Spring RTS Engine

IIRC the ladder requires some kind of specific host or something? Why can this not be added to spring and this site as well?

smoth wrote:The competitive player hates pretty graphics

lol straw man, pretty graphics are nice but the gameplay must be there.

smoth wrote:... sleksa ... sleksa ... sleksa ... sleksa ... sleksa ...

smoth isn't a casual forumer, he plays the forums to win

TL;DR- Competitive players play for the competition, not for the win (Though they try TO win).

There could be purely competitive people, who get their fun when they realize they have beaten someone.

such is the attitude of a competitive player. The game's fun factor is a direct reflection of whether you win or lose. Not everyone shares your view saktoth. Sure you have a finite time to play each day but if all you want to do is WIN then you play with the players you know you work well with.

I find this deeply, deeply, personally insulting and it is a gross mis-representation of my position. As i said in my origional post- for me the fun is in matching wits, even if i lose (esp if he does something clever). All of you who say competitive players get thier joy from winning make me feel personally insulted. I do not think this is the position of anyone in this thread.

What was Day saying earlier? 'Spring is no fun because you all suck'. Yeah he was a jerk about it but his complaint boils simply down to: 'I win too much. This is no fun.'

For a competitive player, the game is about competition (surprise!) a good game against an evenly matched player (which means sometimes you win, sometimes you lose) or even against a superior player (you learn something!).

If you want to always win, you will do nothing but beat up noobs. You will never become a good player doing this, and that is not playing competitively.

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.

Im the opposite, i care more about my enemies. If Google or Licho or Det are on my team instead of the other, i might as well not play.

Team games routinely turn into '1v1 with active spectators'. I remember one game of SSB where google and i both went in opposite seas, and wiped out all the other players in the game through asymetrical play, proving that the game was really just a huge 1v1 in the end.

"I want to try using this unit this game", or "I wonder what would happen if I didn't build any attacking units" or even just generally playing the game without really any thought to how you can improve for next time or increase your performance. New players are forced into less structured play styles because they don't know better... but there's still a marked difference between someone who plays just screwing around and someone who observers other people's actions and strategies, and attempts to mimic them with the ultimate goal of being a good player.

This is playing experimentally. I do it all the time its the only way to innovate strategically. When a player does this, he is trying to learn about the game through experimentation. A new player is just operating on a lower level, trying to find good strategies by a process of elimination, only he has to go through the stupid ones first. Most of the time he should listen to his allies if they say 'that doesnt work'. A player who is not trying to improve himself would not experiment... there is no reason to experiment unless it is to learn, this is basic human learning behaviour.

Some people take this more seriously and watch replays and read guides. Others just mess around trying to find something that works. They are both doing the same thing.

they are more interested in things like watching explotions, or seeing units work, or making pretty bases. As if they have a private victory condition they must meet, as opposed to the simple one the game imposes of beating your opponents.

Yes. Yes this! Thats what i mean by playing a screensaver rather than the game. Thats okay, you can do that, just do it somewhere where that sort of thing is acceptable. In most games, it isnt.

If you are doing random pick up and expect the players all to work well then you are dead wrong.

I had a most excellent game recently. Frostbite, 3v3. I coordinated before hand carefully, because you have to on frostbite. I went sea, ally went air, other ally went hover- per my instructions. Air player shut down the other air player using fighter rush, then dropped to the middle of the map and pushed land. Other player went hovers, which allowed me to go subs in the water. He took out the torpedo launchers, i took out the corvettes, then he pushed land (Actually, HIS ALLY COMDROPPED HIM to land), i compushed onto land, and we won in short order. It wasnt totally smooth but it was beautiful watching this come together.

I had not played with either of these players before to my recollection.

I do not think comnapping an ally against his will, or reclaiming his mexes against his will, is a good idea. If a player frustrates you that much, boot him from the game if you are the host (Or the host shares your inclinations) and if you are not the host leave respectfully and join another game (that is, IMO, the appropriate response). Do not play in games that do not match your playstyle or skill level.

What im saying is that the OP's attitude that he has the right, the privilege, to mess up the game for the other players, to ignore them and play his own game is wrong. Its a team game, by joining he takes on a responsibility to work with his allies. If his allies want to comdrop him then he should work with his allies to pull off the strategy, not get angry at them. This is what i mean when i say, if i comdrop you, you should be grateful for a good piece of teamwork (As in that Frostbite game, and many others ive played).

