt.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The Dev's already know this, but there's a ridiculous amount of repetitiveness and recycled content in the games people pay $60 for. They follow the formula, they get money, they move on. What I want to know is what are the mainstream things that you really think should be kept in or out of the game. I truly hate a lot of aspects of most mainstream games and have yet to play a CoD game (although I heard #2 was pretty good) and one BF game because of it. Do you think that NS2 should be a statement that breaking away from the mainstream can and will be successful? Is something as unique as NS that was able to build up a pretty large gathering for a free MOD able to come out with a free game that can get at least half the success of the mainstream crap? I want to know what you guys think about certain aspects.
#1. Earning achievements and unlocks
Every game nowadays has something you can earn or achieve to show that you've accomplished something, good or bad. These are generally enjoyable to receive. I honestly don't mind them in the game, as it's just a nice pat on the back for doing something. I don't mind postgame awards either after a round to show who's MvP, who did this who did that. I am, however, vehemently opposed to giving anybody an ingame advantage for being a veteran or newb. I don't think you should have to earn things from the game in order to be on equal ingame ground as other players. I believe in equal position in the games eyes. Personal knowledge is fine, but I think everybody should have access to everything and that any progression mechanic is really just turning the game into an MMORPG which I don't really want NS to be. If it ever does go down that route, make sure there's a competitive toggle for all weapons being unlocked in a server. Also, be careful with cosmetics, TF2 is a great study on them.
#2. Points and instant gratification
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNEKnifT5M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNEKnifT5M</a>
This trailer shows you how far many mainstream dev's have gone to please players with instant gratification by awarding a whole bunch of bonus points and clutter on the screen to say that "Hey, you've done something so we're gonna give you a cookie." NS had a simple system of awarding points to the killer, no crazy text showing aside from the death notice in the top. So I ask you, how much do you care about getting credit for team? Do you want need a mask for not having the top frags and OMG SUPER K:D by doing other tasks? I just want to know what you think about the point system. Points aren't necessarily bad for the game, as they do help the player know they are doing something useful. But should we hide things like in TF2 to encourage more team oriented play? Will it just allow players to do stupid things without fear of being noticed? I often work for the team (to the point where i regret helping people) but I never needed the points. Some people are encouraged by their point achievements, and I think it still might be a useful tool for guiding players in the right direction. What I absolutely do not want is the spam on screen of +50 KILLED ENEMY +50 AIRSHOT +100 SUPER ACCURACY +50 REVENGE KILL AVENGER KILL OMGLOL spammed all over my UI because I'm playing well. When I want to reflect on my performance, I'd rather look at the scoreboard (can't wait to see) and think back on how I've played and know that I did good on my own and tried my best, judging whatever I did right or wrong. I mean I wouldn't mind hints being played back for new players (so many silly ones like in SC2 and TF2, but admittedly might help some lost souls). I'm just saying I truly hate the text spam on my screen, as I like to be able to see the game and only be concerned with the immediate action and leave the points for looking at when dead, traveling, or postgame.
#3. Customizable UI, crosshairs, etc that aren't exploitable and free to use in any server.
I want to have a custom HUD/UI. Some people like having their ammo counters and everything in certain places, maybe increase the size of certain objects, etc. Custom crosshairs would be great too. I want to see client sided scripts (gonna refer to them as this because of the vehement script opposers) that can be used on any server that meet criteria so that even vanilla servers allow them. I basically want to see a system set in place that won't undermine customization by allowing certain customizations that give unfair advantages (ie model changing, "hacked" indicators that can show enemy HP/position/proximity or something for example). I just want to see reasonable customizations be possible in any server with a system that can check for truly unfair aspects.
I'll post more ideas later on mainstream aspects, but I'd like to get some input.
<img src="http://i46.tinypic.com/2mz5vt.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The Dev's already know this, but there's a ridiculous amount of repetitiveness and recycled content in the games people pay $60 for. They follow the formula, they get money, they move on. What I want to know is what are the mainstream things that you really think should be kept in or out of the game. I truly hate a lot of aspects of most mainstream games and have yet to play a CoD game (although I heard #2 was pretty good) and one BF game because of it. Do you think that NS2 should be a statement that breaking away from the mainstream can and will be successful? Is something as unique as NS that was able to build up a pretty large gathering for a free MOD able to come out with a free game that can get at least half the success of the mainstream crap? I want to know what you guys think about certain aspects.
