Standard Competitive Format
MuYeah
Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Members
Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Members
<div class="IPBDescription">and the impacts of decisions made by devs</div><b>Warning: This is long and I'm a meganerd with too much time for writing it</b>. Skip to the paragraph starting "A standard workable competitive..." for what amounts to some sort of conclusion
<b>tl;dr</b>: Design decisions have great effect at a higher level of how to get "best gameplay" from a game (number of players, game length, etc.). Healthy competitive communities exhibit several specific criteria. "Best gameplay" must fit specific criteria to promote healthy competitive community. Therefore, developers hold great deal of sway on functioning and success of competitive community surrounding a game. The main worry is pushing up number of required players to get a good game (without realising) will decrease lifetime and activity of a community.
This topic is specifically about future competitive play so please don't get all huffy and post "Screw you! The game should be balanced for <i>fun</i>." When what you really mean is you want to play 16v16. It will serve no purpose. If you have any constructive criticisms such as interesting insights into how the changes to the res system will change how the relative powers of different units and abilities scale with team size when compared to NS1 feel free to post away!
It is also not a criticism of the developers. It's to stimulate discussion on the best ways of moulding the features of NS2 towards a successful competitive community. I am not a trained game designer so I may just be parroting something that comes up in Design101. If that's the case then humour me and continue the discussion.
I will be drawing on my experience playing and being involved in competitive gaming for about 8 years, mostly in the European NS1 community. I acknowledge that my evidence is anecdotal and therefore fallible so if you feel I've misrepresented or missed something then feel free to jump in. I'm especially looking forward to replies from people who have organised tournaments, designed leagues and other such competitions for a range of games.
I know members of the NS1 EU community such as Jiriki and the ensl guys, lump [this is you finally getting some acknowledgement for years of doing thankless organising], Fana/Clanbase guys, anyone who was involved in UKNSL, FRNS and (sorry Americans and especially Aus/NZ guys I'm not too familiar with those scenes) CAL/ANSL/DownUnderLeague will have a lot of good experience as it will correlate best with getting NS2 workable for competitive play. I'd like to hear the guys who just organised the 5v5 tourny for the NS2 beta opinions, as well please!
<b>One request I have is if you post anything constructive regarding this subject is identify what, if any, leagues you were involved with so we have a frame of reference for your input.</b> I know it's cool to be a flippant on the official forums but I'd like to hope this thread will be useful for both organisers and devs. You don't have to of course, but it would help.
What I would like to focus on is how decisions made by the developers in regards to gameplay will directly effect how competitively successful a game is. I don't mean focussing on silly stuff that essentially comes down to opinion like "Sprint should be removed!" Please try and keep it to a higher level than that. I'm operating under the assumption that there will be at least <i>some</i> people who will enjoy playing the game competitively no matter which features are in. What I <i>do</i> want to focus on is gameplay decisions which have effects on a community level.
To define "competitive format" it will be easiest to give an example: Two teams of 6 will play both alien and marine, in turn, on 2 different maps. This was/is the standard EU format (NA played 1 map only most of the time). It's probably best to note the obvious format constants here (I'll update this list if anyone can think of others): <ul><li>Both teams will play both alien and marine (unless AvA and MvM are somehow implemented, balanced and fun).</li></ul>
--------------------- Pointless theory junk to back up my experience ---------------------
A good competitive format is an important instrument in the building of a healthy competitive scene; it will:<ul><li>Maximise total number of teams.</li><li>Maximise longevity of individual teams.</li><li>Maximise frequency of finding opponents.</li><li>Maximise diversity in play.</li></ul>
It's a vital part of creating a fun, stable community which provides both longevity and opportunity to improve at all levels of play.
It seems four main factors form an equilibrium when deciding on a standard competitive format:
<ul><li><b>Gameplay</b> - Everything in-game: Diversity of in-game roles, average game length, map size, depth of strategy, etc.</li><li><b>Resilience of a team</b> - Obviously playing online games is a hobby. It has to be fun to banter with your teammates, people come and go a lot and generally only the most dedicated teams can afford to have no stand-by players.</li><li><b>Logistics</b> - Real world considerations. Getting X number of players together at once for X amount of time. A sub-factor of this is size of community.</li><li><b>Individual in-game responsibility</b> - Amount of weight each player has in the outcome of the game.</li></ul>
I'll talk about them mainly in terms of how they determine the "Ideal number of players" - basically 5v5, 6v6, 8v8 or what-have-you.
There's a fairly straightforward logic to how they interact: Gameplay will be designed to "fit" a large range of team sizes and as a result getting a balanced, deep, varied game may push up the ideal number of players. Resilience in a team decreases as ideal player number increases because you're less likely to have redundant players around to fill in. The more players you need in the same place for a given amount of time the more difficult it is to organise and vice versa (variable time for a given number of players). Individual responsibility is a tricky one, obviously more is better in the eyes of competitive players but we also enjoy teamwork so it encourages less players up to a certain point.
--------------------- End of pointless theory junk ---------------------
This is a very long-winded way of saying the game has to be strategically deep/fun/etc. within the bounds set out by the practicality of organised play (as opposed to public play where team sizes and game lengths are extremely fluid). A game could potentially be perfectly balanced at any number of players, but fail to meet the criteria which will lead to a healthy competitive community.
From experience, straight up ignoring in-game factors, I'd say the optimal format for a team FPS would be 5v5. 6v6 is doable but IMO holds less potential longevity/skill gradient in the community. Any less and you get much more potential teams but there's a drastic lack of depth in teamwork, strategy and general banter. Any more and it gets too difficult to organise and there's too little individual in-game responsibility to provide the happy-kick which keeps players coming back. You'd see a drastic loss in frequency of matches and number of teams in the community as well.
From an organising point of view, average match length (total time taken up to take part in the organised game) should be about 60 minutes - probably 45 mins of that actually in-game play, taking into account getting onto the server wait-times and so on.
