It's not just about rookies, there is a sizable skill divide between many experienced casual players and most competitive players as well. Some people just don't have the raw aptitude or reflexes that others do, and no amount of time spent will close the gap.
Also, I find Starcraft to be a poor comparison because you don't have to worry about the individual combat ability of your units in a straight RTS. They have a fixed set of stats, everything can be distilled down to formulas. In NS2, individual player skill is a (the) major factor.
I'm for something to help balance pubs. Everyone talks about the very skilled fades pubstomping. What nobody talks about is how hard it is to win as aliens when you don't have at least 2 decent fades. The ability of every other class on aliens to kill at mid and late game is laughable compared to a quality fade.
Onos are currently garbage because they are balanced around usefulness in 6v6 when most pub servers are higher pop. Even the greenest rookie can shoot an onos effectively.
Skulks need everything to work in their favor to get kills (unless killing VERY unskilled marines) the moment you add jetpacks (and shotguns), skulks become almost entirely irrelevant to the player vs player fights.
Lerks shouldn't be attacking marines that much if they play support like they should.
Lastly gorges... yup.
I remember fairly regular back and forth games in 249 that were an absolute blast. In 250 and 251 I have had very few back and forth games. When it gets to late game, marines form up an arc/exo ball and its over. I think its to the point where the only way aliens win those games is to completely abandon their bases and gorge rush all marine bases simultaneously. Does anyone really think that makes much sense?
Regarding the thread... I am against it. Since I was played comp L4D since release, I was going to comment on the config but Jekt already covered most of the things I would have brought up (See page 1.) Unrelated correction:
Philogl simply used the existing configs of Frus and Roto from L4D1 and ported it over to L4D2. Pretty sure Surgica1 helped in the process so you can't credit the whole thing to him. I am a stickler for the little details.
After the countless years the dev team has spent on this game, creating a separate config is a lot like spitting in their faces. Especially since they do listen and change the game from community feedback. Let's continue to work with them to better the game instead of creating 'our own comp version' through a mod.
I agree, only makes sense to have 1 ruleset for both pub & comp play - it's still the same game after all ! The only exception would be things like friendly-fire, very easy to remember and understandable.
Let's not make the game less accessible by splitting the community.
It's not just about rookies, there is a sizable skill divide between many experienced casual players and most competitive players as well. Some people just don't have the raw aptitude or reflexes that others do, and no amount of time spent will close the gap.
Also, I find Starcraft to be a poor comparison because you don't have to worry about the individual combat ability of your units in a straight RTS. They have a fixed set of stats, everything can be distilled down to formulas. In NS2, individual player skill is a (the) major factor.
Obviously Starcraft isn't an optimal contrast but it still is relevant to some extent. I don't understand what you mean by individual skill not being the major factor in Starcraft, it's arguably the most difficult multiplayer game ever made in terms of individual skill since Brood War, yeah it's reliant on build optimisation and unit composition but some of this does translate to the team play of NS2. I do agree how units have fixed stats and formulas are applicable and individual skill is the major factor in NS2 but that still doesn't mean that dampening the barrier of entry is still any less relevant. It's a model that works excellently yet NS2 has nothing comparable to speak of. Maybe Quake 3/live is a game you can relate to more but everyone who has a PC and plays regularly knows that Quake has an extremely high skill requirement, people who buy the steam sale or check out NS2 don't expect that.
That skill divide between experienced casual players and competitive players isn't too important imo. I consider myself the former and I don't mind going up against experienced players in pub. If I'm not in the mood for that, I'll join a different server. Those types of players are ones that are unlikely to give two shits about a random pro player in their lobbies, the main issue is dropping rookies into a server like this where the much more important skill divide between rookie-experienced casual is the major problem in the growth of the game.
Some of the gap can be bridged without sharding the game. It's easy to do, but there has been no indication that devs even understand what the fundamental issues are. In a low-mid skill game, marines will almost never win a 6v6 if the teams aren't stacked. Why is this not fixed, and arguably worse, 8 months after release?
