No one wants to be frustrated or pigeonholed, but competitive players (and traditional players with above-average understanding of what makes for good gameplay) are the only ones who will be happy when that goal is achieved, which is why you develop with them primarily in mind.
Also, my being on these forums has nothing to do with my understanding of game design, despite what an observer would commonly expect.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1703003:date=Mar 18 2009, 10:41 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 18 2009, 10:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703003"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one wants to be frustrated or pigeonholed, but competitive players (and traditional players with above-average understanding of what makes for good gameplay) are the only ones who will be happy when that goal is achieved, which is why you develop with them primarily in mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Competitive players are not the only people in the world who enjoy a "fun" game. Anyone can enjoy it, although not everyone knows <i>why</i> they enjoy it. However if you develop for a minority of players you will likely only get that minority of players playing that game. I don't think any one group should be "primarily in mind" but all three groups(competitive, casual, and newbie) should be in mind when suggesting/developing a feature. I'm sure you will continue to suggest ideas with "competitive players primarily in mind" as that's you're prerogative, but I find that to be a narrow-mined view.
<!--quoteo(post=1702964:date=Mar 18 2009, 01:05 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Mar 18 2009, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel more weight should be put on the "making it intuitive" part, as keeping new players at launch is harder than releasing an update that improves the competetive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the developers want to make a highly successful game, they simply need to emulate what past games did and make it better.
Why is CS so damn popular, its 10 years old! And why is CS:S the second most played game, thats old as well.
In my theory, CS/CS:S is so popular because they allow for the game to be really easy to learn, but have a successful enough metagame that keeps the competitive community thriving.
Notice, that neither games really tried to define how the competitive scene would design their rules, they merely provided the playing field and the "tools".
Other games like ET:QW tried to put their competitive appeal on the game (by inviting top competitive teams to playtest) and it turned out to be an ultimate failure.
Bottom line: The person in charge for creating a comp scene was a complete moron, and the game failed, yet it had so many "experts" helping them develop the game into W:ET.
Now don't get me wrong: <i>While the game should not specifically cater to competitive play and allow the competitive community to form their own rules, previous NS1 competitive players can be valuable in terms of game design, balance and meta game development</i>.
NS2 should follow the CS model as closely as possible, while at the same time, provide a complex and deep meta game for those who seek to take the game that far.
NS2 playtesters should consist of both competitive players and casual players that are familiar with the games in's and out's and also understands NS game theory, of how the dynamics of each team influence each other and how those dynamics effect potential victory or loss for a particular side.
When I say "primarily in mind" I don't mean that you cater the <i>enjoyment</i> to good players - though I can see how it could have come across that way.
I mean that you take the most mature viewpoints and make those the focus of the most developer concern among playtesters. There is a difference between a 10 year old cs kiddie screaming about bull###### headshots and a veteran of cal upset that they are unable to get out of a pounce lock without cluster######ing with other teammates who may or may not be competent to help when the going gets rough.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited March 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1703278:date=Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When I say "primarily in mind" I don't mean that you cater the <i>enjoyment</i> to good players - though I can see how it could have come across that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Glad that misunderstanding is cleared up. <!--quoteo(post=1703278:date=Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean that you take the most mature viewpoints and make those the focus of the most developer concern among playtesters. There is a difference between a 10 year old cs kiddie screaming about bull###### headshots and a veteran of cal upset that they are unable to get out of a pounce lock without cluster######ing with other teammates who may or may not be competent to help when the going gets rough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Glad that misunderstanding is cleared up too. That's why I said "that is not what we're talking about", but I can see how you could get that impression.
<!--quoteo(post=1702563:date=Mar 12 2009, 11:02 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 12 2009, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I'd be quite reclutant to buy HL just to play a mod that has lerk legs flying in the ceiling, magically instantly disappearing alien corpses, fades getting stuck while blinking, onoses being unable to navigate on most maps, laser mines crashing servers every other round and ect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually did buy a valid steam key because of NS only, I've been playin since 1.01, had to had a valid key since steam forced...that was when? v 2.x ? or 3.x? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
On another note, about players being classified as newb,semi-pro, pro or something check the system used in quakelive. Seems the idea works fine. Although you could have always some "semi-pro" going to less skilled servers just to show off, thus noobs being not so motivated. But hey tell me a system invented by humans that's perfect.
