MAG

[Shifty Geezer]

Rule breaking gets my goat! In Warhawk on Tuesday, some idiot was out on a Teamkilling spree. Very frustrating. I myself am evil and would happily mess things up, but I reign in those tendencies so not to ruin things for others, and I'd prefer if other people acted likewise. Or at least those that don't can be manged from spoiling things for others, booted to servers where miscreants are welcome.

 

[patsu]

Ha ha... well in a hand waving fashion, I think complex solutions to fundamental/simple/common problems seldom help (because they make too many assumptions). I am for changing the basic rules (for experiments).

 

[obonicus]

I have my doubts on these reward schemes since they didn't solve the problems for BF2 by various accounts ? I know I won't adhere to the rules because I am just looking for (cheap) trills when playing FPSes. As long as I can shoot and kill people, I don't really care about K/D ratio or game objectives for a few games. I followed the rules mostly because I like the GAF clan, that's all. My selfish behaviour may proceed to ruin the experiences for 254 people x number of bad games, but I don't feel the pain at all.

They may very well have similar schemes, but should rely on other fundamental gameplay changes to "force" people to coopoerate by default, reward or no reward.

A lot of people aren't interested in teamplay (but still played teamplay games). Using BF2 as an example, in BF2 entering a squad was optional. There was little reason NOT to join a squad: it gave you more spawn options, it gave you voice-chat and the squad leader could even make your life easier by requesting support from the commander. Still, in my experience, most people would not join squads, often because they wanted to lone wolf it (yes, most actually said that).

That's why I say that killing should be a (minor) objective in itself -- that way, when teamplay breaks down the game doesn't break down along with it. Again, to use Battlefield as an example, objectives were very important -- a team with no flags might not be able to spawn in at all, or would bleed out all reinforcements at an alarming rate. But the real objective of a round was to bleed your opponent's reinforcements to zero -- if you were good enough at that, you could often objective capturing. Similarly, in Counterstrike most rounds ended because the teams killed each other off, not because of objectives. In contrast, RTCW was a heavily objective-oriented game. Killing got you nothing at all, other than higher scores. RTCW was, with a good team, incomparable. But on your typical pub, RTCW was incredibly frustrating, while BF much less so (BF had its share of frustrations, though).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...most people would not join squads, often because they wanted to lone wolf it (yes, most actually said that).

Wolves hunt in packs, and are pretty useless on their own. So I wonder where the term 'lone wolf it' came from, and if it was a deliberate but now forgotten recognition that not being in a team is ineffective?

 

[patsu]

A lot of people aren't interested in teamplay (but still played teamplay games). Using BF2 as an example, in BF2 entering a squad was optional. There was little reason NOT to join a squad: it gave you more spawn options, it gave you voice-chat and the squad leader could even make your life easier by requesting support from the commander. Still, in my experience, most people would not join squads, often because they wanted to lone wolf it (yes, most actually said that).

That's kinda what I meant though. It's like recruiting. It's very hard/impossible to change the attitude of people even with incentives. The best way is to hire folks with the right attitude from the onset.

I wonder if the game would benefit more if it filters out the "lone wolves" first. Make it fun. Then as words spread, more people would want to join the game with the understanding and intention to team play.

Naturally, it's a big risk if few people hop on initially, especially for a 256 player game.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Wolves hunt in packs, and are pretty useless on their own. So I wonder where the term 'lone wolf it' came from, and if it was a deliberate but now forgotten recognition that not being in a team is ineffective?

According to answers.com it alludes to the tendency of some species of wolf to hunt alone rather than in packs. That's all I could find. I'd never really thought about it before.

They definitely need to find a good reward system for a game like MAG to encourage team play, or it'll be a chaotic mess. I think reward objective based behavior is the best way to go. So even if a person prefers to play with a very solo mindset, they'll still be encouraged to work towards the same objectives as everyone else. So if your mission is something like capture the flag, they may not stick with the group and may strategize on their own, but they'll still be out to cap the flag or defend the flag rather than just rack up kills with no regard for winning or losing the objective. So they have the feeling of playing on their own, but they're still contributing to the team goal.

 

[Cornsnake]

Players that want to be lone wolf's or improve their K/D ratio in a team based game, should restrict themselves to teamdeathmatch. And of course the needs to support teamdeathmatch.

But I guess its so much easier to improve your K/D ratio by sitting back killing people from a distance when everyone else is grouped around an objective, and not having to worry about someone getting close enough to kill you, because your teammates will take care of them.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

One system could be player ratings, like eBay. If players could rep other players good or bad, that would offer a minimum filter system - 'Only 3 star or higher players on this server.' It would have been nice in Warhawk to label that team-killing wazzock a trouble maker so people could avoid him!