I would explore what can be done in 1 ruleset, before going ahead with creating promod or pubmod. It needs some actual effort though and a change in how development is handled. Most of the issues with 250 did get brought up many times while BT was a mod... it's hard to say whether they were ignored or whether they were drowned out by all the noise and knee-jerk whining. But it's been maybe 1 month without crucial fixes which is also worrisome.
There are things you can do to improve public play.
There are things you can do to improve competitive play.
There are things you can do to get win rate to 50% with fair teams public play.
There are things you can do to get win rate to 50% with fair teams in competitive play.
Combining different changes from each of these categories will lead to a better game with only 1 ruleset.
I bet you can even do it without needing to add new game mechanics like BT.
For example, if medpacks are nerfed (higher cost or more cooldown or less effectiveness) and base stats are buffed (higher base HP or cheaper weapons1/armor1/arms lab), then public play becomes much more balanced. Competitive players would just need to figure out exactly how much to nerf one thing and buff the other. It's not like the game is balanced anyways, so these changes are easily doable.
For public games which can even go beyond 6v6, reducing infantry portal cost is a huge win. This is a relatively minor change when it comes to the outcome of a competitive game. It can easily be offset by increasing arms lab cost. I think it might even make comp play even better since base rushing isn't going to be as effective.
I rarely see arcs used in a pub or turrets used in tournaments. That's an easy win for balance modders since it's basically free points that can always be spent on buffing marines when there is a situation that needs it.
I think the key thing to realize is that competitive play is not in a great state, and never was. There is huge flexibility to iterate on the game without many negative consequences. Just get things in a somewhat steady and working state for the run of the major tournaments...
I am afraid you are the one not understanding my point so I shall try to explain in more detail.
Now before I start once again... my main points for not liking the idea are:
* more dev work on balancing 2 rules
* relearning the game between to sets.
* I highly doubt it can be done rulewise. << the big one
You say to tweak some values inbetween comp and pug play. Like armories giving armor again.
Yes this would help the rookie players, I completely agree. It ALSO helps the experienced/comp players to the same degree.
Fades having less damage and health would increase the chance slightly for a rookies to kill a fade, yes. But most fades they would manage to kill are again rookies. A experienced/comp player will adjust to the new values in no time and you are back where you are now.. them not dying.
Or the experienced player would have a even easier time shooting the rookie fade.
And herein lies the problem. Everything we all suggested in this topic to help rookies ALSO helps competitive players. It also makes it even easier for them.
If it does make it harder in a specific situation for a comp player it made it near impossible for a rookie player. We need a rule or tweak which ONLY benefits the rookies and not rookies & pro's.
Wow had a difference between pvp and pve yes. But both fields have rookies and pro's. its comparing apples and oranges, to compare wow pvp/pve mix with comp/pug in ns2.
A more fair example would to compare rookie vs pro pvp, or rookie vs pro pve.
IF, and I do say if, we can find rules which will not give the experienced player any help, in any situation, while boosting rookie play then yes.. I will be less inclined to say no.
But I havent seen any so far, haven't thoughed of any myself and have not heared any rookie or pro player give any which would truly be ONLY rookie friendly.
Untill I see, my vote stays no.
As a last thing I shall say I do think its unfair or unrealistic to say many of us are giving 'violent kneejerk reactions'.
Such a reaction would be 'what idiot even thinks of this' or 'its disgusting to cater to rookie players 5min into the game'.
I myself surely have not stated any of that. Now I cant speak for the whole topic without rereading, but I cant remember anyone else either. (if a mod snipped before I read, feel free to correct me on this one).
Many of us would probably agree if we even remotely saw a option of this to work. (and yes, this is based on my speculation)
Personally, I think a better focus on game scaling, so that the smaller the game the greater the impact of a single player and the larger the game the less the impact; as well as making the game more forgiving to larger player counts would go a long way to helping the pub vs comp scene. Comp players already have a strong dislike for larger games and pub players for smaller games. Working off this self imposed segregation would probably suit everyone best.
@|DFA| Havoc
you absolutely have the problem correctly identified, but I don't agree that separate rulesets are the best way to solve it.