<!--quoteo(post=1703319:date=Mar 23 2009, 04:17 PM:name=c3ntaurius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(c3ntaurius @ Mar 23 2009, 04:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually did buy a valid steam key because of NS only, I've been playin since 1.01, had to had a valid key since steam forced...that was when? v 2.x ? or 3.x? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think steam was finally forced at 3.0 betas. You could play some 2.0 games on steam too, but 3.0 betas were the first steam only releases if my memory serves me right. At that point NS was already in a good shape and the development had been going for some years already.
If the topic of players <i>perceived</i> enjoyment level and resulting desires for game mechanics is what is being discussed, then is it not completely relevant what their <i>actual</i> enjoyment and resulting <i>most advantageous</i> game mechanics would then be?
The article has lots of text, but I agree with Bac, its hard to find any anlysis or conclusions out of it.
A game will always a balance between the enjoyment of competitive and casual players. Competitive players want to the game to be liberal to maximize one's potential and effort while casual (or public) players want the game to be enjoyable without having to spend too much time to it. Like for example spawncamping adds an interesting twist for competitive games (a sneaked player can cause great havoc at a crucial moment) but in public games its boring and counter-productive for the game's future in the long run. <i>Basically the ability of one player to impact a game with plain skill is the crucial variable </i>which both communities want to adjust to their own favor (ie. casual players want to limit skill-based impact and competitive players want to maximize it - generally speaking). Spawncamping, bunnyhopping, walljumping, random factors etc. are all just derivatives of this variable. If you limit skill effect too much, you will scare out competitive players and vice versa.
I think ranked servers is a great way to solve this issue. Number of games played is a harsh but rather functional way to rank players. Beginners are crucial for the future of the game, but likewise experienced players are crucial to be kept in the game. Dedicated servers for beginners could have dramatic effect on the scene in long run, as beginners wouldn't have to be worried about getting devastated by high-level players thus spoiling their game enjoyment. This feature would have to be in the game server per default to be effective. Ranked servers would benefit the experienced end more directly as the Experienced -ranked servers would not have beginners and overall quality of games would be better thus also limiting the effect of high-level players on the game without having to limit the player itself.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1703326:date=Mar 23 2009, 04:54 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 04:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703326"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the topic of players <i>perceived</i> enjoyment level and resulting desires for game mechanics is what is being discussed, then is it not completely relevant what their <i>actual</i> enjoyment and resulting <i>most advantageous</i> game mechanics would then be?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're not talking about "perceived desires of game mechanics", so much the underlying motivations behind some of those suggestions whichever group they belong to, or as restated, the thing each group wanted to avoid most. The conflicts in satisfying "balance" for each group is what I wanted to highlight by posting the article here. I think <b>Jiriki</b>'s second paragraph says it well. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree with Bac, its hard to find any anlysis or conclusions out of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree the article makes few assertions beyond defining the perspective of each group in a common way. That is the main reason why I liked it.
I wasn't expecting this topic to end up in support of ranked servers, but in this context it definitely makes sense.
You're both missing the point. You're trying to please everyone which gives you an apparent paradox. Instead you should be trying to design the best game possible.
The gameplay of that game will bloom out of the most mature viewpoints much more readily than it will out of casual players' thoughts, since they - self-defined as not caring about the game very much - will not have very well-thought-out opinions about it.
You think I'm derailing the topic when I'm actually giving you the solution to the problem you're pretending is hard.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited March 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're both missing the point. You're trying to please everyone which gives you an apparent paradox.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not pleasing everyone so much as not alienating large groups of players. <!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead you should be trying to design the best game possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's exactly what I'm trying to do. <!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The gameplay of that game will bloom out of the most mature viewpoints much more readily than it will out of casual players' thoughts, since they - self-defined as not caring about the game very much - will not have very well-thought-out opinions about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, I'm not implying "listen to every suggestion and treat it equally"; I'm saying "when you make a suggestion, don't ignore a large group of players just because it's not your play style". Don't limit the depth sought by competitive players. Don't limit the breath sought by casual players. Don't destroy the learning curve for new players.
If your feature breaks one of those rules, it could be made better IMO.