The player who says 'you just play your game, ill play mine' is more frustrating than anything, to me. Its a team game. Go play 1v1 (Its a lot of fun).

Sleksa wrote:

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.

how does the ladder server acquire stats?

smoth wrote:

Sleksa wrote:

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.

how does the ladder server acquire stats?

In spring you need a separate client, however every other game has a built-in stats system (wc3 battle.net, supcom gpgnet)

Saktoth wrote:I find this deeply, deeply, personally insulting and it is a gross mis-representation of my position.

And you say that a casual gamer only wants a screensaver, I am to not be insulted? Saying that to you is a battle of witts and to people like me it is a screensaver, well that is insulting, I wasn't insulted but I could have been. The difference is pretty small but puts the two hugely opposed to one another. I meet people who are highly competitive, they always have to win are out to prove something. Everything is about being attacked and it is all very personal because the person ties thier happyness into a game.

What is your attitude when you lose?

What is your definition of playing well?

Players porcing and tek2krog are experimenting sure WE know it doesn't work and they are douches for not listening or repeatedly trying it. However, what I am asking you, what is wrong with enjoying the eyecandy? what is wrong with using a less then optimal build if you LIKE the way the unit moves or acts? Maybe you like hover units, sure they are not very good for cost but you hate dealing with water slowdown? This is not a hallmark competitive move but it is a casual move. Why would this be so wrong?

Sleksa wrote: In spring you need a separate client, however every other game has a built-in stats system (wc3 battle.net, supcom gpgnet)

We should try and see if the lobby devs would consider adding it into the lobby?

Saktoth wrote:I find this deeply, deeply, personally insulting and it is a gross mis-representation of my position.

Sure, I never said you are purely competitive. I know some rare cases have a primordial instinct to be the best no matter what. That is the extreme form of competitiveness. I belive you are somewhere between that and this:

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.

smoth wrote:

Sleksa wrote:

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.

how does the ladder server acquire stats?

either the lobby uploads infolog & replay to the ladder website automatically at the game end or either the player who lost do it manually trough the web interface

EDIT: before you ask the ladder uses the ELO ranking system

Oh so it grabs the whole replay!?!?! wow, there is soo much data there!

It would be cool if the lobby had a checkbox when hosting a game:

[ ] submit results to ladder tracker

where it would send a stripped down version of the replay. The replay could be stripped down and we still have ample stats. Stats like who killed how many units, Who lost the most etc...?

that would be really cool!

smoth wrote:Oh so it grabs the whole replay!?!?! wow, there is soo much data there!

It would be cool if the lobby had a checkbox when hosting a game:

[ ] submit results to ladder tracker

where it would send a stripped down version of the replay. The replay could be stripped down and we still have ample stats. Stats like who killed how many units, Who lost the most etc...?

that would be really cool!

iirc the laader site doesn't parse the replay atm (it was planned to add that), but you'll better ask meltrax to be sure

EDIT: tasclient has the functionality to upload results when you host a game in "ladder mode"

EDIT: before you ask the ladder uses the ELO ranking system

Nope, ladders system is non-zero-sum.

In spring you need a separate client, however every other game has a built-in stats system (wc3 battle.net, supcom gpgnet)

Nope, just the latest TASC. All you gotta do is update it.

And you say that a casual gamer only wants a screensaver, I am to not be insulted?

I said no such thing. I never equated the 'playing a screensaver' with 'casual play'.

When i say 'You are trying to win or playing a screensaver' i am trying to say 'You are all trying to win, most of you, because this is a vs war game and that is the whole point'. Some people play a screensaver- like DOT when he plays chicken with 100x metamult and 10x starting resources. They are a minority. In fact, it is those players who cannot stand to lose, and cannot stand putting themselves in a position where they could ever possibly lose. For a competitive player, losing is a chance to learn something and become better- a competitive player likes to learn, he likes to get better.

In fact, i would define that as the difference between a competitive and casual player (and its a spectrum, not a binary distinction). A competitive player takes getting good at the game more seriously.

What is your attitude when you lose?

It depends how i lost. If i lost due to the enemy playing in a superior fashion, i usually enjoy it and want to play again. If i lost due to allies who play poorly despite me specifically instructing them how to play better (they refuse to listen) i feel frustrated. I dont require competence (though id prefer it) from my allies, merely cooperation.

Same if i win. I am supremely disappointed when i beat a good player on the other team due to his poor allies.

What is your definition of playing well?