I think a good start would be to colour code servers based on average skill of players currently on that server compared to your own. there have been a few topics discussing this. any measure would be a good start, tbh.
You've done a huge amount to support new players to this game (for which we should all be grateful), so I'm sure you of all people appreciate the need to pit the right players together. I think instead of separate rulesets, a way of visually grading the difficulty of a server would be a simpler, and more universally applicable method of trying to get better games. That would benefit new, intermediate and hardcore players alike.
IF, and I do say if, we can find rules which will not give the experienced player any help, in any situation, while boosting rookie play then yes.. I will be less inclined to say no.
But I havent seen any so far, haven't thoughed of any myself and have not heared any rookie or pro player give any which would truly be ONLY rookie friendly.
Untill I see, my vote stays no.
Oh that's piss-easy. All you have to do is reward skill less, e.g.:
Buff the LMG and increase the cone of fire so that there is little or no reward for aiming well.
Prevent marines from jumping in combat so they can not dodge.
Nerf movement speeds across the board, all classes, both teams.
Remove speed gain from wall-hopping.
Reduce energy drain from blink so you just mash the button to go fast.
Add a slight amount of auto-aim.
Increase bite/swipe cones.
Always play the same map so new players don't have to learn so many new things.
Make structures extremely bullet spongey so there is always time to react.
Reduce air control so rapid direction changes become impossible.
Tweak the values to make a small number of strategies stupidly powerful to reduce the number of hard choices the comm has to make.
Add randomness to the outcome of battles, e.g. random crits.
Don't allow players with greater situational awareness to profit; don't show them information on the minimap, add more echo and distortion to sound and reduce stereo-separation so they can't orient themselves after it, turn on all-talk so they cannot communicate with their team in a timely fashion.
Add more view-obstructing effects.
Now that the game is sterile and player's cannot set goals like getting better at the game or mastering any particular skill, add extrinsic goals. Xp and levels, achievements, unlockable hats, badges rewarded for time spent playing.
Didnt uwe announce a while ago they were working on something to rank players @Roobubba?
I can remember them saying something like that.
If you're referring to Sabot, they did but all has been silent on that front for a while...
If I get any time outside of cancer research and greenfarming, I might write a mod to do this based on player time as a simple first iteration...
Sorry, when I said individual player skill I was talking about individual unit combat potency still, not the skill required to play the game at the strategy layer. There is definitely a lot of depth to that end of the game.
The changes for the pub play ruleset wouldn't affect the competitive players, because ideally they would be playing on servers with the competitive ruleset. You are still talking about both players sharing one version of the game and any changes affecting both groups, which is how it is now. Casual players play on pub servers with the pub ruleset, comp players play on comp servers with the comp ruleset. I can't think of any way to say it more clearly.
This is why everyone complains about the proposal 'splitting the community', but I say that's a good thing. Comp players should want to play with other comp players, not go stomping around in pubs for an easy ego boost. Sabot proposes to do the same thing, but with math/code instead of volition/incentive.
Except that with Sabot, while we have split the community into discrete groups, fades would still be broken for pub play. Casual players can still go fade and be nigh unstoppable, because the fade being balanced currently depends on the assumption that the marines have a very high degree of shotgun accuracy.
That is the crux of the problem. There are mechanics that are balanced around an assumed skill level, and competitive players have the most feedback into the balance of the game despite representing a relatively tiny percentage of the overall playerbase.
Sadly, I do not think adding additional colors to the current color coding system would help. It's already been shown that (many) comp players have no compunctions about joining green-coded rookie friendly servers and going completely balls out. I don't think it needs to be said again why this is bad for the overall community and the growth of the game.
If comp players have a ruleset that supports their specific gameplay and skill level however, this incentivizes them to play on those servers with other comp players. I see 'splitting the community' parroted over and over as a reason for being against this proposal, but I have yet to see a rational, sensible argument as to why this split is not in everyone's best interests. Again, sabot proposes to make the same split, and everyone seems to be all for it.
the problem I have with a split is that it's binary. my proposal of colour coded servers according to the players' skill allows for much finer gradation of skill levels.
there would be nothing to stop 'pub stomping' in either scenario, barring good adminning. However, if I look down my server list and see a whole load of green servers, a couple of yellow servers and a few red servers, Knowing that this colour scheme means yellow is about my skill, I already have a filter to apply subconsciously. newbies won't join red servers, and I would hope that comp players like me, who are also pub players... would avoid the rookie servers like the plague.
it's just less divisive, I think...? more shades of grey!