#1. Earning achievements and unlocks
Every game nowadays has something you can earn or achieve to show that you've accomplished something, good or bad. These are generally enjoyable to receive. I honestly don't mind them in the game, as it's just a nice pat on the back for doing something. I don't mind postgame awards either after a round to show who's MvP, who did this who did that. I am, however, vehemently opposed to giving anybody an ingame advantage for being a veteran or newb. I don't think you should have to earn things from the game in order to be on equal ingame ground as other players. I believe in equal position in the games eyes. Personal knowledge is fine, but I think everybody should have access to everything and that any progression mechanic is really just turning the game into an MMORPG which I don't really want NS to be. If it ever does go down that route, make sure there's a competitive toggle for all weapons being unlocked in a server. Also, be careful with cosmetics, TF2 is a great study on them.
#2. Points and instant gratification
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNEKnifT5M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNEKnifT5M</a>
This trailer shows you how far many mainstream dev's have gone to please players with instant gratification by awarding a whole bunch of bonus points and clutter on the screen to say that "Hey, you've done something so we're gonna give you a cookie." NS had a simple system of awarding points to the killer, no crazy text showing aside from the death notice in the top. So I ask you, how much do you care about getting credit for team? Do you want need a mask for not having the top frags and OMG SUPER K:D by doing other tasks? I just want to know what you think about the point system. Points aren't necessarily bad for the game, as they do help the player know they are doing something useful. But should we hide things like in TF2 to encourage more team oriented play? Will it just allow players to do stupid things without fear of being noticed? I often work for the team (to the point where i regret helping people) but I never needed the points. Some people are encouraged by their point achievements, and I think it still might be a useful tool for guiding players in the right direction. What I absolutely do not want is the spam on screen of +50 KILLED ENEMY +50 AIRSHOT +100 SUPER ACCURACY +50 REVENGE KILL AVENGER KILL OMGLOL spammed all over my UI because I'm playing well. When I want to reflect on my performance, I'd rather look at the scoreboard (can't wait to see) and think back on how I've played and know that I did good on my own and tried my best, judging whatever I did right or wrong. I mean I wouldn't mind hints being played back for new players (so many silly ones like in SC2 and TF2, but admittedly might help some lost souls). I'm just saying I truly hate the text spam on my screen, as I like to be able to see the game and only be concerned with the immediate action and leave the points for looking at when dead, traveling, or postgame.
#3. Customizable UI, crosshairs, etc that aren't exploitable and free to use in any server.
I want to have a custom HUD/UI. Some people like having their ammo counters and everything in certain places, maybe increase the size of certain objects, etc. Custom crosshairs would be great too. I want to see client sided scripts (gonna refer to them as this because of the vehement script opposers) that can be used on any server that meet criteria so that even vanilla servers allow them. I basically want to see a system set in place that won't undermine customization by allowing certain customizations that give unfair advantages (ie model changing, "hacked" indicators that can show enemy HP/position/proximity or something for example). I just want to see reasonable customizations be possible in any server with a system that can check for truly unfair aspects.
I'll post more ideas later on mainstream aspects, but I'd like to get some input.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1780939:date=Jul 20 2010, 12:31 AM:name=brownymaster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (brownymaster @ Jul 20 2010, 12:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1780939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you think that NS2 should be a statement that breaking away from the mainstream can and will be successful? Is something as unique as NS that was able to build up a pretty large gathering for a free MOD able to come out with a free game that can get at least half the success of the mainstream crap? I want to know what you guys think about certain aspects.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The devs should make the game they want to make with the resources they have without worrying about what artificial titles (mainstream, indie) people want to slap on it.
As far as getting feedback on your two points; I don't understand the point of achievements at all and instant gratification is why the vast majority of gamers play games.
also to note in some games especially in fast paced action anything besides a visual cue in the corner of the map signifying that you downed an enemy is useful. For me I like audio cues that only play when youve killed a player so you know that what was just in your crosshair is not something you have to focus on any longer.