<!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 24 2009, 12:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 24 2009, 12:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead you should be trying to design the best game possible <b><i>for the player demographic I represent</i></b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you can't acknowledge that they are designing a game for commercial sale, not just for competitive players, and that it needs to be other things then just "intuitive" to appeal to other gamers then you are being very closed minded.
And Radix do you always have to write so academically? It actually makes reading your posts a lot harder to understand (probably the exact opposite of what you were trying to do eg. detail through communicating effectively)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're both missing the point. You're trying to please everyone which gives you an apparent paradox. Instead you should be trying to design the best game possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand why many, including Radix share his opinion as I've been in competitive scene a long time. While I personally share many general "competitive opinions" (eg. maps, gameplay) I still think that many competitive players don't understand that "the best gameplay possible" isn't that simple as you want to see since you have to take many factors into consideration when developing games, especially commercial ones. For example, many competitive players don't care much about learning curve as they are hard core players who are willing to put time and effort to learn the tricks. However a big learning curve is a major setback for new players. Many gamers don't have the time to learn game by its principles just to enjoy it. I don't that's an unreasonable requirement. And competitive scene size and survival is dependant on the number of intake from public servers. This is crucial because UWE won't have the marketing powers of big game companies.
However with the current NS development path I'm more concerned about competitive than public players being alienated. I could be more elaborative here but let's just say I enjoy public games with atmospheric-maps as much as I enjoy extralevels-crazycombat which is nil. I hope this won't happen with NS2. But time will tell, there's no point being pre-verdictive here. Atleast, from what I understand, we can make a promod for better competitve play with LUA.
But I'mt not sure what are we talking about anymore. I thought this topic was about balancing (limiting individual impact) the game to be more fair for newcomers, which I think is bad aspect for gameplay and some kind of other approach is much better, for example ranked servers. Maybe someone can clear me out here.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1703675:date=Mar 28 2009, 02:58 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jiriki @ Mar 28 2009, 02:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703675"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I'mt not sure what are we talking about anymore. I thought this topic was about balancing (limiting individual impact) the game to be more fair for newcomers, which I think is bad aspect for gameplay and some kind of other approach is much better, for example ranked servers. Maybe someone can clear me out here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is an interesting definition of balancing that I have not heard yet. What made you think this topic was about that?
<!--quoteo(post=1703674:date=Mar 28 2009, 07:12 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Mar 28 2009, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't follow an "easy to learn, impossible to master" approach to designing a video game, you cannot achieve commercial success.
Designing a game for just one type of player demographic is idiotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yet the SIMs found an abundance of commercial success. I don't think it's that clear-cut. For multiplayer, maybe.
---
At the very minimum, some sort of basic, local, persistent stat-tracking (games/kills/wins/minutes per class) would be enough to guide Beginners into their own sandpit area and allow other players to set their own goals. I've mentioned more complicated versions in the past, tied to achievements, but it doesn't need to be that complicated to do the main job of giving new players space and time to experiment with the game mechanics at their own pace.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1703793:date=Mar 31 2009, 02:45 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Mar 31 2009, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Sims is a singleplayer sandbox game, so the rules are different from a game where you compete against others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, while I've been using the "Casual Gamers" term rather liberally, I don't want to get it confused with the Sim/Wii crowd. That group is more of a "Occasional Gamers" crowd that only plays one or two games and will be unlikely to pick new games unless they're very similar to previously played games. I don't think UWE will, nor will attempt to, appeal to this group with NS2 simply because the barrier of being an FPS, let alone FPS/RTS, is strongly prohibitive.
Given the style of gameplay that NS encourages, I tend to favor a steeper learning curve, i.e. catering to experienced players. The style of gameplay I am talking about here is the team versus team system, where, if you stick close to an experienced player you can improve your skill by observing them. However, this would need to be encouraged by introducing stronger supporting classes and abilities. The upside/downside of this is that the team that most utilizes the supporting elements is the team that gets the competitive advantage. For example, it turns into explicitly teaching less experienced players by telling them what you need them to do.
Comments
Also, my being on these forums has nothing to do with my understanding of game design, despite what an observer would commonly expect.