I'm fine with adding additional codifiers, I just don't think it will fix anything. The comp players who already regulate themselves will continue to do so, the ones who don't care still won't care, and the ones who like pubstomping will still like pubstomping.
It also doesn't fix the skill-dependent mechanics and game design. Let's try a quick analogy: The baseball field at an elementary school is going to be smaller than one used in the major leagues because they don't expect kids to be able to hit/throw the ball as far. The fundamental game design is the same, but one aspect has changed to accommodate an expected difference in skill.
To be honest, I don't expect this petition to accomplish anything. The forums here are largely toxic to all things 'casual', and UWE has already stated they have no intention of pursuing multiple rulesets, firm in the belief they can make the game functional and balanced at every level. I think that's a nice idea, but wildly optimistic / unrealistic.
So I shout myself hoarse, because I love the game and want desperately for it to succeed, and I think that the playerbase will continue to dwindle until there is nothing left but a tiny nub of hardcore elitists before UWE manages to reach the holy grail of perfectly scaling balance. Someday, probably soon, I will become exhausted and turn my energy and attention elsewhere.
i play casually but if i want to play a casual game i will never load ns2. the only thing that will change this is rounds went for 5 minutes and it didn't matter if i quit halfway through
I'm fine with adding additional codifiers, I just don't think it will fix anything. The comp players who already regulate themselves will continue to do so, the ones who don't care still won't care, and the ones who like pubstomping will still like pubstomping.
It also doesn't fix the skill-dependent mechanics and game design. Let's try a quick analogy: The baseball field at an elementary school is going to be smaller than one used in the major leagues because they don't expect kids to be able to hit/throw the ball as far. The fundamental game design is the same, but one aspect has changed to accommodate an expected difference in skill.
To be honest, I don't expect this petition to accomplish anything. The forums here are largely toxic to all things 'casual', and UWE has already stated they have no intention of pursuing multiple rulesets, firm in the belief they can make the game functional and balanced at every level. I think that's a nice idea, but wildly optimistic / unrealistic.
So I shout myself hoarse, because I love the game and want desperately for it to succeed, and I think that the playerbase will continue to dwindle until there is nothing left but a tiny nub of hardcore elitists before UWE manages to reach the holy grail of perfectly scaling balance. Someday, probably soon, I will become exhausted and turn my energy and attention elsewhere.
Hey, being British, I don't even know what baseball or elementary school(I do, but it goes against being British heheh, it's primary school damn you and cricket is better) is. I'd prefer a grading system then a split, because wouldn't you know there are different skill levels in public and competitive, that's why you have "pubstars" and low skilled competitive players, so the stomping wouldn't be removed.
Ironcially it was the non-causal appeal that brought me to this game, even though this is a reletively simple game, it's at-least better then most at there and any push to make it even more dumb down would be a shame, I've always wanted to go the other way, to bring more playes like me, the Hearts of Iron players the guys who relish difficult and complex games, but the FPS side giving a unique propective, but it kinda took over and dumb down the game, now it's sits between the two, not getting the hardcore players or getting the casual player. and being a PC game, would have thought hardcore players would be the main focus, because most of the casual market went to consoles.
I think the keep a good player base, UWE has the bite the bullet and make choice go for complexity and attract players like me, or dumb it down and attract the players who prefer a more casual style game, because they're not getting anywhere by trying to appeal to both.
Though UWE going for balance, funny, the build 250 throw that out of the window.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
edited July 2013
@Soylent_green
have to disagree with your definition of casual.
Their skill may be lower but it still pays of.
@|DFA| Havoc
While splitting the comp and pub base completely may worth with the strongest cases, it still allows for very experienced and strong puggers. Where do you draw the line?
