When you see good players get on a new map they move more cautiously and are more direct in their actions instead of running and gunning for a particular "keyhole" shot. I hope the technology gets here soon for random maps.
Scenario: Map is created and uploaded to clients. A satellite view of the battlefield is shown on the loadout screen. The battle begins. When battle is over a new map is generated so never to reproduce.
If it can be done in 60-120 seconds then I think it would be a winner. I know it's a big IF.
The way I see it, adding randomness to the maps removes a lot of important elements to the gameplay, like map knowledge, strats, nade spots, etc.. By removing those things, the game is even more focus on individual abilities, like awareness and reactions and makes good players triumph over not so good players even harder then they do now.
I said it a lot of times and others as well, adding randomness in any shape or form is a fix that doesn't fix anything. It might look like a good idea until you see how it actually affects the gameplay and how players react to it.
"Random" maps for FPS games with CQB emphasis are more likely to be procedural combinations of setpieces a la what the Strafe team is trying: http://strafedevblog.com/post/93056717598/how-we-are-handling-level-generation-in-strafe
That gives Devs the ability to design interesting areas with character, a balance of engagement range options, good cover placement, and so on. How the areas combine and interact creates the replayability.
Experienced players would come to recognize those prebuilt areas. Calls, situational nades, etc would develop from that.
On the other hand, larger-scale maps with procedurally-generated terrain etc has been done in the past -- see, for example, Soldier Of Fortune 2's random mission generator.
In general, though, by removing players' ability to know ahead of time where engagements will happen or which doorways are the largest threat, players are forced to cooperate and communicate better. If you and your buddy have no idea if the enemies are coming from door A or door B, or where to stand to hold the best angle, it's that much more important to work together and split responsibilities. It changes the flow and pacing of the game through the introduction of uncertainty. It also creates an interesting match dynamic as, with each round, players further develop their understanding of the playspace.
If we ignore the ability to recognize pre-built areas, unfamiliar spaces can level the playing field between the players that have memorized all the maps and the new players by removing map knowledge from the equation. While this does favor "good" players over "not so good" players, it means "not so good" players with 1000 hours of gameplay can no longer roll over "good" players with 0 hours through sheer knowledge of where to put grenades and where to find the best cover.
It's all rather academic since I really doubt the Dev team is working on a system this complex, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off the idea. I think it would fit best in, say, a new SWAT game, but it'd still be fun to try.
After reading the pages of this topic now I know that this game has no salvation:only 2 or 3 people knows how a competitive FPS should be, the rest are just fanboys.
I only play this game because is named America's army but I lost hope...
I respect your opinion, but believe that you are wrong.
The best correlation I can make is sports. Outside of environmental factors, it is purely a physics and psychological based game.
There's an exact scene in the show "Halt and Catch Fire" Season 2 episode 2, where the main character in the show gets very upset and angry because he found out that the computer shooter he was playing awarded a victor based on randomness instead of skill.
We had a lot of issues with UMMs on our server when they first came out. we used to have a UMM map night Once a week where all we played was UMMs but it got to the point where people couldn't play because the map didn't work for them. And updating issues. It sounds like they might be coming along a little better and it might be time to take a look at using them again.
and colts If you build it they will come
The only way I have ever been able to get a server going is inviting people close to the same skill and then that way any inexperienced player or your typical pub player who joins will not have a fun time playing against players much better than them because they won't get kills. Eventually we get bored playing the same people and server dies within an hour. Literally the only way probably for me to full a server would be to change the name and then get some guys on noob accounts and let people kill us.
I respect your opinion, but believe that you are wrong.
The best correlation I can make is sports. Outside of environmental factors, it is purely a physics and psychological based game.
There's an exact scene in the show "Halt and Catch Fire" Season 2 episode 2, where the main character in the show gets very upset and angry because he found out that the computer shooter he was playing awarded a victor based on randomness instead of skill.
When you see good players get on a new map they move more cautiously and are more direct in their actions instead of running and gunning for a particular "keyhole" shot. I hope the technology gets here soon for random maps.
Scenario: Map is created and uploaded to clients. A satellite view of the battlefield is shown on the loadout screen. The battle begins. When battle is over a new map is generated so never to reproduce.
If it can be done in 60-120 seconds then I think it would be a winner. I know it's a big IF.
Define your definition of good players because I and most the good players I consider good will run and gun on a brand new map to learn it as fast as possible. Than I switch to a more preferred smarter play style.
