limit player number to 8-10 per game. - Page 6

limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Spawn_Retard »

I like speedmetal! :roll:
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Gota »

hunterw wrote:8v8 dsd is the new speedmetal

this thread is dumb, let people play whatever the hell they want
You cant compare it to speedmetal like this.
Speedmetal was one map with very specific gameplay.
speedmetal found a niche and didn't take away from players that liked traditional gameplay.
8v8 games are played on many maps and give a similar gameplay experience as normal games just on a lower average level of play.
User avatar
Das Bruce
Posts: 3544
Joined: 23 Nov 2005, 06:16

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Das Bruce »

Persistant troll is persistant.
User avatar
Acidd_UK
Posts: 963
Joined: 23 Apr 2006, 02:15

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Acidd_UK »

Sine this thread has basically been 1 person vs the rest of the community, for 8 pages now, with no hint of opinions swaying, I move to lock.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by TheFatController »

Acidd_UK wrote:1 person vs the rest of the community
gota's like a modern day Captain Oates
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by smoth »

no reason to lock it yan will just start this stupid shit in a new thread.
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by TradeMark »

i like speedballs
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Gota »

Acidd_UK wrote:Sine this thread has basically been 1 person vs the rest of the community, for 8 pages now, with no hint of opinions swaying, I move to lock.
Just cause you don't like it,it doesn't mean the thread should be locked.

Except "restrictions are bad we want freedom"
I haven't heard one argument only Ad hominem attacks.

Just counter my arguments properly:
My chain of thoughts is this:
It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.
=>to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.
=>it is harder for a newbie to learn in a big game and it is harder for a good player to stand out in big games thus allowing others to identify what good gameplay is.
=>since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.
=>the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.
=>lets solve this by only allowing experienced players to join big games while keeping the newbies playing in smaller games until they get some experience and will have a better chance of becoming good before staring to play in big games.
=>we don't give up on big huge ass games yet we encourage noobs to play in smaller games so the average gameplay skill rises.plus newbies would have a goal to play more.
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Spawn_Retard »

Gota wrote:
Acidd_UK wrote:Sine this thread has basically been 1 person vs the rest of the community, for 8 pages now, with no hint of opinions swaying, I move to lock.
Just cause you don't like it,it doesn't mean the thread should be locked.

Except "restrictions are bad we want freedom"
I haven't heard one argument only Ad hominem attacks.

Just counter my arguments properly:
My chain of thoughts is this:
It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.
=>to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.
=>it is harder for a newbie to learn in a big game and it is harder for a good player to stand out in big games thus allowing others to identify what good gameplay is.
=>since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.
=>the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.
=>lets solve this by only allowing experienced players to join big games while keeping the newbies playing in smaller games until they get some experience and will have a better chance of becoming good before staring to play in big games.
=>we don't give up on big huge ass games yet we encourage noobs to play in smaller games so the average gameplay skill rises.plus newbies would have a goal to play more.

I've stopped trying to counter your posts with anything new because you just don't see the truth or a good idea when it smacks you in the face.

GJ, no one wants to post here with a serious comment because you've trolled and flamed everyone in the thread, and there ain't no fire engines left.
User avatar
thesleepless
Posts: 417
Joined: 24 Oct 2007, 04:49

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by thesleepless »