<!--quoteo(post=1780946:date=Jul 20 2010, 04:43 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 20 2010, 04:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1780946"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The devs should make the game they want to make with the resources they have without worrying about what artificial titles (mainstream, indie) people want to slap on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT waiting for someone to say this and this what these forums trolls need a big dose of.
What I meant by instant gratification was just getting a pat on the back from the game for doing something, not just because it helps the team out. I know it's pretty much built on getting instant gratification, but I meant an even more artificial gratification than just playing the game.
EDIT: I could care less what a game is labeled. I honestly never bothered figuring out what was indie or not or even knew what it meant when I started to play. It's just what I see in other fields that seem to be major successes by big companies.
The Dev's already know this, but there's a ridiculous amount of repetitiveness and recycled content in the games people pay $60 for. I truly hate a lot of aspects of most mainstream games and have yet to play a CoD game (although I heard #2 was pretty good)
#1. Earning achievements and unlocks
I don't think you should have to earn things from the game in order to be on equal ingame ground as other players. I believe in equal position in the games eyes.
Also, be careful with cosmetics, TF2 is a great study on them.
#2. Points and instant gratification
NS had a simple system of awarding points to the killer, no crazy text showing aside from the death notice in the top.
I'm just saying I truly hate the text spam on my screen, as I like to be able to see the game and only be concerned with the immediate action and leave the points for looking at when dead, traveling, or postgame.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I approve of this post 100%. With the adding of achievements, I can already see NS2 gravitating towards the maw of mainstream-ism. It's in much need of a reminder why NS succeeded and why it is a <b>sequel</b>.
achievements. unlocks. hats: if you're going to put this cruft in, better make sure there is a way to take them out. easily.
As far as points go, I think OP is only half right about the excessive use of them in some games. In most FPS games, I don't care that I've killed someone in some strange and magnificent way, I don't care if it was by fire or bullets, I just care that they aren't moving anymore. There are exception to it though. The example video of bulletstorm comes off to me as being a sort of arcade-y game where you're realy only in it for the fantastic ways to end life. In that case, it's more likely that you're going to be looking for those "Oh! Did you see that?!" moments, and having the game acknowledge them is certainly worthwhile. Also, some games like Modern Warfare 2 seem lke the give bonus points for doing things, but those bonues points are actually "experience" points that have no impact on the gameplay. As far as the match is concerned, you only get that first 50 for the kill and nothing else (though, why it's 50 instead of 1 is well worth another debate). In this case the acts are contributing towards personal growth that transcends the game where rewarding skill is appropriate. Outside of situations like these though, it is certainly excessive.
I'm also glad you mentioned TF2. It has one of the best point systems I've seen in a game. Pretty much everything is geared toward constructive teamplay. My kill/death ratio is normally terrible throughout a single match, but my score does not reflect this. Instead it reflects how often I extinguish teammates that are on fire, or set opponents on fire and let my stronger teammates finish them off, or destroy enemy buildings while the engineer who built them is gone. There are even points just for having people stand by your own dispenser while it heals them. None of that will get me direct "kill" points, but they are all useful in terms of gameplay and awarding points for them promotes useful behaviour. A point system like that should be much more commonplace.
Its like every mode of entertainment. There is a safe zone, that guarentees a high monetary return. It doesn't matter than 90% of films released in a year will be exactly the same, with a different setting and characters, or that just about every song on the radio has the same underlying theme. All that matters is there are consumers who are sponges for the stuff.
This means that trying something different is taboo, by the sounds of it NS2 is far from being "more of the same", it certainly isn't going to be mainstream because of the addition of achievements.
Although I do agree that playing the game and advancing yourself should be the only achievement required, big publishers have bred a new era of instant gratification hunters.
No, but it's arguably worse, since going semi-mainstream means you tarnish both identities. It's like the tween who thinks dressing like the popular girls will make her cool, with the moral always being: Be yourself. NS isn't being itself right now. The gameplay it was founded on was never about achievements, hats, and silly other gimmicks like purchased armour. They're trying to copy the fat cats with the end result being they're no longer NS and at the same time they're still a ways from fat cat.
