Spring RTS Engine

Acidd_UK wrote: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.

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.

with what dont you agree?

we dont care about skills, we just wanna have some fun

playing is not about winning... stop whining

ok.
Have fun.
Let newbies have an opportunity to improve..
The atmosphere ATM discourages playing better.
Why play better if everyone is playing huge game where it doesn't matter if you're good or not.
better players bring more fun to everyone..who doesn't like to watch a game where someone pulls something extraordinary?OR play in the same team?or even lose to someone who really pulled a nice move..
the more depth is exhibited the more people like a game..
If there are no good players OTA based mods in the spirit of XTA,AA WILL die out..

XTA and BA were created and refined by good players..

Without good players there can be no good deep and complex games in the style of BA,XTA.Be sure of it.

TradeMark wrote:we dont care about skills, we just wanna have some fun

playing is not about winning... stop whining

??
Your objective in BA is to win the other player...you have fun while trying to achieve that goal.

Without that objective there would be no BA.

There are 3 possibilities for the game to end:
win,lose or crash.
If you don't play to win are you playing to lose or crash?

Gota wrote:1)It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.

I disagree. You do not argue why, and many people have also asked 'why'?

Gota wrote:2)to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.

I agree that newbies should improve, though experience and training. But I disagree with 'to achieve a blaanced player base'. It's jsut common sense that new players should and generally will improve.

Gota wrote: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.

I disagree completely. A small game with fail allies and enemies is far worse for learning the game than a large game with all good teammates and enemys. I.e. Players learn better by having better allies to both observe and to offer good advice to them. The game size does not affect this, excpet a bigger game is more likely to have a good mentor player on newbs team.

Gota wrote:4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.

Maybe, but I don't see the relevance. Except that obviously ppl like playing bigger games...

Gota wrote:5)the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.

I disagree. Most people are not interested in being 'competetive'. Personally I play spring for fun and I rarely play 1v1, which is presumably what you mean by competetive (since you don't actually say).

Gota wrote:6)lets solve this ....

I do not see a problem to solve.

Gota wrote: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.

See my response to point 3.

Generally, I would say that I think newer players would benefit from some sort of 1 to 1 mentoring system with more experienced players. However, that is very different from what you are proposing.

Gota wrote:with what dont you agree?

Everything.

Gota wrote:1)It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.

Wrong. Casual and competitive don't mix well together. Casual players see Competitive players as ruining their fun by trying too hard to win. Competitive players see Casual players as a waste of time to play with, since not only they won't learn but won't even try to improve, and as pollution diluting the chance to find other competitive player, and essentially a waste whom they wonder why they're here if they're aren't even trying to play the game. So it is better for a community based around a RTS to have either only casual or only competitive.

Gota wrote:2)to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.

Wrong. Trying to make everybody competitive sounds is the exact opposite of keeping a balance between casual and competitive.

Gota wrote: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.

Wrong. It is MUCH harder for a newbie to win in 1v1, because:
- He doesn't get to play
- He dies without getting any practice
- He has no teammate to copy the build order of
- He has no references to see how well he's expanding and at what point he's falling behind
- He has no teammate to ask for advice etc..

It is harder for a good player to stand out in 1v1, because:
- There's only one guy to see it performing well, instead of 15. And that one guy will probably be too pissed to have lost to admire his opponent.
- In 1v1 against a very good player, it doesn't matter if you are quite good, midly good, average, rather bad, or complete newbie, you'll always die the same, without any difference. However, in 8v8 against a good team, even if you lose, you can still see that you performed better than teammates.

Gota wrote:4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.

I don't maintain statistics so I can neither confirm or denies this. However, I see getting more players as something positive, not negative like you paint it.

Gota wrote:5)the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.

Wrong. Players that feel the competitive spirit in them still play 1v1. Player who like huge team game are probably not competitive in the first place. There's just a separate population, you can't force a casual to change his mindset. If only one thing, the rise of players per game will probably just result in a rise of the total population and so, the likehood of more competitive players emerging.