Just counter my arguments properly:
My chain of thoughts is this:
It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.
Why?
they could all be competitive or all be casual, or there can be a mix, it doesn't matter.
=>to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.
i agree that newbs should be encouraged to learn the game, we need better ingame communication and more people to train newbs. it's great that there's the newb training camp server there, but it's far too often empty, and when it's not, often it's just noobs with noobs. it'd be great to have some great players in there teaching newbs how to play well. but not because it will bring about a 'balanced player base' but because it will mean more people will play the game since they'll stick around rather than getting fed up and leaving.
=>it is harder for a newbie to learn in a big game and it is harder for a good player to stand out in big games thus allowing others to identify what good gameplay is.
sure it's probably harder for a newb to learn the basics in a big game, although they have a bunch of other people to carry some of the slack if they should falter. but a big game is a great place to learn teamwork and team strategies (although this is severely limited by COMMUNICATION, in most big games each player acts independently, if they see their ally attacking they might attack too to support them, but you very rarely see any team planning because without adequate voice communication it just doesn't work, people don't have time to type complex strategies to their allys which will probably disappear in a couple of seconds and go unnoticed.) limiting team size is not going to fix this problem, the same goes with 2v2s, 3v3s, 4v4s as happens with 8v8s.
=>since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.
perhaps that's more an indication that people like to play big games, and why take away what people enjoy?
=>the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.
really? how do you hope to show that?
=>lets solve this by only allowing experienced players to join big games while keeping the newbies playing in smaller games until they get some experience and will have a better chance of becoming good before staring to play in big games.
lets solve this instead by fixing the communication issue rather than limiting players freedom.
=>we don't give up on big huge ass games yet we encourage noobs to play in smaller games so the average gameplay skill rises.plus newbies would have a goal to play more.
encourage them, sure. but not ban them from playing bigger games.

i think planetwars has a great opportunity to foster newb improvement because people are forced into armies, it's in the best interest of the better members of the armies to make sure their players are good, so they should set up "core/arm training servers" to train their newb players.

i'd love to see voice chat embedded in spring, i know there's licho's teamspeak server, but the newbs target audience doesn't.
also teamspeak is currently useless on linux as it steals the audio device from spring.
intergrated voice chat would mean you could easily train newbs and have huge benefits for teamplay
the text chat system could also do with quite a few improvements
such as showing the colour of the player who sent a message for starters.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Gota »

Acidd_UK wrote:Sine this thread has basically been 1 person vs the rest of the community, for 8 pages now, with no hint of opinions swaying, I move to lock.
Just cause you don't like it,it doesn't mean the thread should be locked.

Except "restrictions are bad we want freedom"
I haven't heard one argument only Ad hominem attacks.

Just counter my arguments properly:
My chain of thoughts is this:
1)It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.
=>
2)to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.
=>
3)it is harder for a newbie to learn in a big game and it is harder for a good player to stand out in big games thus allowing others to identify what good gameplay is.
=>
4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.
=>
5)the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.
=>
6)lets solve this by only allowing experienced players to join big games while keeping the newbies playing in smaller games until they get some experience and will have a better chance of becoming good before staring to play in big games.
=>
7)we don't give up on big huge ass games yet we encourage noobs to play in smaller games so the average gameplay skill rises.plus newbies would have a goal to play more.
1)those were the top players of the community who created BA,the mod that the majority is enjoying now.

2)you answered it yourself.
it is extremely difficult to allow for fast communication and voice is not a good solution cause not everyone will use it,not everyone knows English and even with voice it is very hard to communicate what you want fast without being distracted.
Some sort of UI for this purpose?hell thee isnt even a good UI for the basic stuff so surely if any system of communication is created it will be in the distant future and probably never.

3)you got it all wrong...in big games players can learn the basics but not how to really play well.thing about it...

4)why?look at 1.

5)look at 3.

6)nobody is gonna do that.

7)its pretty obvious anything in that respect is not gonna happen any time soon..it would have happened already and its something to go along with what I proposed not instead of it.
HeadHunter
Posts: 53
Joined: 15 May 2007, 12:33

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by HeadHunter »

Ok, there is a gui, and it is MUCH better than in any other RTS i seen. (i mean on-map drawing and labeled points).
Ok, if you want to split newbie games and pro games, just make it a new concept, without breaking existing one. We have a good custom battle lobby, so lets keep it that way. We also have CA's initiative in creating a campaign-based game. Why couldn't we make a radically new lobby system, probably based on existing one, but aimed for ranked battles (i do not mean ladder, i mean battles where rank specifies your role in a team game). For example, more experienced player could be a kind of general, and less experienced ones could control smaller armies, coordinated by general.
Thus, if you want play 1v1 you don't need any commander. If you want to play 4v4 - you need a commander for both sides, which can use any unit of a team, but is not meant to - his task is to watch strategical map and coordinate less experienced players. This might make spring-based a bit... hm... more strategy-oriented by emulating command chain.
It is also not so hard to implement team safeguards like resource share balancing, so that less experienced players get less of shared resources and do not affect economics of a team hardly.
PS: I am AGAINST killing existing practice, i am just suggesting some compromise solution, that i find interesting.
PPS: If someone finds idea worthy, i am welcome for suggestion and i'm forward for implementing it. :mrgreen:
Wingflier
Posts: 130
Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 06:21

