<!--quoteo(post=1693234:date=Nov 12 2008, 12:52 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Nov 12 2008, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The resource strategy aspect of the game isn't long and boring, holding down E is needlessly long and boring. If more skulks attacked marines and more marines reinforced to the same exact spot they died in a few second ago, NS would be a better tolerated game all around.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh I dunno about that. It might have a better start, but I think its lasting appeal would be greatly reduced if combat frequency was increased. I mean look at TF2, people were all over that ###### when it came out, and now half the people who played it constantly now play it once in a blue moon cause it was all the same damn constant thing.
Counter-Strike found a real nice balance with the 3-5 minute rounds and the 1 life system. People who play UT and Quake and such get into CS and they're all -oh god I have to wait MINUTES to spawn!? wtf!-, but once they get passed the waiting, more often than not they realize how much more rewarding and fun the combat is when a kill and death have significance.
I think a good way to increase the Mass Appeal while keeping Gameplay Depth is utilizing a dynamic resource system that'll keep games interesting no matter how many people are on a team. People like games where they can have big epic battles. Good god it kills me playing a gorge in NS when it's 16 on 16. Even with 5 RTs I have to wait like 4 or 5 minutes between building structures.
<!--quoteo(post=1693249:date=Nov 12 2008, 03:31 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2008, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693249"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I'm facing three times the skulks, I'm not going to perform three times better, so I'll die a lot quicker. Only way to remedy that is if I could arrive back at that spot three times faster, and if I could return three times faster, it means I can reach the hive three times faster with three of my buddies. Changes things a bit. If you oversimplify things by saying increased combat rate means having a faster game, perhaps ultimately it's true, but the game isn't the same but in fast forward. Strategy completely changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Strategy changes, but doesn't disappear or even go worse all times. The game system can be worked around in many ways if they want to have more fights (smaller maps, easier transportation, more fights around crucial areas forced, crucial areas placed closer to ms and ect). Nevertheless, I think the present system is relatively good most of the time. I'd just like to see aliens recovering a little better from 4+ skulk wipes, at least on some maps.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good god it kills me playing a gorge in NS when it's 16 on 16. Even with 5 RTs I have to wait like 4 or 5 minutes between building structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Go frag them already. It's really nice to gorge around when nobody gets medded <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Let's say that we have a populace comprised entirely of 10-13 year olds who are all spoiled suburbanite children who have been pampered their entire lives and never had to work for anything (this is the thesis of the opposing argument I guess).
What is the optimal game in that scenario?
From conventional wisdom, it would seem that the game should not violate the following:
- I was just killed and I don't know why. - I was just killed and I couldn't stop it. - I don't know what to do. - I want to shoot him RIGHT NOW.
Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of:
- Very frequent combat scenarios. - Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused. - Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated. - There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities.
This set of criteria is no longer anything even remotely resembling a game. While there are success and failure contingencies, they're not really competitive, in that they might happen, but by no control of the player - it's closer to a tea party, where there are no winners and losers (or at least, victory and defeat have no correlation to the quality of the player), and (in our case) the only thing that exists before the activity is deemed entirely not-a-game, is an illusory facade of success or failure.
Is that the best business model in this (unrealistic) scenario?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say that we have a populace comprised entirely of 10-13 year olds who are all spoiled suburbanite children who have been pampered their entire lives and never had to work for anything (this is the thesis of the opposing argument I guess).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using the extreme case is not constructive since starting with a false premise can often lead to a false conclusion. We have to balance the wants of the many(casual) against the needs of the few(competitive). Most casual gamers(of FPS's) are not 10-13 year old kids so examining this age group is a pointless exercise at best.
Mass appeal and depth are not mutually exclusive, even though they often seem to conflict. That is why we have been discussing ways good games have mitigated depth vs appeal problems, by trying to implement solutions that appeal to both when possible or at least hiding one from the other. I think battle importance is a discussion worth having.