* If I stop being in a clan tomorrow, am I a pug player? Or do I have to have competitive matches and not only scrims to be comp?
* Is one group allowed to join the other ones servers?
* Is there the manpower to actually man enought servers?
* What if you get put in with folk your skilllevel in a language you can not possibly fathom? In a accent you cant remotely recognise even a single ns term?
* What if puggers become better and better? What about mentors?
* and I doubt many want to join the clusterf which is 20+ players. I sure hell do not.
I assumed you ment introducing a ruleset to make it easier on rookies while comp players played also in there offtime.
Aparently you want to split the playerbase. Im gona make my no even more firm then.
I do not see positive awnsers on the above questions. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I do not see it.
I read all of your post and I disagree, I don't make competitive alot (merc sometimes) but from my POV competitive is what keeps the game alive, it´s not a "funny game" like Chivalry, Battlefield or all of this game where mess and dumb things are strenghts of the game, I don't say they can't be played "seriously" but none of them have the deepness and the skill curve of NS2, if you make the game "easier" or more noob friendly it will loose a part of that, you will have more players but they will make the turn of the game faster. To be honest I don't understand the "noobcare" guys, all the games lose players over the time, just deal with it, the game have a very loyal core playerbase, a creative community and an active competitive scene which is loyal too. More the time go, less noobs we have, more interesting pub games we play, more NS2 is attractive, the game have his strenghts, just trust them.
-1 . I haven't read the thread because it is null and void. NS1 went to a more competitive dev. and turned out fantastic because of it. NS2 for the majority of it's life has been dull, but on competitive feedback and more classic NS1 like implementations, it's being made well enough now for me to begin to play.
There's more work to be done, but it's going in the right direction, can't fault that and segregating the community to comp. and casual. won't help. Keep this direction going!
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@okxyd making a game easier to learn is not "noobcare".. Its just good game design. If done right it won't interfere with how complicated or how much depth a game has, and the end result is a larger, competent player base.
The devs barely have the manpower to develop one game, making two versions of the same thing is out of the question. And IronPony is correct. An enhanced tutorial system to smooth out the learning curve is the best solution.
Comments
Ad hominem arguments are best arguments. Now I can not care about what you think even more than I did before!
@RaZDaZ
It's not just about rookies, there is a sizable skill divide between many experienced casual players and most competitive players as well. Some people just don't have the raw aptitude or reflexes that others do, and no amount of time spent will close the gap.
Also, I find Starcraft to be a poor comparison because you don't have to worry about the individual combat ability of your units in a straight RTS. They have a fixed set of stats, everything can be distilled down to formulas. In NS2, individual player skill is a (the) major factor.
Onos are currently garbage because they are balanced around usefulness in 6v6 when most pub servers are higher pop. Even the greenest rookie can shoot an onos effectively.
Skulks need everything to work in their favor to get kills (unless killing VERY unskilled marines) the moment you add jetpacks (and shotguns), skulks become almost entirely irrelevant to the player vs player fights.
Lerks shouldn't be attacking marines that much if they play support like they should.
Lastly gorges... yup.
I remember fairly regular back and forth games in 249 that were an absolute blast. In 250 and 251 I have had very few back and forth games. When it gets to late game, marines form up an arc/exo ball and its over. I think its to the point where the only way aliens win those games is to completely abandon their bases and gorge rush all marine bases simultaneously. Does anyone really think that makes much sense?
After the countless years the dev team has spent on this game, creating a separate config is a lot like spitting in their faces. Especially since they do listen and change the game from community feedback. Let's continue to work with them to better the game instead of creating 'our own comp version' through a mod.
Let's not make the game less accessible by splitting the community.
Obviously Starcraft isn't an optimal contrast but it still is relevant to some extent. I don't understand what you mean by individual skill not being the major factor in Starcraft, it's arguably the most difficult multiplayer game ever made in terms of individual skill since Brood War, yeah it's reliant on build optimisation and unit composition but some of this does translate to the team play of NS2. I do agree how units have fixed stats and formulas are applicable and individual skill is the major factor in NS2 but that still doesn't mean that dampening the barrier of entry is still any less relevant. It's a model that works excellently yet NS2 has nothing comparable to speak of. Maybe Quake 3/live is a game you can relate to more but everyone who has a PC and plays regularly knows that Quake has an extremely high skill requirement, people who buy the steam sale or check out NS2 don't expect that.