A standard workable competitive format will emerge naturally from the community for any game, whether it will create a successful community is down to how well the gameplay fits the constants defined above. <b>It is up to the developers to design the game in such a way as to mesh well with the other factors</b>. As it is the only variable over which any of us have control it is very important that the devs take this sort of thing into consideration if they want a strong competitive game.
Average game length will effect how many maps are played in a match - two maps are more fun than one because you can try different strategies and you avoid the phenomenon where there's one favoured map that's played over and over (see: de_dust2, ns_veil, Lost Temple and so on). This is obviously not hard and fast yet but it's something to keep an eye on.
Diversity of roles will effect the ideal number of players on the team. My biggest worry regarding this whole topic is that there are currently there are six classes on the alien team if you include the Comm. In a 6v6 game to cover all roles you'd need one of each class with no ability to strengthen one a particular role. Just by having a single redundant player you suddenly go from having an alien side which would be similar to play against most games to one which has the fluidity to change on the fly. By, for example, getting a second gorge to strengthen their defense during a hive siege. Not to mention you'd see the disappearance of fun low-level teamplay scenarios in competitive play unless the classes roles overlap (2 skulks harassing res towers mid-game baiting marines is much more fun and effective than just being on your own).<ul><li>The problem with this is that it's pushing the required number of players to have a good game towards unsustainable community levels.</li></ul>
Map size will obviously have an effect on the number of players but is much less of an issue as you can just choose not to play certain maps.
I won't go in-depth on why "just make a pro-mod" is an ineffective argument for creating a cohesive, long-lived, varied competitive experience. I'll just say that anything that further acts to splinter public and competitive communities, perhaps even by region (see mp_blockscripts from NS1 for a micro-example of this) is a Bad Thing and leave it at that.
A few general questions I'll throw out there for everyone: <ul><li>Do you think NS2 is on-course to fit the criteria for good competitive play? </li><li>Does anyone know of any games which illustrate the issues talked about? Positive or negative examples of organised competitive communites and your ideas on them are very welcome. </li><li>Do you think it's even an issue that needs to be noticed?</li></ul>
And a more specific Q directly to Flayra, I guess, which I don't know if it has been answered or even asked before: "Do you consider this sort of thing when busy designing?" I'm not doubting your ability, I'm rather more interested in your work method I guess. I know that if I'd not been involved with competitive communities for so long that I, as a complete novice with regards to game design, would just be trying to get general gameplay balanced without any thought to alll the junk I just typed up there,
<b>Also, I guess this thread could act as a good place to discuss general competitive community-level issues such as how to achieve better cohesion between public and organised play than NS1 (which was famously segregated).</b>
<b>tl;dr</b>: Design decisions have great effect at a higher level of how to get "best gameplay" from a game (number of players, game length, etc.). Healthy competitive communities exhibit several specific criteria. "Best gameplay" must fit specific criteria to promote healthy competitive community. Therefore, developers hold great deal of sway on functioning and success of competitive community surrounding a game. The main worry is pushing up number of required players to get a good game (without realising) will decrease lifetime and activity of a community.
This topic is specifically about future competitive play so please don't get all huffy and post "Screw you! The game should be balanced for <i>fun</i>." When what you really mean is you want to play 16v16. It will serve no purpose. If you have any constructive criticisms such as interesting insights into how the changes to the res system will change how the relative powers of different units and abilities scale with team size when compared to NS1 feel free to post away!
It is also not a criticism of the developers. It's to stimulate discussion on the best ways of moulding the features of NS2 towards a successful competitive community. I am not a trained game designer so I may just be parroting something that comes up in Design101. If that's the case then humour me and continue the discussion.
I will be drawing on my experience playing and being involved in competitive gaming for about 8 years, mostly in the European NS1 community. I acknowledge that my evidence is anecdotal and therefore fallible so if you feel I've misrepresented or missed something then feel free to jump in. I'm especially looking forward to replies from people who have organised tournaments, designed leagues and other such competitions for a range of games.
I know members of the NS1 EU community such as Jiriki and the ensl guys, lump [this is you finally getting some acknowledgement for years of doing thankless organising], Fana/Clanbase guys, anyone who was involved in UKNSL, FRNS and (sorry Americans and especially Aus/NZ guys I'm not too familiar with those scenes) CAL/ANSL/DownUnderLeague will have a lot of good experience as it will correlate best with getting NS2 workable for competitive play. I'd like to hear the guys who just organised the 5v5 tourny for the NS2 beta opinions, as well please!
<b>One request I have is if you post anything constructive regarding this subject is identify what, if any, leagues you were involved with so we have a frame of reference for your input.</b> I know it's cool to be a flippant on the official forums but I'd like to hope this thread will be useful for both organisers and devs. You don't have to of course, but it would help.
What I would like to focus on is how decisions made by the developers in regards to gameplay will directly effect how competitively successful a game is. I don't mean focussing on silly stuff that essentially comes down to opinion like "Sprint should be removed!" Please try and keep it to a higher level than that. I'm operating under the assumption that there will be at least <i>some</i> people who will enjoy playing the game competitively no matter which features are in. What I <i>do</i> want to focus on is gameplay decisions which have effects on a community level.
To define "competitive format" it will be easiest to give an example: Two teams of 6 will play both alien and marine, in turn, on 2 different maps. This was/is the standard EU format (NA played 1 map only most of the time). It's probably best to note the obvious format constants here (I'll update this list if anyone can think of others): <ul><li>Both teams will play both alien and marine (unless AvA and MvM are somehow implemented, balanced and fun).</li></ul>
--------------------- Pointless theory junk to back up my experience ---------------------
A good competitive format is an important instrument in the building of a healthy competitive scene; it will:<ul><li>Maximise total number of teams.</li><li>Maximise longevity of individual teams.</li><li>Maximise frequency of finding opponents.</li><li>Maximise diversity in play.</li></ul>
It's a vital part of creating a fun, stable community which provides both longevity and opportunity to improve at all levels of play.
