It's interesting to see how you can make broad sweeping conclusions about games you haven't even played.
I don't need to play the game. If what you are saying is correct, then that means it is not a fair game. If it's not a fair game of skill, it's not a multiplayer game I want to play.
God, this idea sort of feel like an awesome old friend showing up at your house who looks a little different, but is still a decent guy. Then for no reason, he punches you in the penis and ransacks your house.
I don't need to play the game. If what you are saying is correct, then that means it is not a fair game. If it's not a fair game of skill, it's not a multiplayer game I want to play.
Oh please. You are taking one small aspect of the game and blowing up to extremely large proportions. When you have 32 players on each side plus a multitude of vehicles, the kind of assault rile you have has little effect on the game. What does matter is your overall tactics in approaching your enemy, playing effectively as a unit, and outsmarting your opponent. If the game were two guys in a desert with one gun each and one guy has more choices to choose his gun from then you would be correct. However, this is not the case.
Oh please. You are taking one small aspect of the game and blowing up to extremely large proportions. When you have 32 players on each side plus a multitude of vehicles, the kind of assault rile you have has little effect on the game. What does matter is your overall tactics in approaching your enemy, playing effectively as a unit, and outsmarting your opponent. If the game were two guys in a desert with one gun each and one guy has more choices to choose his gun from then you would be correct. However, this is not the case.
So like I said before.
If, as you say, the extra options are not better, just different, then they are just extra clutter and fluff.
Let's say that the people with higher ranks have access to more assault rifles, but those assault rifles are all effectively equal. That's just clutter. Having all these different weapons to choose from, but none of them are actually any different from one another. At the worst it complicates the interface horribly, at the least it's just pointless added flavor.
Let's say the guns actually are different. Let's say of them has a higher rate of fire, one of them does more damage, and one is more accurate. Now we say new players only have access to the default gun, but players with many ranks have access to all of them. Now it isn't a pure fair game of skill anymore. People who have been playing for longer have an advantage, however slight.
Seriously think about this. Let's say we're going to play a game of Monopoly. However, before our game, I play five other games of Monopoly which you were not involved in. Let's say I win all of those games, and because of that I get to start our game of Monopoly, the first time you have ever played, with an additional $500. I think you can see how that is obviously not a good game mechanic. It simply ruins the purity of a fair skill-based competition. It would be like if I played against Kasparov in Chess, but he got to use queens instead of pawns because he is a master.
This feels like a false dichotomy, so if you see a third possibility, point it out. I just don't see one. Also, if I'm wrong about how this ranking thing works, feel free to elaborate on it further.
Let's say that the people with higher ranks have access to more assault rifles, but those assault rifles are all effectively equal. That's just clutter. Having all these different weapons to choose from, but none of them are actually any different from one another. At the worst it complicates the interface horribly, at the least it's just pointless added flavor.
Is it pointless? I disagree with you. Added flavor makes a game more enjoyable, yes enjoyable. Have you forgotten that games are supposed to be fun? So what if some guy's gun fires a little faster than mine, or he has five extra rounds in the clip. The idea that I have a goal to strive for beyond winning the game is enjoyable to me. Figuring out a way to defeat a guy who is technologically superior to me is enjoyable to me. The feeling I get when I outsmart the guy with the reapting shotgun with a knife is enjoyable to me. In fact, I'll put it out that because the game can be slightly unbalanced makes it more enjoyable to me.
Look at TF2 right now. The game is perfectly balanced, especially if you play Two Fort. However, more often than not it reaches a stalemate until someone makes a mistake on that map. It's really boring and nearly impossible to play. If I wanted to play a mathematically perfect game I would play Go, but like you said before, it's boring as shit. I'd rather play a fun, slightly unbalanced game then play a boring perfect game.
Look at TF2 right now. The game is perfectly balanced, especially if you play Two Fort. However, more often than not it reaches a stalemate until someone makes a mistake on that map. It's really boring and nearly impossible to play. If I wanted to play a mathematically perfect game I would play Go, but like you said before, it's boring as shit. I'd rather play a fun, slightly unbalanced game then play a boring perfect game.