This is too open-ended a question.
How i tell new players to play:
Be aggressive, listen to superior players when they tell you what to do.
When do i personally feel i have 'played well'?
When i am not making obvious mistakes that i can clearly see are costing me the game.

However, what I am asking you, what is wrong with enjoying the eyecandy? what is wrong with using a less then optimal build if you LIKE the way the unit moves or acts?

Nothing wrong with it, we all do it a little, or we wouldnt like graphics in our games and wouldnt make krogs etc. But those who are playing merely for that reason- that is incompatible with my playstyle.

Maybe you like hover units, sure they are not very good for cost but you hate dealing with water slowdown? This is not a hallmark competitive move but it is a casual move. Why would this be so wrong?

How is playing to your strengths not competitive? How is picking a unit that suits your tactics and playstyle not competitive.

Being a competitive player is often about experimentation and pushing the limits- but sometimes you go for a tried and true strat, especially if you really want to win a game against a player who you know can beat you.

Teutooni wrote:Sure, I never said you are purely competitive.

I know people who cannot stand to lose. They only play singleplayer, and they always use cheats. I find it kind of pathetic.

Even a player who plays only for that buzz when they win (and i dont think day, slek, etc are that sort of player but they can speak for themselves) plays for the buzz when they win a close-fought game. They arent playing for the cheap thrill of beating up a noob.

Again, i would define a competitive player as one who plays for the competition, with evenly matched enemies. I think that should be a clear definition really! That is me.

Of course there is the other definition of 'competitive' which isnt about mindset but rather 'he can compete on x skill level'. Nobody has got the two confused yet but i just want to head that off.

Even a player who plays only for that buzz when they win (and i dont think day, slek, etc are that sort of player but they can speak for themselves) plays for the buzz when they win a close-fought game. They arent playing for the cheap thrill of beating up a noob.

Again, i would define a competitive player as one who plays for the competition, with evenly matched enemies. I think that should be a clear definition really! That is me.

+1

Saktoth wrote:Again, i would define a competitive player as one who plays for the competition, with evenly matched enemies. I think that should be a clear definition really! That is me.

Sounds like a solid definition to me. Well, the 'Win at all costs' wasn't originally my idea of competitiveness either. I adopted it from previous posts.

Let's say there are players who play for pretty effects, simbaes, social reasons, whatever. The casual players. Then there are hardcore players who want to test their limits. They want a challenge, and they want to get better. And the two are incompatible.

The problem is, no one belongs strictly to a single category, there's a whole spectrum. Moreover it depends heavily on mood, too.

LordMatt wrote:

smoth wrote:The competitive player hates pretty graphics

lol straw man, pretty graphics are nice but the gameplay must be there.

Some idiots actually went out of their way to complain that a game is prettier than BA and therefore has worse gameplay without actually bothering to try playing it. They just looked at it and decided it must be worse because the developer(s) paid attention to graphics instead of only thinking about balancing (balancing does not require so much thinking that you cannot do anything else but it seems to be a common fallacy that graphics and gameplay are zero sum).

Some idiots is no less a strawman than what smoth said.

Nah KDR completely got what I was saying and nailed it on the head. I also found saktoths post very good.

Braindamage, Springlobby can to stats right? If so, how can I setup a page on my site for tracking this? Or is this a meltrax question?

LordMatt wrote:Some idiots is no less a strawman than what smoth said.

Strawmen manage to log into the forum though.

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

Well, then I will make it happen, with Lua. Should be easy enough. This is an engine feature, but a very poorly designed one, if this happens on a regular basis.

The issue here, imo, is not about winning or losing. That's irrelevant.

It's about consent. You're violating people's autonomy when you do this kind of thing.

I am all for, and quite enjoy, serious, competitive play, when I have time to just play a game, instead of building one. The few of you who have ever gotten to actually play me in any game here know that, as a matter of fact. I don't screw around, and I always have to be nice to nubs, tbh. And I enjoy it a lot, win or lose.

I love 1v1 hardcore play, as a matter of fact, and personally, I think that big team games are usually lame, because either I crush the scrub in front of me so fast that the game ends very rapidly, or my team sucks so hardcore that we're doomed from the outset.

And I understand, completely, why you'd get frustrated, watching some scrub sit around building stuff that will just cause them to stall, wasting team resources, etc.

But that does not mean that I'd violate their autonomy, and ruin their fun, simply because I'm better than they are. That, people, crosses the line.