Squad spawning has a big impact on this because:<ul><li>Individual deaths don't matter as much as long as the location is held by a squad member.</li></ul>This is good for casual players, but let's figure out how it affects competitive depth. For the commander It becomes less about who's in the right place and more about the place itself, so map control is more important. For the individual it makes it easier to get to the right place, unless they are trying to come from an unexpected angle or go somewhere his squad is not. In short a competitive player will probably ignore squad respawning most of the time.
<!--quoteo(post=1693249:date=Nov 12 2008, 03:31 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2008, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693249"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->B) If getting across the map were so easy, so would getting into your opponent's base. What sort of game would that produce? I'm thinking the incredibly short and frustrating kind<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, I said you respawn wherever you died, you don't magically gain yards out of thin air.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I'm facing three times the skulks, I'm not going to perform three times better, so I'll die a lot quicker. Only way to remedy that is if I could arrive back at that spot three times faster, and if I could return three times faster, it means I can reach the hive three times faster with three of my buddies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your math sucks again. Getting back 3x as fast doesn't necessarily have to mean that your movement is 3x faster because we have teleportation. You're facing 3x the skulks, but the skulks are also facing 3x more of you, or some such nonsense.
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say that we have a populace comprised entirely of 10-13 year olds who are all spoiled suburbanite children who have been pampered their entire lives and never had to work for anything (this is the thesis of the opposing argument I guess).
What is the optimal game in that scenario?
From conventional wisdom, it would seem that the game should not violate the following:
- I was just killed and I don't know why. - I was just killed and I couldn't stop it. - I don't know what to do. - I want to shoot him RIGHT NOW.
Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of:
- Very frequent combat scenarios. - Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused. - Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated. - There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities. This set of criteria is no longer anything even remotely resembling a game. While there are success and failure contingencies, they're not really competitive, in that they might happen, but by no control of the player - it's closer to a tea party, where there are no winners and losers (or at least, victory and defeat have no correlation to the quality of the player), and (in our case) the only thing that exists before the activity is deemed entirely not-a-game, is an illusory facade of success or failure.
Is that the best business model in this (unrealistic) scenario?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not even remotely useless to examine. This is the populace that virtually all new games are being developed (read: butchered) for. This is precisely the reason I haven't bought a new game since audiosurf (which is not worth $2.49).
If this populace did not exist, game design would either be entirely contradictory, or outright bad. This target audience epitomizes the opposite side of the argument.
If you don't like my sardonic attempt at absurdity, you're free to replace my colorful description of these individuals with "casual gamers". But really, what is a casual gamer if not (at heart) a 13 year old useless suburbanite?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1693281:date=Nov 12 2008, 02:18 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 02:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693281"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If this populace did not exist, game design would either be entirely contradictory, or outright bad. This target audience epitomizes the opposite side of the argument.
If you don't like my sardonic attempt at absurdity, you're free to replace my colorful description of these individuals with "casual gamers". But really, what is a casual gamer if not (at heart) a 13 year old useless suburbanite?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the problem, it doesn't. it takes it to an absurd extreme, not epitomizes. We're shooting for Portal, not modern RTS #8675 nor "Poke the Bunny".
This de-evolved quickly. I'll throw this out right now, making exaggerated claims only gives exaggerated results. Lets cooperate instead of try to murder each other, okay?
Back on topic!
Mass Appeal means that a person can pick up this game and begin having fun after a few minutes learning the game. It's all about making a good first impression so the player gets interested into the game. If you can't do that, there is no point designing the rest of the game. This does not mean the person must be optimally effective right away, they can still suck. They must be able to suck without getting upset so they can continue to learn the game. You then need to gently grab their hand and show them the basics so they don't get scared away from the incoming depth. Once they got there is a commander, a resource system and very different teams, you release them into the wild.
But I want to make this point clear, the target audience should be everyone. Both the mythical 13 year old and the misanthropic elitist should be able to enjoy this game in their own way. If those two groups can have fun, the demographic grows so much more.
A tutorial will help, a small singleplayer campaign would be better but is beyond the budget.
Intuitive skill-testing mechanics as well. Something like active reload from the Gears of War series is a prime example since it is a simple thing to learn but takes skill to do so.