TF2 isn't fun, but that's not because it is balanced. It's because it is too simple and easy. Look at a game like Advance Wars. Perfectly balanced, yet complex enough to be fun. Look at a game like Puerto Rico or Tigris and Euphrates. They are just as mathematically fair as Go, yet super awesome and not boring at all. Natural Selection is yet another example of a balanced game that is incredibly fun.
For me, at least, a competitive multi-player game must be a fair competition for it to be fun and worth playing. That doesn't mean all balanced games are good, it just means that all unbalanced games are not good. There are other factors to the quality of a game besides balance. However, for me, when it comes to a competitive multi-player game of skill, balance is a must. Any obvious impurity such as this will poison the water.
I don't think it's fair to make this statement. But whatever, your loss.
How would you like to come over and play some Natural Selection? Oh, I forgot to mention, we get aliens and we start with 3 hives because we're older than you.
TF2 isn't fun, but that's not because it is balanced. It's because it is too simple and easy.
You are upset with the game because it's too easy. It's almost as if you want some kind of way to add more options for team based play. I bet if there was a system that allows players to customize their class that would add additional depth to the game.
The first Medic unlock, for example, is called the Overhealer. Instead of temporarily buffing people's health to 50% above their normal maximum, it permanently boosts them to double their standard health. The downside is that it'll be dramatically worse at building Ubercharge - in fact, Valve are toying with not letting it Uber at all.
This could be good if you had server-side options to just open up all the upgrades to people. If the Medic unlock is reflective of Valve's attitude toward the rest of the unlocks, it sounds like they're aiming to add more tactical options to each class. I recall that the limited tactical options available to each class was one of Scrym's major complaints about the game. If this is the case, and you can just unlock the upgrades, then you've added more tactical depth to the game, which is NEVER a bad thing. Unless you make it Dwarf Fortress, I guess.
Now, if the unlocks are something like "OMG the Heavy gets a bigger minigun," that's crap. If you can only unlock them via achievements, that's also crap, unless they make some pretty innovative achievements. If it's something like "Get 1000 kills and unlock the double-barrel shotgun," you're effectively playing WoW.
I think that this could be good for the game, but it has to be done right. What I mean is that the adding new ways to outfit your guy can be a good thing, and provide a lot more depth to the game. If you've played the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, I think it needs to be like that, where there are additional weapons and abilities, but each has its own downside and upside. Some might only be useful in some situations, while others might be better for general use.
This will make organized team play a lot more important, because now its not just about having the right kinds of classes, but having them outfitted correctly. It's going to make up for the somewhat lack of skill required in the game, but adding strategy.
Of course this is all contingent upon it being done right, which I think Valve can do.
All this talk of unlocking new things by ranking up on an FPS and no one has mentioned Call of Duty 4? Where it works beautifully so much so that it has replaced Halo 3 as the top game on Xboxlive. Although this may have more to do with the pure simply genius of prestige mode that keeps players coming back for more.
Adding weapons to the game isn't my problem: I've been saying from the start that every class need one more primary weapon.
My problem would be if all players did not have immediate access to these weapons. Now, if the "unlocking" happened within any given game, i.e., you or your team had to meet certain conditions during a single match to get them for the rest of that match, it could be cool. If factors outside of a single game, such as numbers of kills on other games mattered, then this is the worst possible thing they could do to TF2 short of removing shotguns and rockets.
The problem is simple. If the new weapons actually matter tactically, then denying them to players who have not arbitrarily leveled themselves up over time is really, really weak sauce. If the weapons don't matter tactically, and are mostly for show, then they have not solved the original problem of TF2, in that each class has too few real tactical options.
I have practically zero confidence that the coming changes will be a good thing.
I think that with the new weapons its not going to be sort of arbitrary what new ones you get, like you aren't going to get a bone saw that does more damage by getting a certain number of uber-charges. Rather the new weapon will likely coincide with what achievement you get/how you play. So if you get 3 uber-charges in one life, maybe you then get a med gun that charges faster, but heals less. Or if you kill a lot of people with the needle gun maybe you get a more accurate needle gun that does less damage. I think that in this case the improvements you receive will simply compliment the way that you already play the game, but then you have the option if you want to try and get the other improvements by playing differently.