Don't try to tell me that the nub will "thank me". That's pathetic. I really doubt you can show me even one, documented example, where a nub ever said, "gee, I'm so glad you used my com to bomb the enemy base". They'll hate you for violating their autonomy as players, and rightly so.

What's next, after that? Actively running their econs, and basically playing for them? Talk about screen savers...

Or how's about using them to suicide?

Oh wait, you guys have already tried, lamely, to defend such incredible violations of players' autonomy!

After you cross that line, meh... next it'll be cheats and hacks, and we're out of Eden here. There is no stopping once people start saying that violating other people's fun is all right, so long as they have fun- a hack is just another facet of this same selfish attitude.

I will do what little I can, as a not-very-hot coder, to put a stop to this- some forms of immorality in games require coding changes to address, and this is, apparently, one of them.

So its ok for someone to cap a third of the mexes in map to type LOL's in DT's, but its not ok for someone to capture those mexes and build units to win the game?

Oh wait, you guys have already tried, lamely, to defend such incredible violations of players' autonomy!

There is no player autonomy. There's just a engine and a goal for everyone to win, all the rest of the rules like no commbombing or no lame flash using or shitty porching with mmakers are only in your head.

I for one have and will continue to cut on player's mexes if i see that they arent doing anything to win the game, if he wants to play around and watch pretty explosions, im sure he can do that with a few less mexes.

Well, then I will make it happen, with Lua. Should be easy enough. This is an engine feature, but a very poorly designed one, if this happens on a regular basis.

The issue here, imo, is not about winning or losing. That's irrelevant.

It's about consent. You're violating people's autonomy when you do this kind of thing.

This isnt real life democratic country. You dont have any rights like i said. There's a engine, and a goal to win, just like chess has a board and pieces and a goal to checkmate the king.

*also could someone please find that OTA screenshot where a dude is protecting his guardian saying that its guarded by the 2002 molly act, it would so fit into this discussion*

smoth wrote:

Saktoth wrote:I find this deeply, deeply, personally insulting and it is a gross mis-representation of my position.

And you say that a casual gamer only wants a screensaver, I am to not be insulted? Saying that to you is a battle of witts and to people like me it is a screensaver, well that is insulting, I wasn't insulted but I could have been. The difference is pretty small but puts the two hugely opposed to one another. I meet people who are highly competitive, they always have to win are out to prove something. Everything is about being attacked and it is all very personal because the person ties thier happyness into a game.

What is your attitude when you lose?

What is your definition of playing well?

Players porcing and tek2krog are experimenting sure WE know it doesn't work and they are douches for not listening or repeatedly trying it. However, what I am asking you, what is wrong with enjoying the eyecandy? what is wrong with using a less then optimal build if you LIKE the way the unit moves or acts? Maybe you like hover units, sure they are not very good for cost but you hate dealing with water slowdown? This is not a hallmark competitive move but it is a casual move. Why would this be so wrong?

Sleksa wrote: In spring you need a separate client, however every other game has a built-in stats system (wc3 battle.net, supcom gpgnet)

We should try and see if the lobby devs would consider adding it into the lobby?

This is the big split. The mindset of the casual player is that there is nothing wrong. It's just a game and the whole point is playing it. If you find one strategy more fun, even if it is counterproductive in terms of victory as a goal, that's fine, use it. If you think the way some unit behaves is buggy and exploititive, that's fine, don't use it, even if you know that it will give you an advantage if you do. The mindset of the competitive player is different though, when you join a team game you enter into a pact with the other players that you will do your best to see to it that the team wins the game, if you don't, you're being disrespectful to the team.

The reality is, neither side is wrong, it just depends who you're playing with and how you're playing. I've several times been on both sides of the fence. In NS I definitely play with the competitive player mindset. I've played the game for 4000-5000 hours, I just have absolutely no interest in casual curiosities of the game any more, I've seen them all a billion times before already, I just want to play the game and win, and I want my allies to respect that. In most other multiplayer games it's the opposite. I have no idea what the optimums are, so I don't really even put much thought into them. In allied games, because I understand the perspective of competitive players, I try not to fuck around too much so I'm not effecting my teams chances of winning far past the best of my ability, but I know that ultimately the chances of me being the tilting point are marginally low.

Argh: I'd like to see some more developed teamplay rules. Things like dgun and selfD for the commander being canceled if he's around more allied units then enemy units, transports not being able to pick up allied units without some sort of consent flag being issued on the part of the player being picked up, and the outright blocking of reclaiming allied structures. If it can be done with host side lua that would be the best way of doing it.