Competitive players are not the only people in the world who enjoy a "fun" game. Anyone can enjoy it, although not everyone knows <i>why</i> they enjoy it. However if you develop for a minority of players you will likely only get that minority of players playing that game. I don't think any one group should be "primarily in mind" but all three groups(competitive, casual, and newbie) should be in mind when suggesting/developing a feature. I'm sure you will continue to suggest ideas with "competitive players primarily in mind" as that's you're prerogative, but I find that to be a narrow-mined view.
This man makes a good point.
Why is CS so damn popular, its 10 years old! And why is CS:S the second most played game, thats old as well.
In my theory, CS/CS:S is so popular because they allow for the game to be really easy to learn, but have a successful enough metagame that keeps the competitive community thriving.
Notice, that neither games really tried to define how the competitive scene would design their rules, they merely provided the playing field and the "tools".
Other games like ET:QW tried to put their competitive appeal on the game (by inviting top competitive teams to playtest) and it turned out to be an ultimate failure.
Bottom line: The person in charge for creating a comp scene was a complete moron, and the game failed, yet it had so many "experts" helping them develop the game into W:ET.
Now don't get me wrong: <i>While the game should not specifically cater to competitive play and allow the competitive community to form their own rules, previous NS1 competitive players can be valuable in terms of game design, balance and meta game development</i>.
NS2 should follow the CS model as closely as possible, while at the same time, provide a complex and deep meta game for those who seek to take the game that far.
NS2 playtesters should consist of both competitive players and casual players that are familiar with the games in's and out's and also understands NS game theory, of how the dynamics of each team influence each other and how those dynamics effect potential victory or loss for a particular side.
I mean that you take the most mature viewpoints and make those the focus of the most developer concern among playtesters. There is a difference between a 10 year old cs kiddie screaming about bull###### headshots and a veteran of cal upset that they are unable to get out of a pounce lock without cluster######ing with other teammates who may or may not be competent to help when the going gets rough.
Glad that misunderstanding is cleared up.
<!--quoteo(post=1703278:date=Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 22 2009, 10:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean that you take the most mature viewpoints and make those the focus of the most developer concern among playtesters. There is a difference between a 10 year old cs kiddie screaming about bull###### headshots and a veteran of cal upset that they are unable to get out of a pounce lock without cluster######ing with other teammates who may or may not be competent to help when the going gets rough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glad that misunderstanding is cleared up too. That's why I said "that is not what we're talking about", but I can see how you could get that impression.
I actually did buy a valid steam key because of NS only, I've been playin since 1.01, had to had a valid key since steam forced...that was when? v 2.x ? or 3.x? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
On another note, about players being classified as newb,semi-pro, pro or something check the system used in quakelive. Seems the idea works fine. Although you could have always some "semi-pro" going to less skilled servers just to show off, thus noobs being not so motivated. But hey tell me a system invented by humans that's perfect.
I think steam was finally forced at 3.0 betas. You could play some 2.0 games on steam too, but 3.0 betas were the first steam only releases if my memory serves me right. At that point NS was already in a good shape and the development had been going for some years already.
A game will always a balance between the enjoyment of competitive and casual players. Competitive players want to the game to be liberal to maximize one's potential and effort while casual (or public) players want the game to be enjoyable without having to spend too much time to it. Like for example spawncamping adds an interesting twist for competitive games (a sneaked player can cause great havoc at a crucial moment) but in public games its boring and counter-productive for the game's future in the long run. <i>Basically the ability of one player to impact a game with plain skill is the crucial variable </i>which both communities want to adjust to their own favor (ie. casual players want to limit skill-based impact and competitive players want to maximize it - generally speaking). Spawncamping, bunnyhopping, walljumping, random factors etc. are all just derivatives of this variable. If you limit skill effect too much, you will scare out competitive players and vice versa.
I think ranked servers is a great way to solve this issue. Number of games played is a harsh but rather functional way to rank players. Beginners are crucial for the future of the game, but likewise experienced players are crucial to be kept in the game. Dedicated servers for beginners could have dramatic effect on the scene in long run, as beginners wouldn't have to be worried about getting devastated by high-level players thus spoiling their game enjoyment. This feature would have to be in the game server per default to be effective. Ranked servers would benefit the experienced end more directly as the Experienced -ranked servers would not have beginners and overall quality of games would be better thus also limiting the effect of high-level players on the game without having to limit the player itself.