Hugs for everyone? (I'll personally slap anyone who mentions bunny hoping in this thread)
Radix, that's exactly what Valve did to TFC when making TF2. Look how much more popular TF2 is now compared to TFC! Any dumb schmuck can play it. Look ma, no skill! Whereas TFC had -tons- of hidden skill and tons of awesome community-made maps.
The biggest problem I have with TF2 is that they took out the in-depth skills. Now, TF2 is basically WYSIWYG for a video game. It doesn't even have a quarter of the depth that even CS:S has. Freekin Terror plays the game for 3 months and is a top 3 clan...LOL.
What NS2 should optimally do, is point the player to centers of conflict and waypt them [at the beginning, it'd be where the nearest uncapped RT is, for later, it'd be where there's people shooting, or where the com has waypt'd]. Once they get the hang of it, they can turn off the "tutorial mode". This way, it's -exactly- like CS except with instant respawn and strategy. Yes, they have to run to the conflict, yes the may have to hang around an RT while it builds, but at least they know exactly where to go when first learning the game. Not only that, but programming a tutorial mode to
A) waypt players to the nearest uncapped RT B) waypt players to the nearest center of conflict (along with helpful hints such as what phase gates do) C) override A and B when the commander gives a waypt
is (I don't think...) not very hard at all. This, again, would provide players with instant guidance and they can always turn it off if they're feeling uber that day.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited November 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1693306:date=Nov 12 2008, 08:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OK so despite the thousands of posts painting the shed about bhopping, no one here wants to defend the <i>real</i> opposing side of this argument?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're defining the "real opposition" to have goals that directly conflict with depth. That's not constructive, that's just "I want to rant against this group of players". <!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of: - Very frequent combat scenarios.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe, even some of the competitive players complain about the downtime spent capping, building, etc. Pacing is important as already noted in this topic. <!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The game should ease new players in, but that doesn't mean the game is devoid of depth. It can be hidden when playing against players of a similar skill level. Portal is a good example of a game that takes an esoteric concept and slowly introduces it to the player so that the player won't get frustrated and leave right away. If the player gets to a higher level and doesn't want to play any more that's fine. The goal is to not make the game too intimidating such that they don't buy it in the first place. <!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true. Skill gaps are important to show that the game has more interesting play to offer. Matchmaking would be a good option to hide skill gaps from a player if that's what they want and a feature that improves everyone's play experience. <!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This doesn't follow at all. A player should be able to understand how he was killed, and hopefully get a clue how to mitigate it or prevent it from happening in the future. That doesn't mean all abilities should be reduced to obvious spam attacks.
I'll defend the "real side of the opposition" when you don't build strawmen for casual players, their goals, and their motives. It would also be nice if you didn't see it as opposition, but an opportunity to make the game better for everyone, but I'm not holding my breath.
See, here's the FUN graph that all companies strive to create if they want their game to have lasting appeal.
FUN |0000000000000000000000000 |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |_________________________ SKILL
It's simple, keep the game very fun throughout all skill levels. Here's what NS1 currently does:
FUN |````````````````````0```0 |````````````````0```````` |`````````````0``````````` |````````0``0````````````` |````0```````````````````` |`0``````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |_________________________ SKILL
S'not the straightest line, let me tell you. The game is a lot of fun when you know what you're doing and you're playing with other people who know what they're doing. Before that, mindless pub play, it's hit or miss.
Here's TF2:
FUN |`0``````````````````````` |`````0``````````````````` |`````````0``````````````` |`````````````0``````````` |````````````````0```````` |````````````````````0```` |````````````````````````0 |_________________________ SKILL
It's a pretty steady fall into suckyness because the game has no depth, thus increases in skill don't mean much, nothing changes and the fun factor goes down.
Here's CS:
FUN |```````0`````0``````0```0 |`````0````0`````0`````0`` |``0`````````````````````` |0```````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |_________________________ SKILL
CS starts off pretty good, and soon you're in the thick of it and having a blast, and the more you play the better you get and the better combat gets. It occasionally has a small miss period where something annoyances crops up (namely balancing issues with firearms, glitchy flashbangs, hitbox issues, and physics issues).