BTW players only get away with running and gunning when they are that much better than the opposing team...This game is actually not run and gun at all, you don't see it in competition and therefore there is no need to consider how to fix run and gunning but instead everyone has to consider how to get better and counter the person that is running and gunning finding your nearest bush is not the answer (Players that do this are doing nothing for the team and are displaying 0 teamwork. They are also not getting any better whether they succeed or fail.), finding a lame corner where someone may run by and not see you is also not the answer (Again these players have 0 teamwork and are not getting any better but not being able to learn how to out shoot their opponent.), camping further in your spawn is also not the answer. (Players that do this are just wasting everyone's time in the round/match - they are purposely trapping themselves in their spawn leaving the defending team or assaulting team to run freely through the map. They are leaving huge holes in routes that need to be filled to win the match. They should try outsmarting there opponent its pretty easy to kill players sitting in spawn they may get likely 1/10 times and get the kill but they are not getting any better.) All of the above fits atleast 50% or more of the players who play this game. They are basically getting worse by doing this because it is much easier to assault or defend when players do this. They only thing they successfully do is get their entire team or server bored of playing with or against them. (no challenge.)
If these players actually took the time to think what they could do differently to outsmart their opponents like finding a hole and flanking that player or coordinating a team push on that player and actually trying to display teamwork not just camping spawn/bush/corner and getting revives/secures and calling it teamwork. They would become much better players.
I'm sure every server owner knows how hard it is to get an established server going, let alone have one that has players continually returning.
The phenomenon is not exclusive to good players
Its much easier to get a server going if you are below average at the game. That's why all the average teams have servers full and all the good teams struggle to keep their servers full.
I'm sure every server owner knows how hard it is to get an established server going, let alone have one that has players continually returning.
The phenomenon is not exclusive to good players
Its much easier to get a server going if you are below average at the game. That's why all the average teams have servers full and all the good teams struggle to keep their servers full.
This is true. Most players aren't going to join a server to get destroyed by the best players in the game. They'll go somewhere that the average skill level is much lower.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Yeah, I get that, nobody likes dying (especially repeatedly) on a FPS.. but I thought the game needed more of a challenge? and that thats what people wanted from the game? lots of people lately have been asking to make the game harder by removing or changing hold your hand mechanics, now your basically saying people wont stay on your server (or a server where good players play) because they just want to play against people they can kill and have no challenge? I must be missing something.
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
Yeah, I get that, nobody likes dying (especially repeatedly) on a FPS.. but I thought the game needed more of a challenge? and that thats what people wanted from the game? lots of people lately have been asking to make the game harder by removing or changing hold your hand mechanics, now your basically saying people wont stay on your server (or a server where good players play) because they just want to play against people they can kill and have no challenge? I must be missing something.
There's a difference when you're level 1 and playing against guys who are level 100.
I don't care what game you play, if you're playing against someone who is that much better for you, it's never fun. Here's what you need to think about. This game's mechanics can be mastered within let's just say 100 hours of gameplay (probably not even). At that point, skill gaps are purely aiming, reaction speed, and map knowledge. There is nothing more for players to really work towards which leads to boredom and then death of the game. That's why people say that the game needs to be more difficult. There needs to be more for a player to master and grow. When the amount of growth is limited, the game dies.
So yes, when a guy who has 5 hours of game time joins a server with top notch players, it would suck. It doesn't mean that the game is difficult.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Remove everything that is skillbased and replace it with random stuff. Just roll the dice in fight situations so even the biggest noobs can win a fight
Yeah, I get that, nobody likes dying (especially repeatedly) on a FPS.. but I thought the game needed more of a challenge? and that thats what people wanted from the game? lots of people lately have been asking to make the game harder by removing or changing hold your hand mechanics, now your basically saying people wont stay on your server (or a server where good players play) because they just want to play against people they can kill and have no challenge? I must be missing something.
There's a difference when you're level 1 and playing against guys who are level 100.
I don't care what game you play, if you're playing against someone who is that much better for you, it's never fun. Here's what you need to think about. This game's mechanics can be mastered within let's just say 100 hours of gameplay (probably not even). At that point, skill gaps are purely aiming, reaction speed, and map knowledge. There is nothing more for players to really work towards which leads to boredom and then death of the game. That's why people say that the game needs to be more difficult. There needs to be more for a player to master and grow. When the amount of growth is limited, the game dies.
The whole problem here is your underlying assumption that 100 hours is a short time. It's not. It's *extremely* long by the standards of the normal gamer.
The median CSGO player has 68 hours.
The median TF2 player has 5 hours.
The median COD4:MW player has 7 hours.
The median Ghost Recon: Phantoms player has 5 hours.