I think it's fine if they have feet planted in both sides. Flayra wants to go beyond being a mod of a game and be its own standalone product. The gamers who are looking for a team-based FPS that isn't set in contemporary times need production value beyond what NS1 had in order to come back and to recommend it to friends.
You obviously just want NS1 with updated graphics. God forbid they add (easily implemented) content, er gimmicks. Shut up about hats already.
I like mainstream games, and most indie games that advertise their 'indieness' are boring auteur crap that isn't entertaining, wheras I have yet to play a mainstream big-publisher FPS from a well known FPS team that wasn't everything I wanted when I bought it. Mainstream games have basically raised the FPS to an artform, so if you want to know how to do one, go ask infinity ward or valve or id.
Some game types that aren't found in mainstream games have good points, games like X3 for example have a lot of depth to them and are a refreshing break from FPS games, but X3 also sucks REALLY hard when it comes to interface design, smooth operation, and graphical appeal. If you took X3 and gave it a AAA blockbuster budget, hired a team of expert artists and all the latest technology to make it look amazing (and space games really can look amazing because they're just models floating in a void, lots of room to work with) and then sat down and forced the designers to make the building and economy aspects appealing and approachable to the average halo fanboy, then you'd get a much better game.
Something as complex as the X3 economy can be done much more easily in a game like anno 1404, which actually has an almost identical economy but you can control it entirely from one screen using the mouse to click a few buttons. Anno is a much more approachable game, but it has a very similar economic and building depth to X3, and is generally a lot more fun to play in that respect.
So mainstream games become mainstream because they perfect the formula, they remove all the annoying things and make something that is immediately playable and enjoyable enough that you want to keep playing it until the end. They do this by making a dozen copies of the same game or similar games, ironing out more bugs each time. Half life builds on early FPS games like quake and doom and feels a lot like them. Call of honourable duty medalzone 3 and associated games all follow the call of duty-ish formula and do it very well. A game becomes mainstream when it is so refined and polished and playable that really anybody can pick it up, play it, and enjoy it.
So all games should aim to be mainstream, because it means the same thing as 'universally enjoyable' or close enough. You can try to make a more isolated genre that popular, or you can try to improve upon an existing popular genre or add your own slant to an existing popular one. But mass appeal should always be paramount because it comes only with the kind of polish and efficient design that enriches any game.
Natural Selection is "itself". But that's an incredibly inane statement because we are talking about a commercial sequel to a free half life 1 mod.
Let me reiterate that argument because you have missed that fact numerous times.
...COMMERCIAL SEQUEL.
Stop whining. NS2 is a retail game now made by a company who has to pay the bills. How one misses such an easy observation, I have no clue. If you want a so-called "pure experience", go back to free mods.
I won't even touch your other multiple errors.
Although your post is not wrong, id software was "indie" until very recently, when zenimax aquired them, though I recall reading that zenimax will not change the way id make their games, what I look forward to is a bethesda title that uses megatexturing ;)
And - X3's interface must be a preference thing, because I didn't find it all that difficult, although I do know a person who couldn't figure out how to buy anything. Also at time of the games release it was reviewed in many places as looking better than sci fi TV shows.
There is however a difference between "mainstream" and "good".
Although as I said your post isn't wrong, it could also be said that, like the music industry has for years, if the publishers feed us crap for years, crap thats slightly better would be praised so highly as to be sold for £40 and become steam's top seller. And "mass appeal" comes at the cost of catering for the lowest common denominator.
There is no way to say what is right or wrong on a topic such as mainstream games.
I can use X3s interface, but I can use anno's much faster, and I have played anno much less than X3, I would like to change out X3's freighter managment interface for anno's trade route interface because it's just so much more efficient. Whereas in X3 you have to find each freighter and give it commands using its many command menus, in anno you just open the trade route window and click the route you want to do, specifying what to pick up in each port (or sector/complex in X3) and what to drop off there, and in what amounts. Then you can assign as many ships as you like to each route, by selecting them from a list of available ships, you can also pause any ship and give it new orders, then resume it later and it will rejoin the trade route.