It seems four main factors form an equilibrium when deciding on a standard competitive format:
<ul><li><b>Gameplay</b> - Everything in-game: Diversity of in-game roles, average game length, map size, depth of strategy, etc.</li><li><b>Resilience of a team</b> - Obviously playing online games is a hobby. It has to be fun to banter with your teammates, people come and go a lot and generally only the most dedicated teams can afford to have no stand-by players.</li><li><b>Logistics</b> - Real world considerations. Getting X number of players together at once for X amount of time. A sub-factor of this is size of community.</li><li><b>Individual in-game responsibility</b> - Amount of weight each player has in the outcome of the game.</li></ul>
I'll talk about them mainly in terms of how they determine the "Ideal number of players" - basically 5v5, 6v6, 8v8 or what-have-you.
There's a fairly straightforward logic to how they interact: Gameplay will be designed to "fit" a large range of team sizes and as a result getting a balanced, deep, varied game may push up the ideal number of players. Resilience in a team decreases as ideal player number increases because you're less likely to have redundant players around to fill in. The more players you need in the same place for a given amount of time the more difficult it is to organise and vice versa (variable time for a given number of players). Individual responsibility is a tricky one, obviously more is better in the eyes of competitive players but we also enjoy teamwork so it encourages less players up to a certain point.
--------------------- End of pointless theory junk ---------------------
This is a very long-winded way of saying the game has to be strategically deep/fun/etc. within the bounds set out by the practicality of organised play (as opposed to public play where team sizes and game lengths are extremely fluid). A game could potentially be perfectly balanced at any number of players, but fail to meet the criteria which will lead to a healthy competitive community.
From experience, straight up ignoring in-game factors, I'd say the optimal format for a team FPS would be 5v5. 6v6 is doable but IMO holds less potential longevity/skill gradient in the community. Any less and you get much more potential teams but there's a drastic lack of depth in teamwork, strategy and general banter. Any more and it gets too difficult to organise and there's too little individual in-game responsibility to provide the happy-kick which keeps players coming back. You'd see a drastic loss in frequency of matches and number of teams in the community as well.
From an organising point of view, average match length (total time taken up to take part in the organised game) should be about 60 minutes - probably 45 mins of that actually in-game play, taking into account getting onto the server wait-times and so on.
A standard workable competitive format will emerge naturally from the community for any game, whether it will create a successful community is down to how well the gameplay fits the constants defined above. <b>It is up to the developers to design the game in such a way as to mesh well with the other factors</b>. As it is the only variable over which any of us have control it is very important that the devs take this sort of thing into consideration if they want a strong competitive game.
Average game length will effect how many maps are played in a match - two maps are more fun than one because you can try different strategies and you avoid the phenomenon where there's one favoured map that's played over and over (see: de_dust2, ns_veil, Lost Temple and so on). This is obviously not hard and fast yet but it's something to keep an eye on.
Diversity of roles will effect the ideal number of players on the team. My biggest worry regarding this whole topic is that there are currently there are six classes on the alien team if you include the Comm. In a 6v6 game to cover all roles you'd need one of each class with no ability to strengthen one a particular role. Just by having a single redundant player you suddenly go from having an alien side which would be similar to play against most games to one which has the fluidity to change on the fly. By, for example, getting a second gorge to strengthen their defense during a hive siege. Not to mention you'd see the disappearance of fun low-level teamplay scenarios in competitive play unless the classes roles overlap (2 skulks harassing res towers mid-game baiting marines is much more fun and effective than just being on your own).<ul><li>The problem with this is that it's pushing the required number of players to have a good game towards unsustainable community levels.</li></ul>
Map size will obviously have an effect on the number of players but is much less of an issue as you can just choose not to play certain maps.
I won't go in-depth on why "just make a pro-mod" is an ineffective argument for creating a cohesive, long-lived, varied competitive experience. I'll just say that anything that further acts to splinter public and competitive communities, perhaps even by region (see mp_blockscripts from NS1 for a micro-example of this) is a Bad Thing and leave it at that.
A few general questions I'll throw out there for everyone: <ul><li>Do you think NS2 is on-course to fit the criteria for good competitive play? </li><li>Does anyone know of any games which illustrate the issues talked about? Positive or negative examples of organised competitive communites and your ideas on them are very welcome. </li><li>Do you think it's even an issue that needs to be noticed?</li></ul>
And a more specific Q directly to Flayra, I guess, which I don't know if it has been answered or even asked before: "Do you consider this sort of thing when busy designing?" I'm not doubting your ability, I'm rather more interested in your work method I guess. I know that if I'd not been involved with competitive communities for so long that I, as a complete novice with regards to game design, would just be trying to get general gameplay balanced without any thought to alll the junk I just typed up there,
<b>Also, I guess this thread could act as a good place to discuss general competitive community-level issues such as how to achieve better cohesion between public and organised play than NS1 (which was famously segregated).</b>
Comments
As for now, a bit of food for though:
<!--quoteo(post=1857342:date=Jun 30 2011, 06:06 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Jun 30 2011, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From experience, straight up ignoring in-game factors, I'd say the optimal format for a team FPS would be 5v5. 6v6 is doable but IMO holds less potential longevity/skill gradient in the community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think if NS1 is anything to go by, the commander role is the biggest weakpoint. It's not just a single case where commander going inactive has crumbled whole competetive teams. Now it's possibly even double trouble with the aliens having commander of their own.
Also, I guess this thread could act as a good place to discuss general competitive community-level issues such as how to achieve better cohesion between public and organised play than NS1 (which was famously segregated).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I played NS1 competitively for a small bit.
But I have played TFC competively in a couple of clans.
For NS2 I think your starting team sizes will have to be a bit larger because of map size and the commander role.
8v8 might do it a little better without encroaching on that limit of people who will show up :-).
Also you cannot execute on two maps due to the fact that both teams play differently.
Same map one plays marines, one play aliens, one tiebreaker. (flip for tiebreaker)
This is because of the teams differences make balance approachable but never complete.
<b>Do you think NS2 is on-course to fit the criteria for good competitive play? </b>
I think NS2 is headed towards good competitive play due to the minimal console exposure (no mp_blockscripts)
The fact that they are striving and concerned for usefulness of each role (alien type, marine weapon).