Gota wrote: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.

Experienced players will not want to join big games. Newb do not want to join 1v1. Making everybody unhappy is not a solution. All it does is driving people away.

Gota wrote: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.

Forcing noobs to play small games will decrease their skills, not increase it. Newbies already found their goal, and it is to have fun playing huge team game. Depriving newbies of their goal won't make them play more, it will make them quit.

Gota wrote:I ma only trying to explain why it is a positive change and i have yet to see persuasive counter arguments that i didn't answer fully with evidence of existing conditions that were or are observed.

Each and every of your seven point is totally false, and bordering the non-sense.

Gota wrote:None of you addressed my points

Here I have just adressed every of your point. I'm pretty sure it won't stop you from keeping on claiming no one did.

I hope its not cause you didn't understand them.

It is you who is a comprehension-handicapped person.

ok now that zwzsg has curbstomped gota with facts can this thread get locked please. At this point I am convinced yan is trolling you all.

KDR_11k wrote:

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.

Total Annihilation was never their game. They bought it for pennies on the dollar from a dieing Cavedog corporation who just wanted to get a little money for their efforts, before being closed for good.

So once again, I see no reason why they deserve that title more than anybody else. They didn't create it, they bought it in order to claim ownership, which they have had for over 7 years now and still haven't done anything with.

But of course, the POSSIBILITY for a sequel is more important than making the people who actually care about the game happy, even though there's no money involved.

Which basically brings us to the whole scandalous point of it all. Money.

Money money money. That's all Atari cares about.

And gota, you fail.

Someone close this thread please. No intelligent person in this community thinks limiting the player cap to 8 for the purpose of making one person happy is a good idea.

Wing

I'm really sorry Gota, but if you are trying to introduce a new feature, and if it is not welcomed by community, you should introduce it on a small playground/sandbox before you can claim it a worthy one. If it works there (e.g. experienced players tend to visit new playground often) then it is ready for merge, otherwise this thread should be locked forever. IMHO.

Gota wrote:

TradeMark wrote:we dont care about skills, we just wanna have some fun

playing is not about winning... stop whining

??
Your objective in BA is to win the other player...you have fun while trying to achieve that goal.

Without that objective there would be no BA.

There are 3 possibilities for the game to end:
win,lose or crash.
If you don't play to win are you playing to lose or crash?

I play for fun, trying something unexpected, trying different tactics etc... not just win always with the same tactic... thats so boring

smoth wrote:ok now that zwzsg has curbstomped gota with facts can this thread get locked please. At this point I am convinced yan is trolling you all.

ah but he does not know about the billygoat!

Acidd_UK wrote:

Gota wrote:1)It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.

I disagree. You do not argue why, and many people have also asked 'why'?

Gota wrote:2)to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.

I agree that newbies should improve, though experience and training. But I disagree with 'to achieve a blaanced player base'. It's jsut common sense that new players should and generally will improve.

Gota wrote: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.

I disagree completely. A small game with fail allies and enemies is far worse for learning the game than a large game with all good teammates and enemys. I.e. Players learn better by having better allies to both observe and to offer good advice to them. The game size does not affect this, excpet a bigger game is more likely to have a good mentor player on newbs team.

Gota wrote:4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.

Maybe, but I don't see the relevance. Except that obviously ppl like playing bigger games...

Gota wrote:5)the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.

I disagree. Most people are not interested in being 'competetive'. Personally I play spring for fun and I rarely play 1v1, which is presumably what you mean by competetive (since you don't actually say).

Gota wrote:6)lets solve this ....

I do not see a problem to solve.

Gota wrote: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.

See my response to point 3.

Generally, I would say that I think newer players would benefit from some sort of 1 to 1 mentoring system with more experienced players. However, that is very different from what you are proposing.