Much simpler, prettier, and more efficient than the X3 method, but it accomplishes almost exactly the same thing. Mainstream polish makes all games better.
Also I don't really find the same to be true of music and games.
With music, we've been doing music well for a long time, and with old music, the only ones anyone remembers are the hits. So if you look at old music you will always find the ones that speak to many people before you find the thousands of terrible records. There is nothing saying old music can't be good, hell I like quite a lot of it, but then I like a lot of new music too. History is replete with people who are really good musicians right up to and including today, I don't really think the quality has changed over time. Some of my favourite music was made last year while some other of my favourite music was made centuries ago.
Some of the same is true of games, there are older games that are still very good, I will still happily play link to the past and enjoy the hell out of it, same goes for mario world or mario 2-3. But those games are again ones that have built on previous very successful iterations and perfected the genre, they are the mainstream games of fifteen years ago, and the same polish in graphics, controls, design decisions and whatnot are evident in them, just as they are evident in a popular modern FPS like halo or call of duty. With games in general howver, we've only been making them for 30 or so years, and they change drastically over time, music is built on the same principles as a hundred years ago, we just do new things with it, but things like the change to 3D in games and the changes between PCs and consoles and the popularity of new genres are all requiring designers to basically figure a lot of new things out, and it takes time to get them right, and lots of failed attempts as well.
Whether or not something is 'indie' or 'mainstream' doesn't really have much to do with the company's status, because 'indie' and 'mainstream' mean very different things, NS2 is an indie game, it can't not be an indie game because UWE is an entirely independent studio, and yet people complain about it becoming mainstream, surely this is impossible? Id make mainstream games, they make doom and quake, both of which are very popular FPS games following a well established and popular formula, so they are not, in the common use of the word, indie, regardless of their status as a company. Valve is an indie developer because they have their own distribution platform and make and publish their own games, they are independent, and yet they make half life which is a very mainstream game much like quake and doom, and is again wildly popular.
While there are arguments to support the idea that mainstream design is not neccesarily good, I would say there are also very strong arguments to say that is often <i>extremely </i>good, and far from bad.
-Exploitable franchises every other quarter
-"DLC" from launch
-Very poor support post launch
-No new IP/franchises. Only do the ones people know and have already sold.
-No customers running the multiplayer scene, limit control and charge for dedicated servers if they even allow that.
-No mods or mod support, they would eat into DLC.
-Must spend 100 million dollars to make fancy CGI and motion capture for the single player.
-Must spend 25 million dollars to advertise the game
-Must try to sell as much customer data as possible while the social-networking bubble is still expanding. (facebook/twitter integration)
-Must sell at retail by default (otherwise their sales aren't counted) or if on steam must sell at full price anyway.
-No tech support, extremely little community involvement, etc...
Indie now is:
-Only source for really "new" games.
-They aren't spending 100 million dollars, so they can be innovative and try new IP.
-They can concentrate on the game element rather than all of the auxiliary stuff.
-They can react quickly to customers and the community.
-They MUST rely on the community so they DO rely on the community.
-They can set their prices and experiment with what works.
-Their game must sell on its merits and not on its advertising/media tie-ins, so the emphasis is on quality rather than marketability.
-They can get access to new talent that may not yet be consumed by the big guys, opening up opportunities for many talented individuals and to art/concepts in general.
Lots of differences.
While even I won't go as far as renegade on a lot of the demands, I think there's still a bit of point in it too. NS2 is an indie game. At least I'm more willing to pay for an indie product if it somehow actually manages to be different than the mainstream products. There's not much point in a smal team trying to mimic the giants, it's like trying to pull off a hollywood disaster movie on your backyard.
I hope at some point some small low budged teams will actually try to create more focused, unified, challenging and stylish products instead of the present mainstream games which focus more on relatively light, quick and easy content. I've got no clue how much market such games would have, but I think right now it would be a pretty decent way to stand out from the crowd. I doubt UWE will do it in particular and I think it's very much their own decision, but still I always like to toy around with the thought of a little more mature, challenging and subtle content.