That skill divide between experienced casual players and competitive players isn't too important imo. I consider myself the former and I don't mind going up against experienced players in pub. If I'm not in the mood for that, I'll join a different server. Those types of players are ones that are unlikely to give two shits about a random pro player in their lobbies, the main issue is dropping rookies into a server like this where the much more important skill divide between rookie-experienced casual is the major problem in the growth of the game.
I would explore what can be done in 1 ruleset, before going ahead with creating promod or pubmod. It needs some actual effort though and a change in how development is handled. Most of the issues with 250 did get brought up many times while BT was a mod... it's hard to say whether they were ignored or whether they were drowned out by all the noise and knee-jerk whining. But it's been maybe 1 month without crucial fixes which is also worrisome.
There are things you can do to improve public play.
There are things you can do to improve competitive play.
There are things you can do to get win rate to 50% with fair teams public play.
There are things you can do to get win rate to 50% with fair teams in competitive play.
Combining different changes from each of these categories will lead to a better game with only 1 ruleset.
I bet you can even do it without needing to add new game mechanics like BT.
For example, if medpacks are nerfed (higher cost or more cooldown or less effectiveness) and base stats are buffed (higher base HP or cheaper weapons1/armor1/arms lab), then public play becomes much more balanced. Competitive players would just need to figure out exactly how much to nerf one thing and buff the other. It's not like the game is balanced anyways, so these changes are easily doable.
For public games which can even go beyond 6v6, reducing infantry portal cost is a huge win. This is a relatively minor change when it comes to the outcome of a competitive game. It can easily be offset by increasing arms lab cost. I think it might even make comp play even better since base rushing isn't going to be as effective.
I rarely see arcs used in a pub or turrets used in tournaments. That's an easy win for balance modders since it's basically free points that can always be spent on buffing marines when there is a situation that needs it.
I think the key thing to realize is that competitive play is not in a great state, and never was. There is huge flexibility to iterate on the game without many negative consequences. Just get things in a somewhat steady and working state for the run of the major tournaments...
I am afraid you are the one not understanding my point so I shall try to explain in more detail.
Now before I start once again... my main points for not liking the idea are:
* more dev work on balancing 2 rules
* relearning the game between to sets.
* I highly doubt it can be done rulewise. << the big one
You say to tweak some values inbetween comp and pug play. Like armories giving armor again.
Yes this would help the rookie players, I completely agree. It ALSO helps the experienced/comp players to the same degree.
Fades having less damage and health would increase the chance slightly for a rookies to kill a fade, yes. But most fades they would manage to kill are again rookies. A experienced/comp player will adjust to the new values in no time and you are back where you are now.. them not dying.
Or the experienced player would have a even easier time shooting the rookie fade.
And herein lies the problem. Everything we all suggested in this topic to help rookies ALSO helps competitive players. It also makes it even easier for them.
If it does make it harder in a specific situation for a comp player it made it near impossible for a rookie player.
We need a rule or tweak which ONLY benefits the rookies and not rookies & pro's.
Wow had a difference between pvp and pve yes. But both fields have rookies and pro's. its comparing apples and oranges, to compare wow pvp/pve mix with comp/pug in ns2.
A more fair example would to compare rookie vs pro pvp, or rookie vs pro pve.
IF, and I do say if, we can find rules which will not give the experienced player any help, in any situation, while boosting rookie play then yes.. I will be less inclined to say no.
But I havent seen any so far, haven't thoughed of any myself and have not heared any rookie or pro player give any which would truly be ONLY rookie friendly.
Untill I see, my vote stays no.
As a last thing I shall say I do think its unfair or unrealistic to say many of us are giving 'violent kneejerk reactions'.
Such a reaction would be 'what idiot even thinks of this' or 'its disgusting to cater to rookie players 5min into the game'.