They planned initially to have tech to detect if the scripts have been modified (vanilla NS2).
and finally it is fun......CS, TFC, etc. wouldn't have such strong clan activity if the game was not fun to begin with.
Also Charlie has always indicated interest in anything e-sportish about this game in interviews and tweets.
You could start with a list of basic features that make competitive play easier to do.
map restarts.
countdown timers.
<b>Does anyone know of any games which illustrate the issues talked about? Positive or negative examples of organised competitive communites and your ideas on them are very welcome. </b>
I think the biggest thing for competitive communities in general is who is in charge.
I have seen communities go up and come down quickly because the people in charge were NOT people persons.
I think it has nothing to do with the game itself.
<b>Do you think it's even an issue that needs to be noticed?</b>
If you are talking about competitive play ....yes it does have to be noticed.
Competitive play has more attention on the balance and the counters available to both sides.
I tend to play both aliens and marines, but I know some pub players will tend to just play one more than the other.
Public play will be far more focused on whether it is fun.
<b>How to achieve better cohesion between public and organised play than NS1 (which was famously segregated)?</b>
I think the biggest thing would be for both sides to be patient once the game is released.
NS1 suffered from patches that were rushed and broke some of the specialness on either side at times.
Let the devs go through their checklist before a patch release.
The competitive side could also bring attention to exploits and reporting them as bugs instead of adopting them into strategies
and making it more difficult to remove them.
Both sides need to play much better with newbs though.
NS1 slowly became so elitist nobody bothered looking at it.
<b>tl;dr</b>:
Design decisions have great effect at a higher level of how to get "best gameplay" from a game (number of players, game length, etc.).
Healthy competitive communities exhibit several specific criteria.
"Best gameplay" must fit specific criteria to promote healthy competitive community.
Therefore, developers hold great deal of sway on functioning and success of competitive community surrounding a game.
The main worry is pushing up number of required players to get a good game (without realising) will decrease lifetime and activity of a community.
so, what i would like to see, and could happen more likely than in ns1:
dont limit "competitive" play to a team size. i would like to see 3vs3 aswell as 10vs10.
of course, a tournament should chose then smaller / bigger maps only.
thats all ill have to say, didnt read your whole post :)
I think the max team size depends on how many fades a marine team can handle.
With the current res system, aliens arent forced to spend their res, because every structure is build with teamres. So they are just sitting there, eventually lerking (even tough lerking is a pain in the a** right now with its changed flight), mainly waiting for the new hive to be up so they can fade. Nearly every game is over at that point, since the marines lack power to kill fades right now (maybe HMG's could change that or a nerfed version of the fade blink).
This needs to change IMO.
Considering we have a res system (like in ns1) where only a few chosen players are allowed to fade, the max teamsize revolves around (like already said) the number of fades a marine team can handle at the same time, because every additional player on each side means one more fade and i think its out of the question that 1fade>1marine
You asked for an example for a video game being heavily designed for public players. I think that TF2 shows that pretty much.
There are so many unwritten rules to be followed, so the game can be enjoyed competitively. There are only a few maps which are being played and you can only make very minor adjustments to your basic setup if you still want to be able to win. With every patch all of those new weapons valve is releasing for the game, are automatically banned in all leagues until league staff decides otherwise.
I think its too early to say if NS2 can be enjoyed in competive play. Most of the content hasnt been implemented yet and i think many things will change until we get to the point where the game will be officially released
I think the max team size depends on how many fades a marine team can handle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1v1 NS2 tournament :)
I'm with Schimmel that competitive match size should be flexible. Though, I would only focus on optimizing competitive play for the following sizes
- Small (4v4)
- Standard, small (8v8)
- Standard, large (12v12)
- Large (16v16)
Most of the desired competition types should be covered by these sizes, while providing some suggested tournament standardization.
Large team sizes limit the number of clans, especially because NS2 is probably going to be a niche game.
It was hard enough to get 12 players (6v6) ready at the same time, organizing a match for 24 or 32 players would be a nightmare.
I'm with Schimmel that competitive match size should be flexible. Though, I would only focus on optimizing competitive play for the following sizes
- Small (4v4)
- Standard, small (8v8)
- Standard, large (12v12)
- Large (16v16)
Most of the desired competition types should be covered by these sizes, while providing some suggested tournament standardization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to cut in but I feel this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the OP. It's not about what we should have, that isn't really how it works: the rules naturally grow to suit the game. It's just that if the game doesn't provide a good enough base for a good format to grow from then you won't have a good competitive community. If you have to force the "good rules" that promote a decent community (aka 5v5/6v6 and 2 maps played) on the game then the competitive games that will be played will probably be missing a lot of the intended depth of the game and die off anyway.
The (biggest) reason team size has to stay low is as team size increases, the frequency of matches played decreases exponentially. 8v8 is more accurately labelled "Large" while 12v12 and 16v16 will just never happen. That's why to have a good competitive community team sizes should be kept as low as you can get away with without damaging the structure of the game. 4v4 is too low - out of game: not enough team banter, in game: Not enough teamwork or strategy, NS specific: lifeforms and static defense become way too powerful proportional to their cost. Not to mention it'll become less about skill and more about rock paper scissors as you can only choose half of the roles available. Want a fade? and an onos? Well then you better pick between lerk (offensive support), gorge (defensive support) or skulk (eco harass) for your final player!
Right now it seems like with the addition of the alien commander, games will have to be balanced around 7v7 which is too high, really. The other part of this problem, which is complete speculation at this point because of how incomplete the game is, is that when it's finally released if each round lasts too long to fit 4 rounds of play into a reasonable amount of time (which, remember, increases with team size) then everyone will be stuck playing 1 map matches and that inevitably ends up with everyone playing the "best" map over and over with little variation.
