Concept: Teamwork Based Mod

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 12 Jul 2007, 16:29

It sounds cool but I personally hate teamwork. I come up with a cool new idea for some strategy, then I have to convince/explain a bunch of idiots who would rather just go spam gator.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 12 Jul 2007, 16:31

The only way this would work is in a clan environment, I suspect; where all team members are familiar with each other and are together to work with each other in the first place.

Sort of the way the battlefield type FPS games (where cooperation is rewarded) have the same result. Most people expect to go Rambo in an FPS; so the only place you will reasonably find teamwork both on your side and on the opposing side is through a clan-match system.

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 12 Jul 2007, 16:34

But that needs so much work and commitment, and if the game sucks or is even completly unplayable without it, it will have a hard time getting players to that point that they do that.

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 12 Jul 2007, 16:47

Zsinj: I agree, but partially. In wolf:et, there's a lot of engineers and medics in pub games. Guess this has to do with limited amount of panzerfausts :>

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Jul 2007, 18:11

You do not need a clan to work well as a team. A clan merely facilitates the process by giving you a formalized excuse to interact, and cementing social relationships. That said, many people seem unable to form such connections without a clan to guide them.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 12 Jul 2007, 18:54

You want to work well with others?

1) Don't be a dick
2) Listen to the best player on your team
3) Don't let your ego get ahold fo you (read: dont be a dick)
4) Cover your teammates, and they will cover you in turn

No clan required!

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 12 Jul 2007, 19:08

Dragon45 wrote:2) Listen to the best player on your team

There we already got the problem. Half of the players will insist they are the best one on the team.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Jul 2007, 19:10

You'll find that sort of tomfoolery in clans as well.

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 12 Jul 2007, 19:34

At least in a good clan idiots who dont do as the leader says can be kicked out?

Say hello to your 2nd job if you want to be in one tough.

Fanger · Post by **Fanger** » 12 Jul 2007, 23:47

While Zwzsg is right and a mod based on a 4 side ground/air/sea/etc.. setup will probably be unplayed by the general idiot in spring.. I question whether if we tailored such a concept to them if they would play it anywho.. as we all know most people play AA/BA/CA/?A type game (not making a comment about this) So who cares what the average idiot would do in this game type anywho..

I dont see whats wrong with a setup with 4 different tech trees all representing one aspect of say a TA styled Tech setup.. and having 4 people playing as a singular unit.. it is not dissimiliar from a com share type game.. It could be interesting.. It also doesnt have to be completely seperated.. there could be some overlap.. Id say do a test mock up in some other mod before you devote time to modeling and whatnot.. see how it plays.. get the feel right.. and dont worry about the average moron he wouldnt play it no matter what you did..

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 13 Jul 2007, 00:34

Forget the current spring community (for the most part). Go full out, cooperative RTS just like your plan. Set up a ladder, simultaneously released with the first external beta, that you sign up on before you get the game. Join a ranking group (only having one until the userbase gets big enough) and a clan/team/some kind of semi-permanent grouping construct. Maybe have a separate 1 player+3 AI's ranking group if you can tailor an AI to handle it remotely well. Get on moddb, have people put links in their sigs on other sites.

And most importantly, don't even let people pretend they can play this without all the roles. You'll just have to tweak the resource system and use LUA to make sure the resources can cover all the teams.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 13 Jul 2007, 01:54

I still think that the best way to design a teamgame is where teamwork is rewarded, but morons are designed around. I think the modern trend in games has been towards teamwork and cooperation through online play; games like battlefield and WoW, etc. However, these games all encourage and reward teamplay, rather then require it as a prerequisite for a player to get started, which is why I think they are succesful. If your design is perhaps a little less 'optimistic' about how players will deal with it, you might have a less 'pure teamplay' game, but you will have more forgiving game for all players to pick up and play.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 13 Jul 2007, 07:11

Fang, Archangel and the dual Z's all make good points.

