Spring RTS Engine

SwiftSpear wrote:as an admin, I have to prioritize the game environment for all players over the few players who absolutely must win every game at all costs.

SwiftSpear wrote:in the pubs certain standards of play need to be adhered to at all costs.

Yes, and those are defined before the game starts by the host using the lobby host interface.

For example whether it's "comm ends", how much metal/energy you get at start, what's the unit limit, disabled units, and other shit like that.

Other than those, I am not going to follow ANY abstract rules or "standards of play" that limit me using my units as I see fit.

You as a part of the moderation team or whatever have no right whatsoever to force me or anyone else to follow your moral mindset on how to play the game. Cheating being the obvious exception.

Well, IMO anything in service of winning the game for the team should be allowed, unless the host says no (i.e., it is not in the jurisdiction of the moderation team). Deliberately trying to lose things for your team is griefing, however.

I would say I play for fun, but the following things are not fun:
*Lag that makes units hard to micro
*Allies who ignore instructions and thus cause game critical opportunities to be missed
*Allies who contribute nothing, or play a strat that does not fit with the rest of the team

I am careful who I play with on teams, but as host I have .kicked and .taken if someone is willfully ignoring instructions and lacks the skill to contribute on their own (and would do that if the other team requested it also).

I lol at the fact that on one side of the debate are regular players, and the other side are forumers, never seen in game.

In matches and tournies, sure, pick up your allies comm and do whatever you want with him, in the competitive environment you're directly accountable only for your win loss record and your friends opinion of you, but in the pubs certain standards of play need to be adhered to at all costs.

What are certain standards of play? No commbombing? no capturing your allies mexes? not using flashes? not using air? 15 min no rush build up time?

There is no such thing as sovereignty of units. You just have your mouse, your keyboard and your balls. Thats it.

+1

KDR_11k wrote:What does "play for fun" mean exactly, anyway? Playing for the pretty explosions?

The problem: BA is not suited for playing for fun. AT ALL. The game is too unforgiving to screw-ups. A "playing for fun" game would be a game with unit-caps or heavy emphasis on defenses, or some godly com-tower, so that players are fixed at similar power-levels and thus can play sim-base and arty-pound each other at a leisurely pace.

Instead, BA requires you constantly scramble, knowing that simply failing to optimally econ or manage your forces will result in your quick and utter annihiliation. FPS games are more forgiving, since if you fall behind by a few frags you can still get back into the game with a few well-timed powerup snatches and fights.

If you want to "play for fun" don't play BA teamgames. It will make the game into a huge waste of time for all involved.

Pxtl wrote:

KDR_11k wrote:What does "play for fun" mean exactly, anyway? Playing for the pretty explosions?

The problem: BA is not suited for playing for fun. AT ALL.

O,o i'd love to see your train of thought there

Pxtl wrote:The problem: BA is not suited for playing for fun. AT ALL. The game is too unforgiving to screw-ups. A "playing for fun" game would be a game with unit-caps or heavy emphasis on defenses, or some godly com-tower, so that players are fixed at similar power-levels and thus can play sim-base and arty-pound each other at a leisurely pace.

If that is your idea of fun, then BA is clearly not for you. However, there are many who consider sim-base gamestyle boring and not fun at all.

Teutooni wrote:If that is your idea of fun, then BA is clearly not for you. However, there are many who consider sim-base gamestyle boring and not fun at all.

I know that. My point, though, is that you have to constantly play-to-win in BA, or the game will be hamstrung or over quickly. Obviously, there are lots of ways to make a game where a weaker player would not be so abruptly wiped out - a porc-based game would be one. But that's not the only way, obviously - I'm sure you could make a decent unit-movement-oriented mod that was failure-friendly - like something with a fixed income where metal patches only give you victory points, but not resources.

I'm not trying to say that BA is bad - it's a good game. But if you're trying to "play for fun" in BA (that is, relax, fool around, try weird stuff) in BA, then you're just being a useless pain in the ass and it's a futile gesture. If you do that in a teamgame, you'll be a waste of space and metal patches and your teammates don't want you around. If you do that in 1v1, you'll get eaten by jeffies 3 minutes in.