I myself surely have not stated any of that. Now I cant speak for the whole topic without rereading, but I cant remember anyone else either. (if a mod snipped before I read, feel free to correct me on this one).
Many of us would probably agree if we even remotely saw a option of this to work. (and yes, this is based on my speculation)
you absolutely have the problem correctly identified, but I don't agree that separate rulesets are the best way to solve it.
I think a good start would be to colour code servers based on average skill of players currently on that server compared to your own. there have been a few topics discussing this. any measure would be a good start, tbh.
You've done a huge amount to support new players to this game (for which we should all be grateful), so I'm sure you of all people appreciate the need to pit the right players together. I think instead of separate rulesets, a way of visually grading the difficulty of a server would be a simpler, and more universally applicable method of trying to get better games. That would benefit new, intermediate and hardcore players alike.
I can remember them saying something like that.
Oh that's piss-easy. All you have to do is reward skill less, e.g.:
Buff the LMG and increase the cone of fire so that there is little or no reward for aiming well.
Prevent marines from jumping in combat so they can not dodge.
Nerf movement speeds across the board, all classes, both teams.
Remove speed gain from wall-hopping.
Reduce energy drain from blink so you just mash the button to go fast.
Add a slight amount of auto-aim.
Increase bite/swipe cones.
Always play the same map so new players don't have to learn so many new things.
Make structures extremely bullet spongey so there is always time to react.
Reduce air control so rapid direction changes become impossible.
Tweak the values to make a small number of strategies stupidly powerful to reduce the number of hard choices the comm has to make.
Add randomness to the outcome of battles, e.g. random crits.
Don't allow players with greater situational awareness to profit; don't show them information on the minimap, add more echo and distortion to sound and reduce stereo-separation so they can't orient themselves after it, turn on all-talk so they cannot communicate with their team in a timely fashion.
Add more view-obstructing effects.
Now that the game is sterile and player's cannot set goals like getting better at the game or mastering any particular skill, add extrinsic goals. Xp and levels, achievements, unlockable hats, badges rewarded for time spent playing.
If you're referring to Sabot, they did but all has been silent on that front for a while...
If I get any time outside of cancer research and greenfarming, I might write a mod to do this based on player time as a simple first iteration...
Now THAT would fix the problem, if done rightr.. sabot.
Sorry, when I said individual player skill I was talking about individual unit combat potency still, not the skill required to play the game at the strategy layer. There is definitely a lot of depth to that end of the game.
@DC_Darkling
The changes for the pub play ruleset wouldn't affect the competitive players, because ideally they would be playing on servers with the competitive ruleset. You are still talking about both players sharing one version of the game and any changes affecting both groups, which is how it is now. Casual players play on pub servers with the pub ruleset, comp players play on comp servers with the comp ruleset. I can't think of any way to say it more clearly.
This is why everyone complains about the proposal 'splitting the community', but I say that's a good thing. Comp players should want to play with other comp players, not go stomping around in pubs for an easy ego boost. Sabot proposes to do the same thing, but with math/code instead of volition/incentive.
Except that with Sabot, while we have split the community into discrete groups, fades would still be broken for pub play. Casual players can still go fade and be nigh unstoppable, because the fade being balanced currently depends on the assumption that the marines have a very high degree of shotgun accuracy.
That is the crux of the problem. There are mechanics that are balanced around an assumed skill level, and competitive players have the most feedback into the balance of the game despite representing a relatively tiny percentage of the overall playerbase.
@Roobubba
Sadly, I do not think adding additional colors to the current color coding system would help. It's already been shown that (many) comp players have no compunctions about joining green-coded rookie friendly servers and going completely balls out. I don't think it needs to be said again why this is bad for the overall community and the growth of the game.
If comp players have a ruleset that supports their specific gameplay and skill level however, this incentivizes them to play on those servers with other comp players. I see 'splitting the community' parroted over and over as a reason for being against this proposal, but I have yet to see a rational, sensible argument as to why this split is not in everyone's best interests. Again, sabot proposes to make the same split, and everyone seems to be all for it.
the problem I have with a split is that it's binary. my proposal of colour coded servers according to the players' skill allows for much finer gradation of skill levels.
there would be nothing to stop 'pub stomping' in either scenario, barring good adminning. However, if I look down my server list and see a whole load of green servers, a couple of yellow servers and a few red servers, Knowing that this colour scheme means yellow is about my skill, I already have a filter to apply subconsciously. newbies won't join red servers, and I would hope that comp players like me, who are also pub players... would avoid the rookie servers like the plague.
it's just less divisive, I think...? more shades of grey!