Everybody on these forums is way more obsessive about their gaming than the typical player. It's bad game design to design only for the people that are going to stick around for crazy amounts of time.
So yes, when a guy who has 5 hours of game time joins a server with top notch players, it would suck. It doesn't mean that the game is difficult.
That really depends on how they're treated. The BF3 server I ran had plenty of 145+ level players that were more than happy to goof off and be friendly in spite of being able to wipe the floor if they so desired. We had one guy that chose to just fly MAVs around for his team and spot enemies if the skill levels were low at the time. Player attitude matters. Maybe some of these guys have a hard time populating servers because they're treating the inexperienced players like trash, not just because they're better at the game.
Remove everything that is skillbased and replace it with random stuff. Just roll the dice in fight situations so even the biggest noobs can win a fight
Couldn't agree more. Finally someone smart in this forum.
The whole problem here is your underlying assumption that 100 hours is a short time. It's not. It's *extremely* long by the standards of the normal gamer.
The median CSGO player has 68 hours.
The median TF2 player has 5 hours.
The median COD4:MW player has 7 hours.
The median Ghost Recon: Phantoms player has 5 hours.
Everybody on these forums is way more obsessive about their gaming than the typical player. It's bad game design to design only for the people that are going to stick around for crazy amounts of time.
100 hours was a random number. I have no idea what the real number is. It is true that most players don't play games long enough to master it. However, that's also average numbers. We're including people who played the game once and never came back. If the average player only played 5 hours of TF2 then the game would be dead by now. So yes, maybe thousands of people tried TF2 and never played again. However, there are also way more people who stuck to the game... a game which has way more complex mechanics than this one. Using average hours played isn't quite easy to just make a blanket statement with.
That really depends on how they're treated. The BF3 server I ran had plenty of 145+ level players that were more than happy to goof off and be friendly in spite of being able to wipe the floor if they so desired. We had one guy that chose to just fly MAVs around for his team and spot enemies if the skill levels were low at the time. Player attitude matters. Maybe some of these guys have a hard time populating servers because they're treating the inexperienced players like trash, not just because they're better at the game.
I agree, but to be fair, a game like BF is made in a way that it's more simple to "goof off" with. You can do so much random stuff with the huge map and vehicles. People can have fun just getting into jets and kamikazing into enemies. You can do so much random fun with a game like that. AA is an infantry based game. How much can a player actually do in this game to goof off and still have fun? The best you can do is use guns that you'd never use, run around with your pistol, or something of that nature.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
100 hours was a random number. I have no idea what the real number is. It is true that most players don't play games long enough to master it. However, that's also average numbers. We're including people who played the game once and never came back. If the average player only played 5 hours of TF2 then the game would be dead by now. So yes, maybe thousands of people tried TF2 and never played again. However, there are also way more people who stuck to the game... a game which has way more complex mechanics than this one. Using average hours played isn't quite easy to just make a blanket statement with.
Those are median numbers, not averages. The average numbers are much larger for all of these titles because of the small minority of players that put in very, very large numbers of hours. I used median intentionally to capture the behavior of half of the people that ever played the game.
Hundreds of thousands or even millions only put in a couple hours for F2P titles. It's in the nature of the genre; F2P and paid titles have different playtime distributions.
I agree, but to be fair, a game like BF is made in a way that it's more simple to "goof off" with. You can do so much random stuff with the huge map and vehicles. People can have fun just getting into jets and kamikazing into enemies. You can do so much random fun with a game like that. AA is an infantry based game. How much can a player actually do in this game to goof off and still have fun? The best you can do is use guns that you'd never use, run around with your pistol, or something of that nature.
This is true. When trying to get servers going in AAPG, I've done things like the Bam4D favorite "Escort Mission" and keep my teammate up, or only allowing myself to only use FOGs and objectives. Those both lead to me staying reasonably entertained and challenged while the new guys on the other team get way more kills than they would if I were going full tryhard. Tell the other team you're using only the shotgun, get them to think about where to position to force long-range fights. Be conversational, get people talking.
Populating a server as a top player is every bit as easy as for a mediocre player. This idea that it can't be done is like saying a college baseball player could never play catch with a little league team. Yeah, he could out-play them, but he could just as easily show them a fun time.
Yeah, I get that, nobody likes dying (especially repeatedly) on a FPS.. but I thought the game needed more of a challenge? and that thats what people wanted from the game? lots of people lately have been asking to make the game harder by removing or changing hold your hand mechanics, now your basically saying people wont stay on your server (or a server where good players play) because they just want to play against people they can kill and have no challenge? I must be missing something.