Pxtl wrote:failure-friendly

There was discussion about slippery slopes in another thread a while back. Here

I find all of this frankly ridiculous. If so many people have this powerful urge to compete and win at all costs, what the fuck are they doing playing 8v8 DSD. How comes there's actually no competitive side to the spring community save the occasional 1v1 ladder game between 2 of the same 9-10 people who are regularly involved with that? And clans playing stacked against random newbs in 12+ players games instead of playing each other? To me this smells of wannabeism and "pub star" kind of players rather than competition. Couple that with the amount of smurfing, griefing, asshattery and "we already lost" ragequits regularly seen on large "team" (ahem...) games often by supposedly good players and I find it very difficult to take most claims to competitive spirit any seriously.


tl;dr: if you expect competition in a 5v5+ dsd game you're a fool and deserve to have your efforts screwed by porcing noobs.
Seriously, you join pub games where you know full well at least 1/3 of the players will be utter noobs, yet expect them to play by your standards?



disclaimer: this is a rant about the spring community's pretensions in general and not directed at anyone participating in this discussion (most of whom i never played with)


btw:

Pxtl wrote:FPS games are more forgiving, since if you fall behind by a few frags you can still get back into the game with a few well-timed powerup snatches and fights.

lol yeah, hf trying as a noob to snatch a few (!) powerups from a good team/player

s3cco

My point, you missed it. It was about trying hard to win, not about skill. Obviously, a less-skilled player in an FPS game is going to get pwned, hard. But a guy who's exploring and trying things out is only going to be pwned for the duration of his fscking-around. The moment he gets his crap together, he has to squeeze in a few pickups with a few lucky moves to get into the game.

And yes, I read that thread. I brought it up because people are talking about "not playing to win" in BA... which is utterly imbecilic. With BA, you play to win or you play something else, for the reasons I outline - BA is far too unforgiving to allow goof-offs.

s3cco wrote:And clans playing stacked against random newbs in 12+ players games instead of playing each other?

I guess they want to play with people they know and trust as allies. This, however, does not extend to enemies. It should, but no one really cares. Btw, there is room for goof-offs in stacked BA games, but I guess that's beside the point.

Teutooni wrote: There might also be players who play to win to the best of their ability, but ultimately don't care if they lose. The fun is in the interaction with the enemy. I think the majority of avarage to good players are like this, myself included.

QFT

Some of the best games i have played have involved me having my ass handed to me, or a narrow victory for either side.

Sure everyone loves to wave their epeen: its gratifying to win, but so much more so when you have had to fight tooth and nail for it. Its not the win that particularly delivers the thrill, but the action of earning it. Intensity and immersion (not in the fluff/game world, just losing your self in the player interaction) are far greater fun factors than, for e.g. "lol atlas combomb followed by 5 flash gg" in a 1v1.


yeah we play com ends= continues in XTA, so shoot me

Sleksa wrote: "i dont need to work in team-games" quote.

I never said that. Stop misquoting me, it is one of the things that makes me truely loathe you. As far was whether or not I work in a game, you have never been in a team game with me so you do not really know HOW I play or what I do.

However, I will recognize your only valid point in between putting words in my mouth. Of course others made it without putting words in my mouth and blowing the whole post out of context. As swift said, play for fun is not the best description.

I still see two heavily polarized player types the "Noncompetitive" or casual and "competitive". While both of these players exist in wide variance studying extremes is much easier. There is a third type that never fits into either, that is douchebag. Let me first say a few NOT logic things.

Noncompetitive: is NOT: TEK2KROG or Head in anus
Competitive is NOT: Creative or individualistic.
Douchebag is NOT: going to listen to you because he is that awesome.

When I talk about the casual player who plays for fun, I am talking about the guy who is not competitive. That player is just there trying to have a good time. Be it using different or uncommon unit combinations or even odd build orders. Casual players do enjoy effects, to them the game rewards their good play with exciting explosions. A casual player is likely to do well if the player is good enough using his units or creative enough in his tactics. However, the causal player is at heart about experimentation within the designers intent more then having to win. If the casual player wins it is because he played well. Odds are the casual player will not bend the game too terribly and if the casual player wins it is because he did well. They are more likely to try and end the game with a huge siege force because it looks cool at least if the situation allows for it.