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Wingflier »

Wow guys, I can't even believe this issue is on the table. Headhunter, if you want those features in a game, make a new mod.

To the rest of you, Spring is fine the way it is. It is incredibly fun, dynamic, complex, and balanced (imo), and a player can become HOWEVER good they desire.

Part of what makes the game fun for some people is that they can ENTER 6v6 battles and not have to be uber-pro in order to make a difference.

It's a free game people. Therefore we're going to get a LOT of people who aren't as hardcore as some of us. Unlike a game where you pay $50 and become competitive because you spent money and you want to win, this game doesn't have those sentiments. If you suck at THIS game, OH WELL, it was free. Life goes on.

Let people be people and quit trying to change the system in ways that it is completely fine and is attracting new people.

Put your energy into advertising the shit out of Spring so we can get a bigger community and then you'll probably have more people willing to do 2v2s, 4v4s, and 5v5s because of the more diverse playerbase.

Limiting the game in the ways discussed here is not the answer.

Wing
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Gota »

your speaking as if spring is a new project and OTA mods are around only a few months..
The playerbase is not growing ..it has been about the same for many years now...
Its only a matter of which players it is made up of.
Wingflier
Posts: 130
Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 06:21

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Wingflier »

If it's not attracting new people it's not because it's not fun. Everybody who I've ever introduced to Spring thought it was a really great concept and really fun to play. Best of all it's free.

The reason the Spring playerbase isn't growing (if that's actually true) is because the game is hardly advertised at all.

I think this is mostly due to copyright infringement and the fact that the more popular the game becomes, the more likely Atari is to come in and shut everything down. Especially when they realize that probably more than half of the active players in Spring have never and will never own a copy of Total Annihilation.

Did I just say that out loud?

Give me a fucking break people. Fuck Atari. They are selfish pricks for not releasing the source to that game years and years ago. The game produces little to no revenue and they are merely being money grubbing assholes like most established gaming corporations.

We need to get this game out there and stop worrying about what could happen to us if it gets too popular. Atari may come and wave the gay stick around but that's no reason to cower in a little corner and hope everything stays just the way it is.

We should share Spring with the world. Seriously.

Wing
HeadHunter
Posts: 53
Joined: 15 May 2007, 12:33

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by HeadHunter »

Wing, I totally agree with you about writing a mod... hm... but what i suggest is not about mod, but about team organization (i mean it is mod-independent). Still for engine it is just a little patch and LUA script, not a hardlimit.

And Gota, maybe stop flaming and make something, at least very-very experimental, just to try it. We do not need to LIMIT players with sole hope of improving their skills. We need to offer players new types of gameplay to ENCOURAGE their growth, cooperation with non-experienced players. As wink have noticed spring is free game - people come and go, but someone stays. If thet are not happy with what they have - they leave like they have never been here. And if we limit those who come for a big fun fight we can lose playerbase.

Maybe it could prove useful to introduce a new multiplayer game concept, as maybe a mod for current lobby system. if you REALLY want it - lets stop flaming and open alternative server, supporting required features. We can also join those making Planet Wars. If you want it - lets do it. I know that spring community will help whoever is trying to make something really cool. But if you offer a feature, and community rejects it - the only way to make them change their mind is to implement it and let them try=) This is the way of open-source - if you need something - ask, if they are not going to do this for you - do it yourself :wink:

There are a lot of nasty things i want to make with spring engine, i just don't have anyone supporting them and i don't have time to do it on my own (at least right now). So if you want to make new teamplay concept for spring - lets discuss it in private, without angering those who like spring the way it is.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Gota »

HeadHunter wrote:Wing, I totally agree with you about writing a mod... hm... but what i suggest is not about mod, but about team organization (i mean it is mod-independent). Still for engine it is just a little patch and LUA script, not a hardlimit.