They ruined it for us, thats it. And i dont see a single reason why the same mistake should be made again.
Stop aiming for the $$$! You start Indie, you stay Indie, or you become one of those mindless companys that just fire game after game without any love or fun in them...
Anyone remembers the progress ns 1 took? not just combat brought headshot-kiddies, also things like changing the scoreboard. In the early versions you couldnt say how many kills you had or which one was the "best" player on the team. I really liked that. To furthermore refer to ns 1 I have to say that it became better even after the release of co etc. with every version, but just in cases of original ns, because this was the innovative gamemode and also somehow the soul of it.
Yes, the general trend of AAA FPS titles these days is <i>sequel, rehash, DLC, achievements, I've-seen-this-before</i>, but you can just as easily take any one of those ideas and put it into an indie game. They are not exclusive to AAA titles, you just hear about them more often.
They ruined it for us, thats it. And i dont see a single reason why the same mistake should be made again.
Stop aiming for the $$$! You start Indie, you stay Indie, or you become one of those mindless companys that just fire game after game without any love or fun in them...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Combat requires just as much strategy as ns maps, I'm sick of hearing people say that.
Of course it doesn't. RTS is completely removed in combat mode.
I'm going to ignore you <strike>since you seem to be FocusedWolf version 2</strike> because of your name.
-Exploitable franchises every other quarter
-"DLC" from launch
-Very poor support post launch
-No new IP/franchises. Only do the ones people know and have already sold.
-No customers running the multiplayer scene, limit control and charge for dedicated servers if they even allow that.
-No mods or mod support, they would eat into DLC.
-Must spend 100 million dollars to make fancy CGI and motion capture for the single player.
-Must spend 25 million dollars to advertise the game
-Must try to sell as much customer data as possible while the social-networking bubble is still expanding. (facebook/twitter integration)
-Must sell at retail by default (otherwise their sales aren't counted) or if on steam must sell at full price anyway.
-No tech support, extremely little community involvement, etc...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bioware constantly is fostering new IP and is one of the giants in the market. They did just get bought out by EA, but then we also have blizzard who is currently designing an MMO not based on any of their existing franchises. Spore was an interesting an innovative, if flawed, attempt by a 'mainstream' company to do something new. Alien Swarm released for free yesterday is a fresh look at what has been an almost dead game-form for the last twenty years. And it is quite sexy. As to DLC, I like the idea of DLC. Certainly some companies abuse it, but it allows for game companies to get away from traditional expansions and produce more bite-sized content lumps for users post launch. The main reason why most also include a free DLC on release now is just to teach players how to use DLC.
Some 'mainstream' companies are moving in the wrong direction, but I don't agree that what you describe above necessarily condemns the bigger game makers. Also, steam sales often go well below the in store costs. I actually make a point of waiting for steam sales to buy anything these days since they are so common. A month ago just about every game on steam was on sale for 75-20% off.
Most of the qualification of what you separate as indi and mainstream is just the $ value invested in the product. So, lets theorize that NS2 makes a bazillion dollars, and they remake NS3, but they spend all those bazillions doing it. Does that make it mainstream then? Does that make it bad? I don't think so.
Rather I think if the discussion is to be about indi or mainstream we should discuss the influence the heavy hitting developers have on the smaller ones as they get big. How much is it a melting pot, rather than a cultural mosaic of game makers. Certainly the thought here is to the former. But I'm not convinced this is the case in general, and I am convinced this is not the case with UWE. They've given no sign of wanting to become the next giant, rather they've given every indication that they simply love making games and have made considerable sacrifices to do so.
I'm going to ignore you, since you seem to be FocusedWolf version 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty sure it's a troll account made by a competitive player who hates focusedwolf (look at the avatar). So ignore anyways.
Fair enough. I agree on just ignoring anyway.
I'm going to ignore you <strike>since you seem to be FocusedWolf version 2</strike> because of your name.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless someone is commanding, most people just rambo out or build offense chambers. At least in combat you pick your own upgrades, and you can lose if you don't think about it carefully.