I think that in this case the improvements you receive will simply compliment the way that you already play the game, but then you have the option if you want to try and get the other improvements by playing differently.
That sort of fiddly-ness is not what TF2 needs, since it adds no tactical depth and simply slightly alters the playing experience and abilities of some players over others.
If they're going to add a range of subtly-different weapons or options, arbitrarily denying them to some players initially serves no purpose. It may work in other kinds of games, but the whole point of these team CTF style games is that they're symmetric and even. Giving one player an advantage, no matter how small, over another player outside of the context of an individual match removes that symmetry. It's still a game, but it's not the same kind of game, and it's certainly not the kind of game I want to play.
If they added this without requiring players to individually "unlock" them, then it's all cool.
I don't think it's going to remove the symmetry since the downsides for each weapon will balance out the upside (eventually,) like they say the Overhealer won't have Uber. So you can heal more and faster, but you don't have uber to use in tricky spots or to rush.
Now having everything unlocked at the start would be cool, but I think that the point of it is its meant to reward you for spending time playing the game. So that if you really put a lot of time into the game, and especially with a single class, it gives that player more depth to explore tactically. But if you are new to the game, or don't play much, you can still enjoy just picking a class and going with the standard weapons. I mean you could argue that Counter Strike technically has an unlock system, but you are able to unlock (and sometimes relock) weapons over the time you play on a single server. And in CS you could just pick the standard stuff like MP5, AK, M16, but it's not until you've played a lot and gotten chances to use some of the other guns like the Aug, and Scout, that you learn how they can potentially be far better for certain situations.
The only difference is that with CS the unlocks only happen on one server as you play and reboot when you leave it, while in TF2 they'll happen globally (though likely take longer to do.)
The only difference is that with CS the unlocks only happen on one server as you play and reboot when you leave it, while in TF2 they'll happen globally (though likely take longer to do.)
That is a huge huge difference. Imagine if we play Monopoly and I get a get out of jail free card during the game. That's normal. Now image that I have a bunch of get out of jail free cards I collected from previous games of Monopoly that you were not involved in. Even if the bonus I get is equal, but different, it still doesn't make for a fair game. All players have to play by the same rules, or the game is pointless.
That is a huge huge difference. Imagine if we play Monopoly and I get a get out of jail free card during the game. That's normal. Now image that I have a bunch of get out of jail free cards I collected from previous games of Monopoly that you were not involved in. Even if the bonus I get is equal, but different, it still doesn't make for a fair game. All players have to play by the same rules, or the game is pointless.
What about people who join a server midway through on CS? Aren't they at a disadvantage because they do not have access to all the weapons because of a short cash supply?
What about people who join a server midway through on CS? Aren't they at a disadvantage because they do not have access to all the weapons because of a short cash supply?
Yes. However, this is soon corrected when the map changes and you have the pistol round again.
Now having everything unlocked at the start would be cool, but I think that the point of it is its meant to reward you for spending time playing the game. So that if you really put a lot of time into the game, and especially with a single class, it gives that player more depth to explore tactically.
...reward you for spending time playing the game.
I have a serious beef with basing player options on "time spent playing the game" in what is nominally an instantiated symmetrical skill-based versus game (the same as CounterStrike). Adding persistence like that, especially in a game like this, seems to serve no purpose at all, other than possibly to convince people who otherwise would no longer play to continue doing so (sunk cost).
CS is stateful ONLY WITHIN A SINGLE GAME/SERVER. This is an important distinction. What CS does is nothing like what Valve is planning to do to TF2.
What about people who join a server midway through on CS? Aren't they at a disadvantage because they do not have access to all the weapons because of a short cash supply?
Yes. However, this is soon corrected when the map changes and you have the pistol round again.