As a competitive player, you want a healthy public, casual community, since this is the pool where new competitive players are recruited from. Without it, the competitive scene stagnates and dies off. You don't want to make a game that alienates the first-time causal player due to it being designed with only the competitive community in mind. Larger games are more casual friendly. That new guy sucking hardcore makes less of impact in larger games...and hes doesn't feel as useless. In L4D, with only 4 players per team even in pub games, a sucky noob is much more obvious to everyone than in a 32v32 BF pub game.
I enjoyed the 8v8 format in MW4. It is true that with more players an individual's skill factors in less...but it also makes the game much more dynamic and requires more precise coordinated team play in order to win imo. I played in several leagues with varying number of players from 3v3 to 12v12. 8v8 was a happy medium I particularity enjoyed best. There was no standard competitive format for number of players per side.
Player count per side wasn't the main problem though. MW4's biggest issue was the different types of niche gameplay that fractured the community. There was the FPV versus TPV leagues. The "no heat, unlimited ammo" leagues. The no respawn leagues. This is what kills off communities in the long run. It is a much bigger concern than the player count per side a community can sustain. Player shortages due to fractured communities will be felt long before an unsustainable player count per side would affect a united community.
I think the best thing the devs can do is to make sure the game can adequately support and scale with a large range of players. This is for both the benefit of the casual players, and to allow the competitive community to choose whats best for their league at any given point in the game's lifetime. Something like the commander using Pres to drop support items (medpack, ect) to individual player is not a gameplay feature that will support a wide range of players. I think we should always ask if a particular gameplay mechanic will be heavily affected by player count. If yes, than it needs a redesign or to be scrapped.
As for the actual player count, I think the 6 vs 6 ended up working quite alright for NS1. It allows quite a lot more variation in map presence and such compared to 5 vs 5 where you're probably using a lot of 2-2 spreads and such, not to speak of the more limited role diversity. So, at this point I'm in favour of 6 players each side assuming that the community is active and healthy enough to pull it off regularly. 7 vs 7 is starting to sound quite a crowd, I'd rather not go there unless the gameplay really demands it.
<!--quoteo(post=1857375:date=Jun 30 2011, 07:32 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 30 2011, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857375"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I enjoyed the 8v8 format in MW4. It is true that with more players an individual's skill factors in less...but it also makes the game much more dynamic and requires more precise coordinated team play in order to win imo. I played in several leagues with varying number of players from 3v3 to 12v12. 8v8 was a happy medium I particularity enjoyed best. There was no standard competitive format for number of players per side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't played Mechwarriors, so I'm not too familiar with the gameplay. However, I think at NS1 speeds the 6 vs 6 was close to the max. There's so much going on in terms of skirmishes, respawning, orders, strategy changes, tactical information and such that anything above 6 players is starting to go out of comfort zone. Add the new, more individualistic economy and you've got quite a stress on the communication. That's at least my guess at this point.
Its just a matter of good organization. You'd split up into different teams or squads. Really no different than in smaller games, only difference is that each team/squad is a bit larger and you usually have a team leader for each that would do most of the talking on voice com with the commander.
I highly doubt that UWE has plans to reduce the average time a game lasts. Do you remember in the good old times when you had public games that lasted for over an hour and you lost like 7 hives but still won after a heroic battle against jps and has all over the place? They want to maintain the feeling that every round of that game feels unique and thats what makes ns so damn fun.
I wouldnt blame the game when the clans start playing only one map over and over.
Wrt to playercount, maybe a better distinction would be
Standard = 6v6
Large = 12v12
While I understand the tradeoff between playercount and clan availability, limiting competitive NS2 to small (e.g. 5v5 or 6v6) seems to neglect the true potential of competitive NS2 gameplay. For example, UWE has mentioned and 16v16 matches would imply, the need for organized squads, which is something highly suited for clans and competitive gameplay. A 12v12 matches could easily be organized several ways such as,
- 1 comm, 2 squads (6, 5)
- 1 comm, 3 squads (4, 4, 3)
- 1 comm, 4 squads (3, 3, 3, 2)
- 2 comms, 2 squads (5, 5)
- 2 comms, 3 squads (4, 3, 3)
- 2 comms, 4 squads (3, 3, 2, 2)
Where the 2 comm organizations could be suited for 6 player clans (or teams in a clan) working together in a 12v12 match.
And because there isn't complex enough movement for infected, aiming for survivals is way too easy. This means that there isn't much difference in aim at top level, because the shooting targets move too clumsy. In NS1 you could always refine your aim to better: in theory you could kill five vanilla skulks with one lmg clip, but for example my personal record was four. What I'm trying to say is, that L4D2 has teamwork element, it's also really tactical game but it doesn't have enough room for personal skill. NS had all those three elements; you could win round by excellent tactic, with awesome teamwork or with wicked solo perfomance. This made NS the best game ever made.
It doesn’t help either that L4D2 has capped servers tickrate to 30. It would be shame if NS2 will follow same road as L4D2. 100 tickrate or larger will provide “smoothness†that is required for higher personal skills.
Good thing in L4D2 is that its 4 vs. 4. It’s so easy to form a team when you need only three friends with you. I see 6 vs. 6 as maximum number of players and 5 vs. 5 as alternative. Bigger team size means less clans and less clans means less competition.
L4D2 is also good example of game which has “pro-modâ€. It has large enough player base to sustain one, but public L4D2 is totally different thing than competitive L4D2. You can’t even train anything in public, unlike in NS. So different are public L4D2 and “confolg†L4D2. Competitive games should be as similar as possible to public games.
I hope that NS2 will try adding debt in players’ pursuit of perfection. I want my ideal game to be easy to learn but impossible to master, pretty much like NS was.
I wouldnt blame the game when the clans start playing only one map over and over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's pretty much universally agreed upon that the 2 hour games were awful in 1.04. It wasn't until 2.0 that every game felt fresh and different and 3.0 where games were 15-45 minutes of fun.
I wouldnt blame the game when the clans start playing only one map over and over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I highly doubt anyone is able to concentrade fully for such a long period of time and the game is bound to have void time where no decisions are made, in other words the game becomes stalemate.
I would define unique more of an sum of decisions and their outcome instead of long periods of empty void.