And Gota, maybe stop flaming and make something, at least very-very experimental, just to try it. We do not need to LIMIT players with sole hope of improving their skills. We need to offer players new types of gameplay to ENCOURAGE their growth, cooperation with non-experienced players. As wink have noticed spring is free game - people come and go, but someone stays. If thet are not happy with what they have - they leave like they have never been here. And if we limit those who come for a big fun fight we can lose playerbase.

Maybe it could prove useful to introduce a new multiplayer game concept, as maybe a mod for current lobby system. if you REALLY want it - lets stop flaming and open alternative server, supporting required features. We can also join those making Planet Wars. If you want it - lets do it. I know that spring community will help whoever is trying to make something really cool. But if you offer a feature, and community rejects it - the only way to make them change their mind is to implement it and let them try=) This is the way of open-source - if you need something - ask, if they are not going to do this for you - do it yourself :wink:

There are a lot of nasty things i want to make with spring engine, i just don't have anyone supporting them and i don't have time to do it on my own (at least right now). So if you want to make new teamplay concept for spring - lets discuss it in private, without angering those who like spring the way it is.
flaming?all i have done in this thread was to present my argument calmly...
There is no point in making another server..what i call for is a restriction...how can you restrict something in one server if there is another just like it that doesn't have the restriction....
It doesn't matter why the community is not growing I'm not here to discuss this.
It hasn't been growing for years and doesn't appear to be now and there is little reason OTA mods will suddenly get an influx of players.
Nobody is gonna run away if newbie players are capped at 10 players per game.
why?(ill explain again)Because when the cap was raised it didn't suddenly attract never before seen numbers of players.Nobody is at awe at the this high player cap and nobody was ever screaming to raise it when it was lower...
In short it was never a selling point for spring..just something that came along and nobody is gonna leave spring cause newbies cant play 8v8 games..

and What new types of gameplay?I am talking about OTA based mods only...they are meant to be similar to OTA not different...
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by KDR_11k »

Wingflier wrote:Give me a fucking break people. Fuck Atari. They are selfish pricks for not releasing the source to that game years and years ago. The game produces little to no revenue and they are merely being money grubbing assholes like most established gaming corporations.
They have a reason to care: They still have the option to make a sequel to TA and if the old material was freely available it would be really easy to make a competing product that would impact their sales. OTOH, if people cannot use TA material to build competitors they'd have a much harder time taking sales away from TA2. Hell, Spring is a very good example for that: Without TA material our biggest mods wouldn't be able to exist because they have gigantic unit lists with no manpower to actually make their own material for everything but by using TA's material they can still compete with Supcom and a theoretical TA2.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by smoth »

ergh nevermind maybe the thread should be locked.
User avatar
Acidd_UK
Posts: 963
Joined: 23 Apr 2006, 02:15

Re: limit player number to 8-10 per game.

Post by Acidd_UK »

It's clearly retarded to articifically limit the number of players that can be in one game for no good reason. If people want to play smaller games, because they agree with Gota's theory then they can, otherwsie they are free to play in 32-players porcfests if they so wish. They will probably not learn to be super elite 1v1 players, but who cares? Certainly they probably dont, they just want to make krogoth/nuke/MAHLAZOR in the case of *a mods.

Saying we should limit it because it helps communication/teamplay is also a broken argument. Who has the right to say how many players you are able to communicate with, or even *need* to communicate with? By the argument of less is better, then all games would be capped at 2 players per team. However, even in this stupid situation, what if you want to play a 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2 on some massive map designed for it? Oh no, you can't because Gota decided you shouldn't be able to.

This idea fails so hard I cannot believe it's come this far, but I am now getting annoyed by Gota's inability to accept he has had a bad idea, despite no one agreeing with him and dispite repeated logical and reasoned arguments against the idea.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”