Yah your missing the experience/knowledge to know what "game needs more of a challenge" means compared to players try to get a server going that are much much more skilled than they are where they wouldn't get a kill 1v1. A server doesn't randomly start off with massive amounts of players joining your lucky if one player joins you. Now try keeping that player in your server when your just on another level than him/her and they can't kill you.
Lets say I was average at the game I would want the game to challenge me to get better but I wouldn't want to stick around in a 1v1 with a player with a much higher knowledge and skill level of the game than me that I would go 0-8 or 1-8. (That's not a challenge, I am not going to learning anything 1v1 someone this much better than me - if I am average or new to the game. So I would just leave that server and find another one) This doesn't mean I don't like the game to be challenging. (I want the game to be challenging and have a good learning curve or good skill ceiling so one day I can be able to 1v1 an opponent I just can't right now.)
Comments
The way I see it, adding randomness to the maps removes a lot of important elements to the gameplay, like map knowledge, strats, nade spots, etc.. By removing those things, the game is even more focus on individual abilities, like awareness and reactions and makes good players triumph over not so good players even harder then they do now.
I said it a lot of times and others as well, adding randomness in any shape or form is a fix that doesn't fix anything. It might look like a good idea until you see how it actually affects the gameplay and how players react to it.
I love this community!
http://strafedevblog.com/post/93056717598/how-we-are-handling-level-generation-in-strafe
That gives Devs the ability to design interesting areas with character, a balance of engagement range options, good cover placement, and so on. How the areas combine and interact creates the replayability.
Experienced players would come to recognize those prebuilt areas. Calls, situational nades, etc would develop from that.
On the other hand, larger-scale maps with procedurally-generated terrain etc has been done in the past -- see, for example, Soldier Of Fortune 2's random mission generator.
In general, though, by removing players' ability to know ahead of time where engagements will happen or which doorways are the largest threat, players are forced to cooperate and communicate better. If you and your buddy have no idea if the enemies are coming from door A or door B, or where to stand to hold the best angle, it's that much more important to work together and split responsibilities. It changes the flow and pacing of the game through the introduction of uncertainty. It also creates an interesting match dynamic as, with each round, players further develop their understanding of the playspace.
If we ignore the ability to recognize pre-built areas, unfamiliar spaces can level the playing field between the players that have memorized all the maps and the new players by removing map knowledge from the equation. While this does favor "good" players over "not so good" players, it means "not so good" players with 1000 hours of gameplay can no longer roll over "good" players with 0 hours through sheer knowledge of where to put grenades and where to find the best cover.
It's all rather academic since I really doubt the Dev team is working on a system this complex, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off the idea. I think it would fit best in, say, a new SWAT game, but it'd still be fun to try.
I only play this game because is named America's army but I lost hope...
I respect your opinion, but believe that you are wrong.
The best correlation I can make is sports. Outside of environmental factors, it is purely a physics and psychological based game.
There's an exact scene in the show "Halt and Catch Fire" Season 2 episode 2, where the main character in the show gets very upset and angry because he found out that the computer shooter he was playing awarded a victor based on randomness instead of skill.
http://www.amc.com/shows/halt-and-catch-fire/video-extras/season-02/episode-02/inside-episode-202-halt-and-catch-fire-new-coke
The only way I have ever been able to get a server going is inviting people close to the same skill and then that way any inexperienced player or your typical pub player who joins will not have a fun time playing against players much better than them because they won't get kills. Eventually we get bored playing the same people and server dies within an hour. Literally the only way probably for me to full a server would be to change the name and then get some guys on noob accounts and let people kill us.
If it really was my opinion I'd love this game.
I love this community!
Define your definition of good players because I and most the good players I consider good will run and gun on a brand new map to learn it as fast as possible. Than I switch to a more preferred smarter play style.
BTW players only get away with running and gunning when they are that much better than the opposing team...This game is actually not run and gun at all, you don't see it in competition and therefore there is no need to consider how to fix run and gunning but instead everyone has to consider how to get better and counter the person that is running and gunning finding your nearest bush is not the answer (Players that do this are doing nothing for the team and are displaying 0 teamwork. They are also not getting any better whether they succeed or fail.), finding a lame corner where someone may run by and not see you is also not the answer (Again these players have 0 teamwork and are not getting any better but not being able to learn how to out shoot their opponent.), camping further in your spawn is also not the answer. (Players that do this are just wasting everyone's time in the round/match - they are purposely trapping themselves in their spawn leaving the defending team or assaulting team to run freely through the map. They are leaving huge holes in routes that need to be filled to win the match. They should try outsmarting there opponent its pretty easy to kill players sitting in spawn they may get likely 1/10 times and get the kill but they are not getting any better.) All of the above fits atleast 50% or more of the players who play this game. They are basically getting worse by doing this because it is much easier to assault or defend when players do this. They only thing they successfully do is get their entire team or server bored of playing with or against them. (no challenge.)