I dont mind long games, there are bound to be few epic games but it should not be mainstream. More games = more diversity with the game and opponents aswell.
aliens are not fun at all. they are slow (no! leap with almost no aircontrol doesnt count) they got no improvements to learn at all.
fade even gets robbed of the little aircontrol when blinking -> grabbing my beer, alt-tabbing, waiting for a slot on a ns1-server...
lerk? pls dont get me started...
skulk is less agile than a gorge?
all of em less agile than rines?
pls. for the love of god! stop reading the forum, ###### the playtesters, get your ###### together, relaxed and calm concentrate on optimizing your promising engine and content.
dont even read the "lolololol balance sucks trololol"-topics.
simply get it smothe and playable at a pc that can run crysis on ultra at min 50 fps.
THEN start balancing. srsly, whats there to balance when your fps drop to 15 when biting once? how do you balance slowdowns and ######reg?
chill out. say "ey, were not there yet, but look we we just achieved this and that! it may only give a small contribution to the overall expierience, but we know whats it meant to be"
i read about you guys looking for a pr-fella sometime ago? well where is he? i tend to flame this game like hell, yet, as i studied pr, and love this game so much, i dont see him?
wouldnt take me more than one week, talking to you guys to get an acceptable campaign out there....
you know how to throw an awesome game out into the world, you already proved that.
take your time, grab a couple of beers, dont react..ACT! make ns2 the ###### awesome experience ns1 has been.
and for the love of god, get your pr-guy already, not some fella that uses the same old boring newsspeak to promote the game, but actually gets INVOLVED into the developing process and talkes eye-to-eye with your fans.
it hurts me to look at all the flames (also from me) without a proper reaction. marketing is such an easy to learn art, especially, when you already got a loving fanbase...and such an potentially awesome game...
in deep love and hope, a drunk austrian, who would love to do the dirty work of promoting such an awesome piece of art for you guys ;)
I'm really not sure this is even predictable. The gameplay / flavoured maps are bound to change with patches and versions. Who knowns, maybe the 2.0 of NS2 will completely change gameplay as it did in NS1 ? - I think the best way to work on this issue is to take it the Starcraft way : see which map becomes the "top played map" e.g. Lost Temple / Metalopolis and then mimic its characteristics in other maps (see Luna, Python in BW).
The main issue then is to have mappers listening to and analyzing what the competitive scene says.
Another solution is to do like CS or NS have, which is just "see and make do with" - which is why the structures of maps like Train and Dust2 are very different yet considered more or less balance (someone here probably has an idea of the winning %age in competition) but I feel this is "dangerous".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Diversity of roles will effect the ideal number of players on the team. My biggest worry regarding this whole topic is that there are currently there are six classes on the alien team if you include the Comm. In a 6v6 game to cover all roles you'd need one of each class with no ability to strengthen one a particular role. Just by having a single redundant player you suddenly go from having an alien side which would be similar to play against most games to one which has the fluidity to change on the fly. By, for example, getting a second gorge to strengthen their defense during a hive siege. Not to mention you'd see the disappearance of fun low-level teamplay scenarios in competitive play unless the classes roles overlap (2 skulks harassing res towers mid-game baiting marines is much more fun and effective than just being on your own).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is semi-related, but how about 'forcing' the competition format to the public side ? In L4D afaik you can only play 4v4, be it in competition or public. In DOTA and its little brothers you can pretty much only play 5v5. Why shouldn't we force 5v5/6v6/xvx for public NS2 play ? Game gets easier to balance, competitive scene gets easier to enter in and competitive tactics can spread more easily among public.
Ladders with big teams like 8 players (or the 5+ ladders) have proven to go inactive withing weeks/a few months from release. Thats only possible in really big titles (big as in AAA, not BigMac) as Battlefield. It's simply too hard to get 8 people playing/training several times per week in smaller games/communities. Maybe it will work with smaller "niche" communities for a longer time, but if you aim for a larger crowd (and established clans to pick up the game), 5on5 or 6on6 is the way to go.
You also have to imagine that with a 8on8 game you need about 10 to 12 players in the team to be able to play at all times. Thats a lot of work just organizing. 5on5 teams are much easier to handle.
What e-Sport also needs:
- record/demo function
- Endscreen stats that show names/scores of payers and winner (+ build in screenshot functionality)
- Spectator mode
- a way to identify players not only by name (Steam ID in this case. Access by console)
Maybe more. That's just the "usual" stuff I can think of right now.
Definitely. You can really put a rule on how people will use programs that modify brightness/gamma of the monitor. It would be a very wrong base for construction to put too much gameplay features relating to lighting.
Let alone NS1, I'm thinking Doom 3. ###### plagued with darkness all over the place it was ridiculous. Guess how long it lasted in competition.
This ain't gonna happen.
Just take a look at the server sizes in NS1. Granted, the decreasing playerbase makes it even harder for small servers to get populated and some decent games going on, but most public players prefer big servers for various reasons not only related to NS.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer 6v6 - 8v8 games over some 16v16 pubfest anyday, because you are more likely to make a difference in these games, skill is more rewarded and the whole game usally runs more smoothly.
But you have to go with reality here and with what UWE plans for NS2.
Just considering that Tram is one of the smallest offical maps, offically stated multiple times, should give you a hint what kind of server size UWE is going for.
That being said, I prefer 6v6 -ish games for all the reasons stated in this thread.
You have to balance differently for public and clan games anyway, so I think it doesn't make much difference wether you go for 6v6 or 10v10 (compared to 16v16 public play) Ãn regards to balance, but it makes a lot of difference regarding the work and organizing that has to be done by the league, clan leaders, and so on, if you aim for huge teams/clans/squads.
Anyway, you can talk about this all day. The best thing to do is just play clan matches like some people already do in NS2. They have more influence over balance and how competitive NS2 developes than people in here discussing no matter what history they have.
Admin of ENSL
Two-time Champion
A lot of Clan-leading
Playing since 1.04 (that's something like 8+ years?)