Ok.
I have argued why and if you wanna answer seriously than read my responses through.
from an earlier post :
"better players bring more fun to everyone..who doesn't like to watch a game where someone pulls something extraordinary?OR play in the same team?or even lose to someone who really pulled a nice move..
the more depth is exhibited the more people like a game..
If there are no good players OTA based mods in the spirit of XTA,AA WILL die out..

XTA and BA were created and refined by good players..

Without good players there can be no good deep and complex games in the style of BA,XTA.Be sure of it.
"

It is not common sense that newbies will improve as seen in spring which a constantly declining numbers of good players.You are not looking at the reality of things.Fact is the number of good players is declining all the time and is very small now.

"A small game with fail allies and enemies is far worse for learning the game than a large game with all good teammates and enemys."
That's your words but thats not how you make a comparison...
Here is a more appropriate comparison:
A big game with one newbie and all his teammates are good and all his enemies are good and a small game wit hall good teammates and all goodenemies amd big game with all bad playing allies and all bad playing enemies and a small game with all bad players and all bad enemies.

You could say "hey its the same thing,how does it matter if its big or small".
well it matters because in smaller games it is easierr to communicate and share information,it easier for a noob to see when someone is playing better and it is easier in a small game for a good player to give advice.
Small games are more personal and encourage playing better.

The fact the number of players has risen contributes to that fact players play worse in general because again in big games there is less incentive to play good and there are smaller chances of new players learning more complex gameplay.

Yes most players play casually when i speak of competitive players I'm referring to those who get better and have some desire to improve...not just 1v1 players..and the number of good players has gone down strongly.
yes most players play casualy but some play better and ATM that number is declining and most good players have disappeared.
Im saying it is partially due to the fact that the average number of players per game has increased which causes the reduction in numbers of good players over time.

zwzsg wrote:

Gota wrote:with what dont you agree?

Everything.

Gota wrote:1)It is important for a community based around an rts game to have a balanced numebr of competitive and casual players.

Wrong. Casual and competitive don't mix well together. Casual players see Competitive players as ruining their fun by trying too hard to win. Competitive players see Casual players as a waste of time to play with, since not only they won't learn but won't even try to improve, and as pollution diluting the chance to find other competitive player, and essentially a waste whom they wonder why they're here if they're aren't even trying to play the game. So it is better for a community based around a RTS to have either only casual or only competitive.

Gota wrote:2)to achieve a balanced player base newbie players should be encouraged to learn the game and some percentage will become better.

Wrong. Trying to make everybody competitive sounds is the exact opposite of keeping a balance between casual and competitive.

Gota wrote: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.

Wrong. It is MUCH harder for a newbie to win in 1v1, because:
- He doesn't get to play
- He dies without getting any practice
- He has no teammate to copy the build order of
- He has no references to see how well he's expanding and at what point he's falling behind
- He has no teammate to ask for advice etc..

It is harder for a good player to stand out in 1v1, because:
- There's only one guy to see it performing well, instead of 15. And that one guy will probably be too pissed to have lost to admire his opponent.
- In 1v1 against a very good player, it doesn't matter if you are quite good, midly good, average, rather bad, or complete newbie, you'll always die the same, without any difference. However, in 8v8 against a good team, even if you lose, you can still see that you performed better than teammates.

Gota wrote:4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.

I don't maintain statistics so I can neither confirm or denies this. However, I see getting more players as something positive, not negative like you paint it.

Gota wrote:5)the rise in the number of players per game is one of the factors of the loss of competitive players.

Wrong. Players that feel the competitive spirit in them still play 1v1. Player who like huge team game are probably not competitive in the first place. There's just a separate population, you can't force a casual to change his mindset. If only one thing, the rise of players per game will probably just result in a rise of the total population and so, the likehood of more competitive players emerging.

Gota wrote: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.

Experienced players will not want to join big games. Newb do not want to join 1v1. Making everybody unhappy is not a solution. All it does is driving people away.

Gota wrote: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.