We're not talking about "perceived desires of game mechanics", so much the underlying motivations behind some of those suggestions whichever group they belong to, or as restated, the thing each group wanted to avoid most. The conflicts in satisfying "balance" for each group is what I wanted to highlight by posting the article here.
I think <b>Jiriki</b>'s second paragraph says it well.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree with Bac, its hard to find any anlysis or conclusions out of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree the article makes few assertions beyond defining the perspective of each group in a common way. That is the main reason why I liked it.
I wasn't expecting this topic to end up in support of ranked servers, but in this context it definitely makes sense.
The gameplay of that game will bloom out of the most mature viewpoints much more readily than it will out of casual players' thoughts, since they - self-defined as not caring about the game very much - will not have very well-thought-out opinions about it.
You think I'm derailing the topic when I'm actually giving you the solution to the problem you're pretending is hard.
It's not pleasing everyone so much as not alienating large groups of players.
<!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead you should be trying to design the best game possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what I'm trying to do.
<!--quoteo(post=1703346:date=Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 23 2009, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1703346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The gameplay of that game will bloom out of the most mature viewpoints much more readily than it will out of casual players' thoughts, since they - self-defined as not caring about the game very much - will not have very well-thought-out opinions about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I'm not implying "listen to every suggestion and treat it equally"; I'm saying "when you make a suggestion, don't ignore a large group of players just because it's not your play style".
Don't limit the depth sought by competitive players.
Don't limit the breath sought by casual players.
Don't destroy the learning curve for new players.
If your feature breaks one of those rules, it could be made better IMO.
If you can't acknowledge that they are designing a game for commercial sale, not just for competitive players, and that it needs to be other things then just "intuitive" to appeal to other gamers then you are being very closed minded.
And Radix do you always have to write so academically? It actually makes reading your posts a lot harder to understand (probably the exact opposite of what you were trying to do eg. detail through communicating effectively)
intuitiveness is good for all players, especially new ones.
Radix does need to stop writing essays, I have told him this many times before.
Designing a game for just one type of player demographic is idiotic.
I understand why many, including Radix share his opinion as I've been in competitive scene a long time. While I personally share many general "competitive opinions" (eg. maps, gameplay) I still think that many competitive players don't understand that "the best gameplay possible" isn't that simple as you want to see since you have to take many factors into consideration when developing games, especially commercial ones. For example, many competitive players don't care much about learning curve as they are hard core players who are willing to put time and effort to learn the tricks. However a big learning curve is a major setback for new players. Many gamers don't have the time to learn game by its principles just to enjoy it. I don't that's an unreasonable requirement. And competitive scene size and survival is dependant on the number of intake from public servers. This is crucial because UWE won't have the marketing powers of big game companies.
However with the current NS development path I'm more concerned about competitive than public players being alienated. I could be more elaborative here but let's just say I enjoy public games with atmospheric-maps as much as I enjoy extralevels-crazycombat which is nil. I hope this won't happen with NS2. But time will tell, there's no point being pre-verdictive here. Atleast, from what I understand, we can make a promod for better competitve play with LUA.
But I'mt not sure what are we talking about anymore. I thought this topic was about balancing (limiting individual impact) the game to be more fair for newcomers, which I think is bad aspect for gameplay and some kind of other approach is much better, for example ranked servers. Maybe someone can clear me out here.
That is an interesting definition of balancing that I have not heard yet. What made you think this topic was about that?
Designing a game for just one type of player demographic is idiotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yet the SIMs found an abundance of commercial success. I don't think it's that clear-cut. For multiplayer, maybe.
---
At the very minimum, some sort of basic, local, persistent stat-tracking (games/kills/wins/minutes per class) would be enough to guide Beginners into their own sandpit area and allow other players to set their own goals. I've mentioned more complicated versions in the past, tied to achievements, but it doesn't need to be that complicated to do the main job of giving new players space and time to experiment with the game mechanics at their own pace.
Also, while I've been using the "Casual Gamers" term rather liberally, I don't want to get it confused with the Sim/Wii crowd. That group is more of a "Occasional Gamers" crowd that only plays one or two games and will be unlikely to pick new games unless they're very similar to previously played games. I don't think UWE will, nor will attempt to, appeal to this group with NS2 simply because the barrier of being an FPS, let alone FPS/RTS, is strongly prohibitive.
Thanks!
~R