Playtester for NS2
I think the length of time I've been playing this game and the level I have reached playing it means that I am well-informed. At the same time, however, I am more nostalgic, more set in my ways and less forgiving towards new players. There are more drawbacks I'm sure but I just wanted to let people know that I acknowledge these from the outset.
I'll try to respond from three perspectives; as an admin, a leader and a player
<u><b>Admin</b></u>
Organising the European League has always been stressful but many of the issues are ones that I imagine exist for any competitive scene. Natural Selection was obviously let down by its relatively small community which I think had a large part to play in the 'casual' and informal nature for the league's organisation. Incompetent and lazy organising (myself included) compounded matters further but I can assure you that balancing the success and activity of the league against the need to enforce rules was tricky when the number of clans meant that a clan could bully the league by threatening to quit. I'm basically saying this to echo mu's concerns because I really believe that team-size which, in turn, affects the number of teams is important. There is absolutely no guarantee that NS2 is going to be more successful than NS1 and banking on super-high player numbers is unwise. From a management point of view, informality and closely-knit communities are both counter-productive to organisation. This is worth noting because people often assume that the workload is much heavier as more teams get involved but personally, I have found that individual player-management has always been my most time consuming endeavour.
There is one other issue that I can address as an admin and that is fractured and varied communities. I'm all for variety but too many game modes and leagues with different rules (ie. team sizes) is a seriously mixed blessing. The more people that are catered for, the merrier - but NOT if it is at the expense of the community as a whole. Less popular games (and let's face it, NS2 is not mainstream - yet), can't cope with fracturing like the big-hitters can. OutlawDr makes this point quite well. If we had two or maybe three leagues running along-side ours with varied rules, I am not sure our league today would be alive at all, though this is speculation. By now, i'm sure people are thinking LUA, LUA, LUA. I have very mixed feelings towards it. It's really functional and changing values is easy and on-the-fly which is great. It's almost too easy though. My worry, and it's a worry that I've seen many people express, is that it is a make-or-break feature that will either make it stand out or will simply splinter the community into little bits. I personally love playing games in vanilla and I feel that when the game is wanted to be played this way, it is a source of great strength. I know that there are already plans to make a pro-mod version of NS2 and it seems ever more likely that the 'great divide' between clanners and pubbers will be wider than ever. The motives are sincere but the ramifications are possibly fatal for its longevity and cohesiveness.
<u><b>Clan Leader</b></u>
Leading clans is hard and a lot of work. Number of players, game complexity, reliance on individuals are big factors in determining how hard. The latter two are quite unique in NS1 with high levels of both. At times, it seems that it was less the total number of players willing to play and more the scarcity of capable leaders that was an issue. I think this is due to game complexity. Successful leaders tended to be vocal, confident, patient, good with people and intelligent. A game that demands as much intellectual capital as NS is bound to suffer from a deficit here as a result. Many people were reluctant to lead simply because their individual performances would drop alongside balancing the micro-side of their own play against the macro game of the team as a whole. It was also hard because of the role system. It was difficult to lead other fades, for example, where my authority was undermined by less experience as one even though it affected overall teamwork and cohesion. My Co-CL, GibbZ in sprogga, performed way better as a fade when I assumed control of the alien rounds and the same was true when I lerked and he was responsible for calls and such. This is an unavoidable problem if UWE are to maintain what I valued so much about NS and what set it well apart from traditional shooters.
Player-size, therefore, should work around game complexity and reliance on individuals because they are what makes NS, NS. With this in mind, the competitive scene won't be able to maintain sizes of more than 8v8 which I believe is still too much. There is a constant transfer of important information that needs to be communicated in both 1 and 2 of this game and knowledge transfer would descend into a fight to talk over eachother. It can already be that as it is now with 6v6. Mu's concerns that the new alien commander mean that 5v5 and 6v6 are at risk of being stale is legitimate. NS1 may have been able to get away with it but now I just can't see it happening. 7v7 is a little big though and, while it addresses the role issue, is erring on the side of overly difficult to organise. I'm torn between the two. The Clan-Leader in me says 6v6 and no more but the player thinks perhaps 7v7?
<i><b>Player</b></i>
The game is slow. It feels slow because partly because I play so much NS but also because movement is boring. In a game where you might find yourself alone for long periods, it's absolutely imperative to maintain interest and one highly effective way to that is making getting from A to B fun. Good movement mechanics was the best way to do this. There was always some engagement with the game because you never pressed simply pressed 'forward' on its own. This is exactly what happens in NS2 where I already only see leap as a combat move. If I use it for the (very)short burst in speed, I am limiting my combative capacities if I am ambushed by a marine. I can assure you that competitive players will only leap out-of-combat when there is literally <1% chance of a marine encounter. The NS1 leap got around this by being a mid-late game ability that gave a much bigger speed advantage. For marines, getting from A to B didn't require a movement system as engaging as aliens because of the nature of its opponent (though the air acceleration for marines was a more than welcome surplus, please don't get rid of it!). Instead, a marine always faced a risk factor. He could be ambushed at any moment and rather than maximise speed, he was engaged in maximising chances of survival. This came in the guise of taking corners wide, being silent and positioning in general.
<I'll add more later>
--
I suddenly realised I haven't answered much but I hope some of my points were relevant.
Some quick thoughts on some other topics brought up:
Regarding darkness based gameplay: I think there's no harm in playing around with the lighting to create an atmosphere, but using low lighting as part of gameplay is probably asking for trouble. Not just from a gamma abusing player gaining an advantage (which can be a very significant difference), but it also raises concerns about both spectator value of a game and, even assuming all gamma levels are equal, balancing the teams around sometimes fighting in darkness and sometimes in light will be a nightmare. It's the same reason as why having infestation buff alien players while on it is a terrible idea; it will inevitably lead towards more stale gameplay. It works for any spatially determined gameplay aspect, I think, because you have such an easy choice of where you travel to. (As opposed to temporally determined gameplay aspects. If the aliens drop a hive you damn well have to deal with it because you can't choose to go back in time).
Team 1 balanced in X type of area ->Team 1 won't leave because worse elsewhere.