Now I'm not saying I want NS2 to be like CS. For us who've already gotten past the rough beginning, NS is already at the fun stage and we don't want it to change, but that's not exactly fair to all the new people who want to try it but can't get passed the annoying suck stage at the start.
There's gotta be a way to make the beginning steps in NS2 a lot better than NS1, cause as the fun graph shows NS1 suffered a huge problem with fun factor at the start. How many times do we yell at n00bs who try to have fun and waste res on a fade or lerk when we THINK they should be gorging or building stuff at base? Not exactly fun for a new guy.
NS1 is fine for its deeper game elements though, it seems to have focused on that right from the start, but as I've said before this creates these huge skill gaps of 1337 vs. n00b players as the n00b players never stick around to get to 1337 status.
Suggestions:
1) A tutorial that walks a n00b through every single major aspect of the gameplay. Not the minors one, just the big ones like 3 chambers for a full upgrade or how sieging works, etc.
2) Perhaps a n00b mode for some servers that removes some of the complexity from gameplay so new guys can wrap their minds around the concepts before moving onto bigger better game. NOT COMBAT, please god my poor heart can't take that anymore.
<!--quoteo(post=1693354:date=Nov 13 2008, 03:51 PM:name=NovusAnimus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NovusAnimus @ Nov 13 2008, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693354"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's simple, keep the game very fun throughout all skill levels. Here's what NS1 currently does:
FUN |````````````````````0```0 |````````````````0```````` |`````````````0``````````` |````````0``0````````````` |````0```````````````````` |`0``````````````````````` |````````````````````````` |_________________________ SKILL
S'not the straightest line, let me tell you. The game is a lot of fun when you know what you're doing and you're playing with other people who know what they're doing. Before that, mindless pub play, it's hit or miss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We can all agree that this graph is at least somewhat correct. To fix the problem new players have with the game, we don't need to flip the graph like TF2 did, we need to make the initial experience of new players higher. This can be done by giving them a simple single player tutorial and in-game help.
<!--quoteo(post=1693365:date=Nov 13 2008, 05:09 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Nov 13 2008, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We can all agree that this graph is at least somewhat correct. To fix the problem new players have with the game, we don't need to flip the graph like TF2 did, we need to make the initial experience of new players higher. This can be done by giving them a simple single player tutorial and in-game help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd actually raise the middle part of it a bit. Once you get the learning process started, the possibilities to adapt your movement, gaming sense and strategy overwhelm you in a positive way. The problem is that not everyone has time/motivation to start that process and later on keep it going.
<!--quoteo(post=1693377:date=Nov 13 2008, 06:21 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Nov 13 2008, 06:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd actually raise the middle part of it a bit. Once you get the learning process started, the possibilities to adapt your movement, gaming sense and strategy overwhelm you in a positive way. The problem is that not everyone has time/motivation to start that process and later on keep it going.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm assuming the graph is more or less a parabola for NS, balanced at around when people get their 1.5:1kd. We really have no way of plotting an actual graph.
You can't produce a tutorial that will teach a newbie when it is in his best interests to transform into a gorge and make a hive or transform into a fade and attack the assaulting humans, for example. They are equally positions which are easy to screw up and potentially disastrous if done at the wrong moment. This is something you can only hint at by way of wiki or something similar, but there are moments when a wiki tells you that you should gorge when your team doesn't have all three hives up and you have the resources to spend, when in fact the humans inhabit that hive. Supposing you even managed to make it far enough to put up the third hive only to see it immediately torn to pieces over your dead gorge corpse by 15 machine guns is not an encouraging sign for a newbie.
My point is that beyond basic controls and general guidelines, newbies should learn by themselves. To make it fun for newbies, I guess the veterans are going to just have to not be lazy and actually *<i>help</i>* the newbies. I know, how bothersome.