When I say that the competitive player plays not for fun. I mean that his idea of fun is to win. The hallmark of a good competitive player is that he will exploit. I mean everything, bend the game, forget the intent of the designer and forget any moral or ethical guidelines. The competitive player hates pretty graphics and would be happy with circles for explosions and squares for tanks. He doesn't need an epic finish, he doesn't need to get to a nuke as the visual excitement doesn't interest him. If the competitive player can end the game in 4 minutes with a flash he will be happy.

The douchebag is the unrepentant jerkoff, the first thing he will do is tek2krog or porc. EVEN IF the map doesn't call for it and few maps do. This guy is in his own world and will not listen to anyone, you need land defense, too bad he builds air. You need so frontline troops, too bad he is going to try and use you to stall the enemy until he gets his krog. Competitve players hate this guy because he is not doing anything and a waste of resources. Casual players find him uninteresting because he is dull they have to divert efforts to protecting him in the hopes he may make use of said krog. Noone likes the guy, he is stuborn and is going to hate the mod/game because his BAD idea didn't work.

NOW, I do not agrea with the sentiment that a casual player is noob. I also believe many of us (outside of sleksa) play casual or competitive from time to time. There are days when I want to play and I don't feel like being creative, I go with a tried and true build that I know will work and rush rush. Other days I may decide to be creative and see what I can do with this or that unit. Now before sleksa starts linking to that site about how people should play to win and break the design of the game. Sleksa, we know, you have no reverence for the spirit of anything and it makes you feel good to subjugate the game to your will. I am more interested in fresh perspectives not your same old hateful angst.

and since sleksa will no doubt twist this stuff one last clarification.

Casual is NOT: fucking off somewhere playing simbase instead of fighting. Casual players DO try to contribute at least.
Competitive CAN STILL BE fun and I know some people need to win not matter how they do it.

Pxtl wrote:And yes, I read that thread. I brought it up because people are talking about "not playing to win" in BA... which is utterly imbecilic. With BA, you play to win or you play something else, for the reasons I outline - BA is far too unforgiving to allow goof-offs.

to sleksa everything is about BA.

Le sigh. We keep having this debate every few months. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a game when you win vs enjoying a game when you just play. But the two types of players are pretty incompatible - this is why having a solid ladder/ranking system (with an opt-out function!) is important. If you're playing on the ladder, people know you're not there to screw around, and if you're not, people know its not as big a deal.

yeah, every so often we have these but I really am interested in them. I obviously design gundam for casual players with it's huge unit count emphasis on working towards the ability to build the cooler units etc. However, I know that there is also a hardcore crowd so I try to please them also by trying to streamline things and develop gameplay elements that may appeal. IN BEFORE SMOTH IS CONSIDERING OTHERS IN GUNDAM.

I think others are doing the same. Thing is each time we have this discussion understandably some players feel offended of our categorization of them and pound hard turning it into a competition about what way is the best. Honestly, I think the best varies from person to person but I do want to know what people are looking for.

I agree that matches are the most fun when there's actually a challenge to it, steamrolling or being steamrolled is no fun. Often even the strategies you use vs weak players are boring, you won't see many close calls that really make the game interesting. While there are ways to play for lulz I don't think they're really common, when people get creative they often just try to find a new strategy.

smoth wrote:

Pxtl wrote:And yes, I read that thread. I brought it up because people are talking about "not playing to win" in BA... which is utterly imbecilic. With BA, you play to win or you play something else, for the reasons I outline - BA is far too unforgiving to allow goof-offs.

to sleksa everything is about BA.

my first post referenced wc3, while pxtl brought up the "ba cant be played for fun"

I never said that. Stop misquoting me

-tnx4troll

Sure everyone loves to wave their epeen: its gratifying to win, but so much more so when you have had to fight tooth and nail for it.

This is what im after. 2 good players trying everything to get a win is the best form of play. Even if you lose you can still have a "whoa that was a **** tight match" -feeling.

Sleksa wrote:This is what im after. 2 good players trying everything to get a win is the best form of play for what I like. Even if you lose you can still have a "whoa that was a **** tight match" -feeling.

-fixt

Does the ladder not serve this purpose?

Does the ladder not serve this purpose?

Nobody has played ladder for a long time ~~

But yes, ultimately ladder serves this purpose by providing win-loss statistics.