So the problem is not the principle of the issue, but the amount of time it takes to get all the weapons. How can you criticize something based on the principle of the matter, yet admit that it has been done correctly in the past. The achievement based system just makes the weapons you earn permanent, albeit at the cost of time. The CS style requires you to repeatedly perform the same qualifying task in order to temporarily gain access to the weapons. Seems hypocritical to criticize one system and praise another...
So the problem is not the principle of the issue, but the amount of time it takes to get all the weapons. How can you criticize something based on the principle of the matter, yet admit that it has been done correctly in the past. The achievement based system just makes the weapons you earn permanent, albeit at the cost of time. The CS style requires you to repeatedly perform the same qualifying task in order to temporarily gain access to the weapons. Seems hypocritical to criticize one system and praise another...
A game of CS is only really good if you play with the same people from pistol round to map change.
Seems hypocritical to criticize one system and praise another...
They're clearly different systems, and I don't understand why you can't (or refuse to) see this.
Team Fortress 2 would be fine if you unlocked weapons in the course of a round/game, just as CS does. The unit of symmetric play is the MAP in CS: everyone starts equal at the start of the game (aside from the intended asymmetrical CS/T weapon lists), and progress in the context of that individual game. Where they progress from there in the course of the game depends on their skill and the decisions they make. Once the game is over, people play a new game.
The unit of symmetric play in TF2 is the match. Everyone starts equal at the start of a match. If the game balance changes (as it can in CS) over the course of a match (or even a map), it's still self-consistent. It is a discrete unit. It ENDS. At the start of any game, everyone begins with equal options. Where they progress from there in the course of the game depends on their skill and the decisions they make. Once the game is over, people play a new game.
Natural Selection has a similar component. Players in combat mode all start at "level 1." They gain levels as they kill enemies, and those levels give them powers. Players decide how to advance, and that advancement is based on experience points earned in the game. Once the game is over, it RESETS. You get to play a new game. I don't think I need to explain how having an extra level at the start (for being so good in previous games) would absolutely ruin it.
What these achievement-based gameplay options do is remove that reset. It would be as if, since I snipe so often, I start every new map of CS with an AWP. The game becomes stateful where before it was stateless, and is a different game. Factors other than immediate skill come into play. It's closer to an MMO and further from a direct test of skill/strategy/tactics/etc.
People are free to enjoy that sort of game. I personally think it's a shit mechanic. I want a contest of skill: not a contest of who's played longer.
Comments
Let's say that the people with higher ranks have access to more assault rifles, but those assault rifles are all effectively equal. That's just clutter. Having all these different weapons to choose from, but none of them are actually any different from one another. At the worst it complicates the interface horribly, at the least it's just pointless added flavor.
Let's say the guns actually are different. Let's say of them has a higher rate of fire, one of them does more damage, and one is more accurate. Now we say new players only have access to the default gun, but players with many ranks have access to all of them. Now it isn't a pure fair game of skill anymore. People who have been playing for longer have an advantage, however slight.
Seriously think about this. Let's say we're going to play a game of Monopoly. However, before our game, I play five other games of Monopoly which you were not involved in. Let's say I win all of those games, and because of that I get to start our game of Monopoly, the first time you have ever played, with an additional $500. I think you can see how that is obviously not a good game mechanic. It simply ruins the purity of a fair skill-based competition. It would be like if I played against Kasparov in Chess, but he got to use queens instead of pawns because he is a master.
This feels like a false dichotomy, so if you see a third possibility, point it out. I just don't see one. Also, if I'm wrong about how this ranking thing works, feel free to elaborate on it further.
Look at TF2 right now. The game is perfectly balanced, especially if you play Two Fort. However, more often than not it reaches a stalemate until someone makes a mistake on that map. It's really boring and nearly impossible to play. If I wanted to play a mathematically perfect game I would play Go, but like you said before, it's boring as shit. I'd rather play a fun, slightly unbalanced game then play a boring perfect game.
For me, at least, a competitive multi-player game must be a fair competition for it to be fun and worth playing. That doesn't mean all balanced games are good, it just means that all unbalanced games are not good. There are other factors to the quality of a game besides balance. However, for me, when it comes to a competitive multi-player game of skill, balance is a must. Any obvious impurity such as this will poison the water.