<!--quoteo(post=1693426:date=Nov 14 2008, 07:19 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Nov 14 2008, 07:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't produce a tutorial that will teach a newbie when it is in his best interests to transform into a gorge and make a hive or transform into a fade and attack the assaulting humans, for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure you can:
(ping) - It appears your team only has one resource tower, you are losing. (ping) - Your team only has 2 rts, it would be optimal to build another one. (ping) - You have 50 resources, getting a hive up is first priority. (ping) - It appears that the marine team has locked down two hive locations, morph into a fade and punish them.
There has to be a guide of SOME sort to tell n00bs how to play the game. Letting them learn on their own is so very painful to watch in NS1.
"Why do we need three chambers?" "What are RTs?" "Spit the hive? Why?" "Weld stuff? I thought that's what medpacks are for." "What are these strange moving circles I see on my screen?" "What are these strange moving red dots I see on my screen?" "How come I can't go Onos yet?" "So this spore stuff stacks right?" "Why do people keep asking me to heal them? I'm a gorge, I build stuff!" "Why are we building a turret factory near the hive?" "Put mines on the phasegate? That doesn't make any sense, I'll put them NEAR the phasegate instead." "The HELL is that 'ping' sound I hear every so often? It makes big blue waves, do they hurt?" "OMG I just picked celerity but now I can't pick silence! WTF glitch!" "Why is my health dropping? So I don't have any hives, I'm not being shot though!" "HOLY ###### AM I INSIDE A STOMACH!? ONOS CAN DO THAT!?" "How do I shot web?" - (bonus point for how well it fits)
etc, etc, etc.
NS1 is great for deep gameplay, but toss a n00b into the mix and it's just too much to handle at the start, and they NEED to get that ###### handled otherwise they're useless skulks/mindless marines and that's no fun for anyone. Some kind of tutorial needs to be made, even if it's just some sort of 3D picture book, just something that walks a n00b through all the MAJOR aspects of gameplay. Let them figure out the minor stuff themselves, yes, but the big things are too important to let a n00b learn by trial and error.
Comments
Eh I dunno about that. It might have a better start, but I think its lasting appeal would be greatly reduced if combat frequency was increased. I mean look at TF2, people were all over that ###### when it came out, and now half the people who played it constantly now play it once in a blue moon cause it was all the same damn constant thing.
Counter-Strike found a real nice balance with the 3-5 minute rounds and the 1 life system. People who play UT and Quake and such get into CS and they're all -oh god I have to wait MINUTES to spawn!? wtf!-, but once they get passed the waiting, more often than not they realize how much more rewarding and fun the combat is when a kill and death have significance.
I think a good way to increase the Mass Appeal while keeping Gameplay Depth is utilizing a dynamic resource system that'll keep games interesting no matter how many people are on a team. People like games where they can have big epic battles. Good god it kills me playing a gorge in NS when it's 16 on 16. Even with 5 RTs I have to wait like 4 or 5 minutes between building structures.
Strategy changes, but doesn't disappear or even go worse all times. The game system can be worked around in many ways if they want to have more fights (smaller maps, easier transportation, more fights around crucial areas forced, crucial areas placed closer to ms and ect). Nevertheless, I think the present system is relatively good most of the time. I'd just like to see aliens recovering a little better from 4+ skulk wipes, at least on some maps.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good god it kills me playing a gorge in NS when it's 16 on 16. Even with 5 RTs I have to wait like 4 or 5 minutes between building structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go frag them already. It's really nice to gorge around when nobody gets medded <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
What is the optimal game in that scenario?
From conventional wisdom, it would seem that the game should not violate the following:
- I was just killed and I don't know why.
- I was just killed and I couldn't stop it.
- I don't know what to do.
- I want to shoot him RIGHT NOW.
Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of:
- Very frequent combat scenarios.
- Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused.
- Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated.
- There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities.
This set of criteria is no longer anything even remotely resembling a game. While there are success and failure contingencies, they're not really competitive, in that they might happen, but by no control of the player - it's closer to a tea party, where there are no winners and losers (or at least, victory and defeat have no correlation to the quality of the player), and (in our case) the only thing that exists before the activity is deemed entirely not-a-game, is an illusory facade of success or failure.