If these players actually took the time to think what they could do differently to outsmart their opponents like finding a hole and flanking that player or coordinating a team push on that player and actually trying to display teamwork not just camping spawn/bush/corner and getting revives/secures and calling it teamwork. They would become much better players.
The phenomenon is not exclusive to good players
Its much easier to get a server going if you are below average at the game. That's why all the average teams have servers full and all the good teams struggle to keep their servers full.
This is true. Most players aren't going to join a server to get destroyed by the best players in the game. They'll go somewhere that the average skill level is much lower.
Slow down, play at lower effort, and be friendly and servers get populated.
If you value your kdr more than populating your server, of COURSE it doesn't get populated. Any successful admin can tell you as much.
Source: admin for multiple top-5% servers in BF3 days
There's a difference when you're level 1 and playing against guys who are level 100.
I don't care what game you play, if you're playing against someone who is that much better for you, it's never fun. Here's what you need to think about. This game's mechanics can be mastered within let's just say 100 hours of gameplay (probably not even). At that point, skill gaps are purely aiming, reaction speed, and map knowledge. There is nothing more for players to really work towards which leads to boredom and then death of the game. That's why people say that the game needs to be more difficult. There needs to be more for a player to master and grow. When the amount of growth is limited, the game dies.
So yes, when a guy who has 5 hours of game time joins a server with top notch players, it would suck. It doesn't mean that the game is difficult.
The whole problem here is your underlying assumption that 100 hours is a short time. It's not. It's *extremely* long by the standards of the normal gamer.
The median CSGO player has 68 hours.
The median TF2 player has 5 hours.
The median COD4:MW player has 7 hours.
The median Ghost Recon: Phantoms player has 5 hours.
Everybody on these forums is way more obsessive about their gaming than the typical player. It's bad game design to design only for the people that are going to stick around for crazy amounts of time.
That really depends on how they're treated. The BF3 server I ran had plenty of 145+ level players that were more than happy to goof off and be friendly in spite of being able to wipe the floor if they so desired. We had one guy that chose to just fly MAVs around for his team and spot enemies if the skill levels were low at the time. Player attitude matters. Maybe some of these guys have a hard time populating servers because they're treating the inexperienced players like trash, not just because they're better at the game.
Couldn't agree more. Finally someone smart in this forum.
I love this community!
I agree, but to be fair, a game like BF is made in a way that it's more simple to "goof off" with. You can do so much random stuff with the huge map and vehicles. People can have fun just getting into jets and kamikazing into enemies. You can do so much random fun with a game like that. AA is an infantry based game. How much can a player actually do in this game to goof off and still have fun? The best you can do is use guns that you'd never use, run around with your pistol, or something of that nature.
Hundreds of thousands or even millions only put in a couple hours for F2P titles. It's in the nature of the genre; F2P and paid titles have different playtime distributions.
This is true. When trying to get servers going in AAPG, I've done things like the Bam4D favorite "Escort Mission" and keep my teammate up, or only allowing myself to only use FOGs and objectives. Those both lead to me staying reasonably entertained and challenged while the new guys on the other team get way more kills than they would if I were going full tryhard. Tell the other team you're using only the shotgun, get them to think about where to position to force long-range fights. Be conversational, get people talking.
Populating a server as a top player is every bit as easy as for a mediocre player. This idea that it can't be done is like saying a college baseball player could never play catch with a little league team. Yeah, he could out-play them, but he could just as easily show them a fun time.
Yah your missing the experience/knowledge to know what "game needs more of a challenge" means compared to players try to get a server going that are much much more skilled than they are where they wouldn't get a kill 1v1. A server doesn't randomly start off with massive amounts of players joining your lucky if one player joins you. Now try keeping that player in your server when your just on another level than him/her and they can't kill you.
Lets say I was average at the game I would want the game to challenge me to get better but I wouldn't want to stick around in a 1v1 with a player with a much higher knowledge and skill level of the game than me that I would go 0-8 or 1-8. (That's not a challenge, I am not going to learning anything 1v1 someone this much better than me - if I am average or new to the game. So I would just leave that server and find another one) This doesn't mean I don't like the game to be challenging. (I want the game to be challenging and have a good learning curve or good skill ceiling so one day I can be able to 1v1 an opponent I just can't right now.)
Sorry for having the experience/knowledge.