No, it's not sarcasm. I don't think it's a good idea, but that's what a casual mode means, making sure that skill doesn't pay.
You forgot to add changing the name of the game to Battle Field Clone: extra terrestrial terrorists
You just made me realise why I don't play TF2 any more after NS2 came out.
I'm fine with adding additional codifiers, I just don't think it will fix anything. The comp players who already regulate themselves will continue to do so, the ones who don't care still won't care, and the ones who like pubstomping will still like pubstomping.
It also doesn't fix the skill-dependent mechanics and game design. Let's try a quick analogy: The baseball field at an elementary school is going to be smaller than one used in the major leagues because they don't expect kids to be able to hit/throw the ball as far. The fundamental game design is the same, but one aspect has changed to accommodate an expected difference in skill.
To be honest, I don't expect this petition to accomplish anything. The forums here are largely toxic to all things 'casual', and UWE has already stated they have no intention of pursuing multiple rulesets, firm in the belief they can make the game functional and balanced at every level. I think that's a nice idea, but wildly optimistic / unrealistic.
So I shout myself hoarse, because I love the game and want desperately for it to succeed, and I think that the playerbase will continue to dwindle until there is nothing left but a tiny nub of hardcore elitists before UWE manages to reach the holy grail of perfectly scaling balance. Someday, probably soon, I will become exhausted and turn my energy and attention elsewhere.
Hey, being British, I don't even know what baseball or elementary school(I do, but it goes against being British heheh, it's primary school damn you and cricket is better) is. I'd prefer a grading system then a split, because wouldn't you know there are different skill levels in public and competitive, that's why you have "pubstars" and low skilled competitive players, so the stomping wouldn't be removed.
Ironcially it was the non-causal appeal that brought me to this game, even though this is a reletively simple game, it's at-least better then most at there and any push to make it even more dumb down would be a shame, I've always wanted to go the other way, to bring more playes like me, the Hearts of Iron players the guys who relish difficult and complex games, but the FPS side giving a unique propective, but it kinda took over and dumb down the game, now it's sits between the two, not getting the hardcore players or getting the casual player. and being a PC game, would have thought hardcore players would be the main focus, because most of the casual market went to consoles.
I think the keep a good player base, UWE has the bite the bullet and make choice go for complexity and attract players like me, or dumb it down and attract the players who prefer a more casual style game, because they're not getting anywhere by trying to appeal to both.
Though UWE going for balance, funny, the build 250 throw that out of the window.
have to disagree with your definition of casual.
Their skill may be lower but it still pays of.
@|DFA| Havoc
While splitting the comp and pub base completely may worth with the strongest cases, it still allows for very experienced and strong puggers. Where do you draw the line?
* If I stop being in a clan tomorrow, am I a pug player? Or do I have to have competitive matches and not only scrims to be comp?
* Is one group allowed to join the other ones servers?
* Is there the manpower to actually man enought servers?
* What if you get put in with folk your skilllevel in a language you can not possibly fathom? In a accent you cant remotely recognise even a single ns term?
* What if puggers become better and better? What about mentors?
* and I doubt many want to join the clusterf which is 20+ players. I sure hell do not.
I assumed you ment introducing a ruleset to make it easier on rookies while comp players played also in there offtime.
Aparently you want to split the playerbase. Im gona make my no even more firm then.
I do not see positive awnsers on the above questions. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I do not see it.
There's more work to be done, but it's going in the right direction, can't fault that and segregating the community to comp. and casual. won't help. Keep this direction going!
The devs barely have the manpower to develop one game, making two versions of the same thing is out of the question. And IronPony is correct. An enhanced tutorial system to smooth out the learning curve is the best solution.