Is that the best business model in this (unrealistic) scenario?
Using the extreme case is not constructive since starting with a false premise can often lead to a false conclusion. We have to balance the wants of the many(casual) against the needs of the few(competitive). Most casual gamers(of FPS's) are not 10-13 year old kids so examining this age group is a pointless exercise at best.
Mass appeal and depth are not mutually exclusive, even though they often seem to conflict. That is why we have been discussing ways good games have mitigated depth vs appeal problems, by trying to implement solutions that appeal to both when possible or at least hiding one from the other. I think battle importance is a discussion worth having.
Squad spawning has a big impact on this because:<ul><li>Individual deaths don't matter as much as long as the location is held by a squad member.</li></ul>This is good for casual players, but let's figure out how it affects competitive depth. For the commander It becomes less about who's in the right place and more about the place itself, so map control is more important. For the individual it makes it easier to get to the right place, unless they are trying to come from an unexpected angle or go somewhere his squad is not. In short a competitive player will probably ignore squad respawning most of the time.
First of all, I said you respawn wherever you died, you don't magically gain yards out of thin air.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I'm facing three times the skulks, I'm not going to perform three times better, so I'll die a lot quicker. Only way to remedy that is if I could arrive back at that spot three times faster, and if I could return three times faster, it means I can reach the hive three times faster with three of my buddies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your math sucks again. Getting back 3x as fast doesn't necessarily have to mean that your movement is 3x faster because we have teleportation. You're facing 3x the skulks, but the skulks are also facing 3x more of you, or some such nonsense.
What is the optimal game in that scenario?
From conventional wisdom, it would seem that the game should not violate the following:
- I was just killed and I don't know why.
- I was just killed and I couldn't stop it.
- I don't know what to do.
- I want to shoot him RIGHT NOW.
Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of:
- Very frequent combat scenarios.
- Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused.
- Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated.
- There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities.
This set of criteria is no longer anything even remotely resembling a game. While there are success and failure contingencies, they're not really competitive, in that they might happen, but by no control of the player - it's closer to a tea party, where there are no winners and losers (or at least, victory and defeat have no correlation to the quality of the player), and (in our case) the only thing that exists before the activity is deemed entirely not-a-game, is an illusory facade of success or failure.
Is that the best business model in this (unrealistic) scenario?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not even remotely useless to examine. This is the populace that virtually all new games are being developed (read: butchered) for. This is precisely the reason I haven't bought a new game since audiosurf (which is not worth $2.49).
If this populace did not exist, game design would either be entirely contradictory, or outright bad. This target audience epitomizes the opposite side of the argument.
If you don't like my sardonic attempt at absurdity, you're free to replace my colorful description of these individuals with "casual gamers". But really, what is a casual gamer if not (at heart) a 13 year old useless suburbanite?
If you don't like my sardonic attempt at absurdity, you're free to replace my colorful description of these individuals with "casual gamers". But really, what is a casual gamer if not (at heart) a 13 year old useless suburbanite?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the problem, it doesn't. it takes it to an absurd extreme, not epitomizes. We're shooting for Portal, not modern RTS #8675 nor "Poke the Bunny".
Back on topic!
Mass Appeal means that a person can pick up this game and begin having fun after a few minutes learning the game. It's all about making a good first impression so the player gets interested into the game. If you can't do that, there is no point designing the rest of the game. This does not mean the person must be optimally effective right away, they can still suck. They must be able to suck without getting upset so they can continue to learn the game. You then need to gently grab their hand and show them the basics so they don't get scared away from the incoming depth. Once they got there is a commander, a resource system and very different teams, you release them into the wild.
But I want to make this point clear, the target audience should be everyone. Both the mythical 13 year old and the misanthropic elitist should be able to enjoy this game in their own way. If those two groups can have fun, the demographic grows so much more.
A tutorial will help, a small singleplayer campaign would be better but is beyond the budget.