Now, if the unlocks are something like "OMG the Heavy gets a bigger minigun," that's crap. If you can only unlock them via achievements, that's also crap, unless they make some pretty innovative achievements. If it's something like "Get 1000 kills and unlock the double-barrel shotgun," you're effectively playing WoW.
This will make organized team play a lot more important, because now its not just about having the right kinds of classes, but having them outfitted correctly. It's going to make up for the somewhat lack of skill required in the game, but adding strategy.
Of course this is all contingent upon it being done right, which I think Valve can do.
My problem would be if all players did not have immediate access to these weapons. Now, if the "unlocking" happened within any given game, i.e., you or your team had to meet certain conditions during a single match to get them for the rest of that match, it could be cool. If factors outside of a single game, such as numbers of kills on other games mattered, then this is the worst possible thing they could do to TF2 short of removing shotguns and rockets.
The problem is simple. If the new weapons actually matter tactically, then denying them to players who have not arbitrarily leveled themselves up over time is really, really weak sauce. If the weapons don't matter tactically, and are mostly for show, then they have not solved the original problem of TF2, in that each class has too few real tactical options.
I have practically zero confidence that the coming changes will be a good thing.
If they're going to add a range of subtly-different weapons or options, arbitrarily denying them to some players initially serves no purpose. It may work in other kinds of games, but the whole point of these team CTF style games is that they're symmetric and even. Giving one player an advantage, no matter how small, over another player outside of the context of an individual match removes that symmetry. It's still a game, but it's not the same kind of game, and it's certainly not the kind of game I want to play.
If they added this without requiring players to individually "unlock" them, then it's all cool.
Now having everything unlocked at the start would be cool, but I think that the point of it is its meant to reward you for spending time playing the game. So that if you really put a lot of time into the game, and especially with a single class, it gives that player more depth to explore tactically. But if you are new to the game, or don't play much, you can still enjoy just picking a class and going with the standard weapons. I mean you could argue that Counter Strike technically has an unlock system, but you are able to unlock (and sometimes relock) weapons over the time you play on a single server. And in CS you could just pick the standard stuff like MP5, AK, M16, but it's not until you've played a lot and gotten chances to use some of the other guns like the Aug, and Scout, that you learn how they can potentially be far better for certain situations.
The only difference is that with CS the unlocks only happen on one server as you play and reboot when you leave it, while in TF2 they'll happen globally (though likely take longer to do.)
CS is stateful ONLY WITHIN A SINGLE GAME/SERVER. This is an important distinction. What CS does is nothing like what Valve is planning to do to TF2.
Team Fortress 2 would be fine if you unlocked weapons in the course of a round/game, just as CS does. The unit of symmetric play is the MAP in CS: everyone starts equal at the start of the game (aside from the intended asymmetrical CS/T weapon lists), and progress in the context of that individual game. Where they progress from there in the course of the game depends on their skill and the decisions they make. Once the game is over, people play a new game.
The unit of symmetric play in TF2 is the match. Everyone starts equal at the start of a match. If the game balance changes (as it can in CS) over the course of a match (or even a map), it's still self-consistent. It is a discrete unit. It ENDS. At the start of any game, everyone begins with equal options. Where they progress from there in the course of the game depends on their skill and the decisions they make. Once the game is over, people play a new game.
Natural Selection has a similar component. Players in combat mode all start at "level 1." They gain levels as they kill enemies, and those levels give them powers. Players decide how to advance, and that advancement is based on experience points earned in the game. Once the game is over, it RESETS. You get to play a new game. I don't think I need to explain how having an extra level at the start (for being so good in previous games) would absolutely ruin it.
What these achievement-based gameplay options do is remove that reset. It would be as if, since I snipe so often, I start every new map of CS with an AWP. The game becomes stateful where before it was stateless, and is a different game. Factors other than immediate skill come into play. It's closer to an MMO and further from a direct test of skill/strategy/tactics/etc.
People are free to enjoy that sort of game. I personally think it's a shit mechanic. I want a contest of skill: not a contest of who's played longer.