Forcing noobs to play small games will decrease their skills, not increase it. Newbies already found their goal, and it is to have fun playing huge team game. Depriving newbies of their goal won't make them play more, it will make them quit.

Gota wrote:I ma only trying to explain why it is a positive change and i have yet to see persuasive counter arguments that i didn't answer fully with evidence of existing conditions that were or are observed.

Each and every of your seven point is totally false, and bordering the non-sense.

Gota wrote:None of you addressed my points

Here I have just adressed every of your point. I'm pretty sure it won't stop you from keeping on claiming no one did.

I hope its not cause you didn't understand them.

It is you who is a comprehension-handicapped person.

competitive players and casual players feed of each other and complement each other.

I'm not trying to make everyone competitive im trying to encourage competitive playing so that spring will have good players and casual players like it did before and doesn't now since there are almost no competitive players players anymore(competitive = players who play better with time not just 1v1 players as i have mentioned in numerous earlier posts).

I didnt mean 1v1 obviously as i have written(if you bothered reading before writing your response)i meant smaller games up to 8 to 10 players so all your 1v1 arguments have nothing to do with my intentions and you have misunderstood me.
In these smaller games a good player doesn't get swallowed by the rest of the players like in 8v8 and those that play with him will have a better chance of learning form him than in a 8v8 game where its harder to judge who contributed more to the team.

The rise of players per game has not resulted in more players.
All it did is made each game less personal on avarage and thus discourages playing better.
Players that might have started playing better if the average player per game number would be lower dont becasue whats the point of becoming better if your playing in a huge game where what you do matters much less.
and than we come in a full circle to the fact that less good players are created which results in overall decrease in game level which will result in the deterioration of the mods themselves.
AS i have written both XTA and BA have been made and refined by top players that's why they are so good and you and others can enjoy them now.

4)since the 16 player cap the average players per game number has risen.[/quote]I don't maintain statistics so I can neither confirm or denies this. However, I see getting more players as something positive, not negative like you paint it.

that doesn't that the overall number of players in the community has risen only that games being played became less but bigger on average.

Who plays 1v1?ask any good players of those that are still around how many games he managed to play of 1v1 and how many other different players have played against him...

Im not trying to make more competitive players that there ever were I just think they shouldn't drop like they already did and they need to rise back to how there were.

forcing newbies to play in smaller games will increase their game level just like it happened before and doesn't happen now.
If newbies are capped to 10 player games till they reach a certain experience level,will casue more players to improve before startign to play massive games.
Good players like playing big games as well but there are hardly any good players left ...

smoth wrote:ok now that zwzsg has curbstomped gota with facts can this thread get locked please. At this point I am convinced yan is trolling you all.

nobody is forcing you to read this thread or participate in it.
It's not you responsibility to say when a thread should be locked.

We will have to agree to disagree Gota. In the same way that you obviously think I do not understand your argument, I don't think you understand my responses.

This thread is going nowhere.

No matter what the engine limit will not be lowered.

An infrastructure-wide patch to allow mods/games to specify a max player limit would be welcome.

Engine shouldn't be limited..nobody argued it should.

You guys should keep in mind, that Spring still DOES NOT HAVE enough players!

Sometimes I sit in the lobby and wait that an interesting game opens and when I open one by myself, no one joins.

This makes any further discussion totally pointless, because
more players => higher possibility for newbees to player there 8v8 and not get raped
more players => higher chance that progamers arise, with which you can play your ueber 1v1 games

So, tell me what did you do to attract new players to Spring?

I created a wiki entry in a Linux-Portal that has thousands of visitors each day and got rewarded with the Wiki Author of the Month title.

You discussed 7 fucking pages long about player cap or not (didnt read this crap).

Claiming that 8v8 does not reward skill is complete bollocks. The amount of times I've played a big game and seen just one person save the day for an entire team is rather large. If you lower the player cap, I will simply be even more disinclined to play with newbies/idiots on my team because they'll have even more chance to completely screw over my entire team.