Team 1 balanced in non-X type area -> Opponent won't enter X-area because Team 1 overpowered.
If it's as easy to counter as flicking on your flashlight then it's not really part of the game anyway, is it? Just gimping spectator fun. Not to mention I feel the same way about darkness in multiplayer it as I do static defenses: it's extremely annoying and actively detracts from my enjoyment of a game.
Tweadle: Thanks for the post, it was very insightful and comes from good experience.
Re: Starcraft style mapping. Surely way more hours go into creating NS maps compared to Starcraft ones, making it unfeasible to constantly be creating new maps based around balance.
Re: Forcing public players to play to the competitive format. This does not seem conducive to creating a fun game you can just jump into a public server and play casually with, to me. Surely the ideal is making sure you get great games at the 5v5/6v6/lower round time and making sure it's mostly balanced while scaling it up from there?
Here's a question for you all about whether it's possible to play the game with less players than there are roles that need to be filled:
<b>How important is having "extra" players on the team to swap between roles (extra meaning all the required roles are filled by other players already)?</b>
We see this in NS1 with having a few players who spend most of their res on hives/chambers being able to gorge or lerk when needed mid-game. Personally, I think it's an important, fun part of the game which is taken for granted when playing on public because you have so many unnecessary players.
In TF2 you see it with the 2nd scout being able to snipe/spy(yeah yeah, I know) sometimes in the classic roll-out of 2soldiers/medic/demo/2scout.
Being able to take over or add to a team-mates role is important otherwise strategies become very fragile. In a game like NS where changing class is discouraged by having to spend res to do it, this leads me to think that the redundant player is necessary to create a decent strategy game.
With the new res system for NS2 and what seems to be each class getting a fully fleshed-out identity (rather than temporary one like NS1 gorge), how deep can a game played with little flexibility in role really be? Will strategically satisfying games be a possibility if you have to pick and choose which roles your team can perform in any one round? Or will it become too Rock-Paper-Scissors like?
And because there isn't complex enough movement for infected, aiming for survivals is way too easy. This means that there isn't much difference in aim at top level, because the shooting targets move too clumsy. In NS1 you could always refine your aim to better: in theory you could kill five vanilla skulks with one lmg clip, but for example my personal record was four. What I'm trying to say is, that L4D2 has teamwork element, it's also really tactical game but it doesn't have enough room for personal skill. NS had all those three elements; you could win round by excellent tactic, with awesome teamwork or with wicked solo perfomance. This made NS the best game ever made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Big Bump!
I totally agree with your post Tane. I played L4D1 competitively for a while when it first came out and I saw how things evolved quickly as people learned to play the game better. The problem was that playing the infected team optimally was well within the scope of human ability. It's like playing counter strike where all the top players can get headshots 100% of the time - it would be no fun as games would be based more on luck and players wouldn't be able to distinguish themselves from the opposition.
Most of the infected classes have very simple mechanics that are very easy to master and don't really have much skill apart from timing them along with your team. It basically lead to these configs where they take out most of the items and weapons in an attempt to give the infected more of a chance. As a good survivor team would just breeze through in vanilla L4D.
For NS2 I feel the aliens need some way to move that takes practice and is beyond the limits of human potential. The marines have aiming, which can always be improved, but currently the aliens have no skill that mirrors that. They need a way to be able to dodge and close in on marines that takes skill. If that was implemented then it would mean a good alien player could out manoeuvre a good marine player dodging his shots. While a good marine player can aim well and kill the alien. Both skills should take practice and no one should ever be able to perform them optimally 100% of the time.
At the moment skulks can only use WASD and jump - people will learn how to use those optimally very quickly, which will lead to a boring game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good thing in L4D2 is that its 4 vs. 4. It’s so easy to form a team when you need only three friends with you. I see 6 vs. 6 as maximum number of players and 5 vs. 5 as alternative. Bigger team size means less clans and less clans means less competition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been thinking recently that with the evolution of Starcraft and the competitive features that it got, I'd like to see an FPS with similar. I don't know if these things would work for NS2, but I'd love to see an option in future FPS games to "Join a mix" from the main menu. It would basically take you to a lobby similar to L4D and wait for it to fill, then the game would start with common competitive settings. This would allow everyone to play a game from start to finish in a semi-organised form without needing to seek out websites/irc etc. I often feel that the competitive side of FPS games can be a bit inaccessible to regular players.
In starcraft I can watch a match between 2 pro players and then go and play on the same map against an equally skilled opponent with the same settings. You can't do that on most FPS games. Pub games are so far from what you see in competitive matches. Sometimes they go on for hours with people just dropping in and out.
You could also have the system log your K:D and other stats and then give you a ranking so that in future mixes you could be matched up against players with a similar skill level. This would allow players of all levels to play competitively and have fun doing it - rather than having a hard time finding a match and then being stomped on by high level players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope that NS2 will try adding debt in players’ pursuit of perfection. I want my ideal game to be easy to learn but impossible to master, pretty much like NS was.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I couldn't agree more.
I'm with Schimmel that competitive match size should be flexible. Though, I would only focus on optimizing competitive play for the following sizes
- Small (4v4)
- Standard, small (8v8)
- Standard, large (12v12)
- Large (16v16)
Most of the desired competition types should be covered by these sizes, while providing some suggested tournament standardization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you guys realize how many teams you would need to complete this many brackets in competitive play!?!? TF2 tried 8v8 and 6v6 and guess what? It was two much work to find enough 8v8 teams (usually consisting of 12+players) and enough 6v6 teams (usually consisting of 12+players), not to mention the teams that were attempting to be in both had barely any time for real life activities due to the amount of matches/scrims they were participating in.
The maps are WAY to small for 8v8 or greater match play. Unless the map size is 3x larger than they currently are, 8v8 or greater will not succeed. 8v8 is pushing it because it is not like a TF2 or CS environment. You rely on the commander and your squad instead of defending/pushing a specific location with-or-without your team.
I get the feeling a lot of you have not played competitive online gaming...?
6v6 is the way it will be, mark my words :)