Intuitive skill-testing mechanics as well. Something like active reload from the Gears of War series is a prime example since it is a simple thing to learn but takes skill to do so.
Hugs for everyone? (I'll personally slap anyone who mentions bunny hoping in this thread)
The biggest problem I have with TF2 is that they took out the in-depth skills. Now, TF2 is basically WYSIWYG for a video game. It doesn't even have a quarter of the depth that even CS:S has. Freekin Terror plays the game for 3 months and is a top 3 clan...LOL.
What NS2 should optimally do, is point the player to centers of conflict and waypt them [at the beginning, it'd be where the nearest uncapped RT is, for later, it'd be where there's people shooting, or where the com has waypt'd]. Once they get the hang of it, they can turn off the "tutorial mode". This way, it's -exactly- like CS except with instant respawn and strategy. Yes, they have to run to the conflict, yes the may have to hang around an RT while it builds, but at least they know exactly where to go when first learning the game. Not only that, but programming a tutorial mode to
A) waypt players to the nearest uncapped RT
B) waypt players to the nearest center of conflict (along with helpful hints such as what phase gates do)
C) override A and B when the commander gives a waypt
is (I don't think...) not very hard at all. This, again, would provide players with instant guidance and they can always turn it off if they're feeling uber that day.
You're defining the "real opposition" to have goals that directly conflict with depth. That's not constructive, that's just "I want to rant against this group of players".
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Therefore, the design concept must follow something along the lines of:
- Very frequent combat scenarios.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, even some of the competitive players complain about the downtime spent capping, building, etc. Pacing is important as already noted in this topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Game should be simplistic, meaning devoid of depth, that way these kids will not get confused.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game should ease new players in, but that doesn't mean the game is devoid of depth. It can be hidden when playing against players of a similar skill level. Portal is a good example of a game that takes an esoteric concept and slowly introduces it to the player so that the player won't get frustrated and leave right away. If the player gets to a higher level and doesn't want to play any more that's fine. The goal is to not make the game too intimidating such that they don't buy it in the first place.
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Game must be devoid of skill gaps, that way no one will get frustrated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Skill gaps are important to show that the game has more interesting play to offer. Matchmaking would be a good option to hide skill gaps from a player if that's what they want and a feature that improves everyone's play experience.
<!--quoteo(post=1693256:date=Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 12 2008, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- There should be no tricks to win a fight, only spamming obvious abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't follow at all. A player should be able to understand how he was killed, and hopefully get a clue how to mitigate it or prevent it from happening in the future. That doesn't mean all abilities should be reduced to obvious spam attacks.
I'll defend the "real side of the opposition" when you don't build strawmen for casual players, their goals, and their motives. It would also be nice if you didn't see it as opposition, but an opportunity to make the game better for everyone, but I'm not holding my breath.
FUN
|0000000000000000000000000
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|_________________________ SKILL
It's simple, keep the game very fun throughout all skill levels. Here's what NS1 currently does:
FUN
|````````````````````0```0
|````````````````0````````
|`````````````0```````````
|````````0``0`````````````
|````0````````````````````
|`0```````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|_________________________ SKILL
S'not the straightest line, let me tell you. The game is a lot of fun when you know what you're doing and you're playing with other people who know what they're doing. Before that, mindless pub play, it's hit or miss.
Here's TF2:
FUN
|`0```````````````````````
|`````0```````````````````
|`````````0```````````````
|`````````````0```````````
|````````````````0````````
|````````````````````0````
|````````````````````````0
|_________________________ SKILL
It's a pretty steady fall into suckyness because the game has no depth, thus increases in skill don't mean much, nothing changes and the fun factor goes down.
Here's CS:
FUN
|```````0`````0``````0```0
|`````0````0`````0`````0``
|``0``````````````````````
|0````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|_________________________ SKILL
CS starts off pretty good, and soon you're in the thick of it and having a blast, and the more you play the better you get and the better combat gets. It occasionally has a small miss period where something annoyances crops up (namely balancing issues with firearms, glitchy flashbangs, hitbox issues, and physics issues).