Look, if you want to work on the idea some more and need people to bounce ideas off of/contribute, hang in #moddev and #s44.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 13 Jul 2007, 09:27

Warlord Zsinj wrote:I still think that the best way to design a teamgame is where teamwork is rewarded, but morons are designed around. I think the modern trend in games has been towards teamwork and cooperation through online play; games like battlefield and WoW, etc. However, these games all encourage and reward teamplay, rather then require it as a prerequisite for a player to get started, which is why I think they are succesful. If your design is perhaps a little less 'optimistic' about how players will deal with it, you might have a less 'pure teamplay' game, but you will have more forgiving game for all players to pick up and play.

That would be... sort of contrary to the concept.

The concept was not to make a "mass market" game... it was to make a game where teamwork is forced by strictly differentiating sides. You suggest a game where each side is playable on its own but has a specialty or role that it is good at... which I like to call good multiplayer game design.

I agree with Fanger. (In related news, Apocalypse is tomorrow, so get in your ski trips to Hell while you can.) The setup will be unplayed by the average "pubber"... in fact, I'd go as far as to say that it would be unplayable by the average "pubber".

If I were to make a game or mod like this, it would be mostly for my own enlightenment. It's obvious that the basic concept is workable, but I'd like to know whether it would be fun and enjoyable to play.

I doubt that I will ever get around to doing a mockup. I'll be starting school full time in 2 and a half weeks - and I mean full time; I'll be in class 40 hours a week. The good news is that I'll be going to school for computer game development.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 13 Jul 2007, 11:03

The point wasn't to make it a 'public, mass market game' the point was to make sure it had 'enough players to get games going at all'. In it's current state, games would be extremely rare. Even with people you know, if you need several people per side to get a game going, you've got a situation where you need to coordinate getting x amount of people in the same place at the same time, which is hard enough in itself. And that's if you've got enough people who want to play.

The point of making it pick up and play is that by rewarding teamplay but not making it unplayable in a non-teamplay situation, you allow people to just pick up and play.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 13 Jul 2007, 13:28

imbaczek wrote:Zsinj: I agree, but partially. In wolf:et, there's a lot of engineers and medics in pub games. Guess this has to do with limited amount of panzerfausts :>

Indeed. I usually get the last one...

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 13 Jul 2007, 18:07

A couple people said "everyone thinks they're the best on the team, so you second point doesnt work, Dragon"

Response: There's a few common situations that tend to arise in real team games:

1) A team full of really good players
2) A team full of some known good players but mostly bad players
3) A team full of bad players

If the situation is (1) then the team is going to do fine anyway. It doesnt matter who all thinks they're the best.

If the situation is (2), then anyone with half a brain will listen to the known good player(s).

If the situation is (3), the team is fucked anyway.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 13 Jul 2007, 23:32

Situation 2 usually results in something like this.

<GoodPlayer> hey guys, we need to expand quickly and take the middle
<nubl3t> NO I MAEK DFENZ N TECK 2 KROG
<GoodPlayer> that doesn't work, could you expand please nubl3t?
<nubl3t> NO DIS STRAT IS TEH BEST, I ALWAYS R WINNOR ON SPEEDMETAL
<nubl3t> U WILL C I MAEK WIN 4 U
<GoodPlayer> *facepalm*

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 14 Jul 2007, 01:01

2) A team full of some known good players but mostly bad players

That is like... NS on a pub. Any. Pub.

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 14 Jul 2007, 01:40

Well, the bad player will start by trying the army, but realize he can't build buildings to pork (yell on the forums, get his noob thrown in his face) so try the Artillary branch next. Now, building base defense junk is what he is supposed to do. He will do it poorly, but at least he will be doing it. Rush oriented players (who probably also have a higher base skill level) will gravitate towards the Army. Hey, all they have to do is what they love. Your XTA Brawler rush crowd will find the air force to be their thing (I've no clue on their relative skill levels).

You might find a shortage of novelty lovers to play the special forces... but these will likely mostly be the most skilled players, who will enjoy using their spec ops to cause havok all over. Heck, you'd probably do fine with just one human on this team and AI's on all the others.

Spring RTS Engine

Concept: Teamwork Based Mod