Now I'm not saying I want NS2 to be like CS. For us who've already gotten past the rough beginning, NS is already at the fun stage and we don't want it to change, but that's not exactly fair to all the new people who want to try it but can't get passed the annoying suck stage at the start.
There's gotta be a way to make the beginning steps in NS2 a lot better than NS1, cause as the fun graph shows NS1 suffered a huge problem with fun factor at the start. How many times do we yell at n00bs who try to have fun and waste res on a fade or lerk when we THINK they should be gorging or building stuff at base? Not exactly fun for a new guy.
NS1 is fine for its deeper game elements though, it seems to have focused on that right from the start, but as I've said before this creates these huge skill gaps of 1337 vs. n00b players as the n00b players never stick around to get to 1337 status.
Suggestions:
1) A tutorial that walks a n00b through every single major aspect of the gameplay. Not the minors one, just the big ones like 3 chambers for a full upgrade or how sieging works, etc.
2) Perhaps a n00b mode for some servers that removes some of the complexity from gameplay so new guys can wrap their minds around the concepts before moving onto bigger better game. NOT COMBAT, please god my poor heart can't take that anymore.
FUN
|````````````````````0```0
|````````````````0````````
|`````````````0```````````
|````````0``0`````````````
|````0````````````````````
|`0```````````````````````
|`````````````````````````
|_________________________ SKILL
S'not the straightest line, let me tell you. The game is a lot of fun when you know what you're doing and you're playing with other people who know what they're doing. Before that, mindless pub play, it's hit or miss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can all agree that this graph is at least somewhat correct. To fix the problem new players have with the game, we don't need to flip the graph like TF2 did, we need to make the initial experience of new players higher. This can be done by giving them a simple single player tutorial and in-game help.
I'd actually raise the middle part of it a bit. Once you get the learning process started, the possibilities to adapt your movement, gaming sense and strategy overwhelm you in a positive way. The problem is that not everyone has time/motivation to start that process and later on keep it going.
I'm assuming the graph is more or less a parabola for NS, balanced at around when people get their 1.5:1kd. We really have no way of plotting an actual graph.
My point is that beyond basic controls and general guidelines, newbies should learn by themselves. To make it fun for newbies, I guess the veterans are going to just have to not be lazy and actually *<i>help</i>* the newbies. I know, how bothersome.
Sure you can:
(ping) - It appears your team only has one resource tower, you are losing.
(ping) - Your team only has 2 rts, it would be optimal to build another one.
(ping) - You have 50 resources, getting a hive up is first priority.
(ping) - It appears that the marine team has locked down two hive locations, morph into a fade and punish them.
"Why do we need three chambers?"
"What are RTs?"
"Spit the hive? Why?"
"Weld stuff? I thought that's what medpacks are for."
"What are these strange moving circles I see on my screen?"
"What are these strange moving red dots I see on my screen?"
"How come I can't go Onos yet?"
"So this spore stuff stacks right?"
"Why do people keep asking me to heal them? I'm a gorge, I build stuff!"
"Why are we building a turret factory near the hive?"
"Put mines on the phasegate? That doesn't make any sense, I'll put them NEAR the phasegate instead."
"The HELL is that 'ping' sound I hear every so often? It makes big blue waves, do they hurt?"
"OMG I just picked celerity but now I can't pick silence! WTF glitch!"
"Why is my health dropping? So I don't have any hives, I'm not being shot though!"
"HOLY ###### AM I INSIDE A STOMACH!? ONOS CAN DO THAT!?"
"How do I shot web?" - (bonus point for how well it fits)
etc, etc, etc.
NS1 is great for deep gameplay, but toss a n00b into the mix and it's just too much to handle at the start, and they NEED to get that ###### handled otherwise they're useless skulks/mindless marines and that's no fun for anyone. Some kind of tutorial needs to be made, even if it's just some sort of 3D picture book, just something that walks a n00b through all the MAJOR aspects of gameplay. Let them figure out the minor stuff themselves, yes, but the big things are too important to let a n00b learn by trial and error.