 

[Tap In]

That's kinda what I meant though. It's like recruiting. It's very hard/impossible to change the attitude of people even with incentives. The best way is to hire folks with the right attitude from the onset.

I wonder if the game would benefit more if it filters out the "lone wolves" first. Make it fun. Then as words spread, more people would want to join the game with the understanding and intention to team play.

how do you suggest they do that?

in BF BC, I often felt like it was me and maybe 4 other guys at all that actually cared about the objective. The others were off doing stupid crap or sniping from the hills.

How do you get rid of these people in a public game? LIVE has a filter method of easily pulling up someones GT while or after playing and tell the system you don't want to be matched up in a game with them anymore (which I've used many times in the past) but in BF, I'd have to do that to half the team, every game.

 

[patsu]

how do you suggest they do that?

in BF BC, I often felt like it was me and maybe 4 other guys at all that actually cared about the objective. The others were off doing stupid crap or sniping from the hills.

It depends on how they structured the game (e.g., spawn/no spawn, game objectives, business model, ...). There might not be a general solution.

I am not a game designer. But I think the game has to be clear who they want to serve and state it upfront. I'd explore in the area of stopping ammo flow for people who wander too far off and discount them from the game stats (since they may not contribute to game objectives anyway).

Then parachute more players in. In a way, it's like kicking off bad team players so they don't have lingering effect on current session.

How do you get rid of these people in a public game? LIVE has a filter method of easily pulling up someones GT while or after playing and tell the system you don't want to be matched up in a game with them anymore (which I've used many times in the past) but in BF, I'd have to do that to half the team, every game.

XBL has a unique problem in the sense that people pay for online gaming. So effectively, they are kicking paying customers away. They will have to handle that specially.

The filters are not difficult. In RFOM, people on the leaders' black lists will not be matched to the clan games. The setting is persistent.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem with ban lists is they only prevent you encountering the same person again. It doesn't stop you encountering all new idiots, of which there are many. It doesn't save other people from suffering those same idiots for a match or three. The idiots still get to roam cyberspace messing people about.

 

[Cornsnake]

I don't think developers want to get rid of any gamers that are doing things they're not supposed to. Why limit a games appeal, it will only decrease sales.

 

[patsu]

Yes, they can combine everyone's black lists if they want to. In the end, it may be more efficient and effective for the game to penalize "lone wolves" so that they stay away from the 256 man game. There are serious financial and gameplay implications, but I feel that more work can be done there.

EDIT:

I don't think developers want to get rid of any gamers that are doing things they're not supposed to. Why limit a games appeal, it will only decrease sales.

This is very true, but it also assumes that MAG only offers 256 man games. There can still be death matches if they want to. It's like how R2 has multiple MP game types in one game.

 

[Acert93]

Ah! I think this violates the Geneva Convention (assuming you care).

I swear, the cross on the medic's helmet is there to assist enemy fire. For it to be a violation you need to prove it was intentional and who did it. Reality teaches that big red crosses on aircraft in combat roles means easy target and thus many have stopped using such in many situations. Sure, technically, they shouldn't be fired on... yeah, right.

 

[Tap In]

...

XBL has a unique problem in the sense that people pay for online gaming. So effectively, they are kicking paying customers away. They will have to handle that specially.

The filters are not difficult. In RFOM, people on the leaders' black lists will not be matched to the clan games. The setting is persistent.

yes XBL already does filter people as I mentioned to keep YOU from being matched up with them again but it certainly does not black list them from the game. And players in MAG will be paying customers as well if they purchased the game to play online, so you can not ban them from the game either. So filtering out the "lone-wolves" as you suggested is not a viable solution IMO.

Clan listings and such may help but not everyone wants to be in a clan. sorting the general population of inconsiderate gamers is not an easy fix. There would have to be extreme penalties for not participating (as mentioned above). Only awarding points for team objectives is the only way I see to encourage it in such a large team game. I wish BF:BC did this as well. Or at least have a method to calculate a players participation in team based play that do not equal kills or solely obtaining objectives but actually recognize what good team play is (assists, and such) and reward accordingly. BF:BC does recognize when you assist a teammate by killing someone who is about to kill them for example but the points for kills is still too high IMO for an objective based game.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Some ideas to keep the team players together:

1) player ranking - the only way to level up is to contribute to objectives. match players based on rank. the lone wolfs will stay low rank and will be matched up together

2) have a team rating stat for each player, based on the amount of points or experience they accumulate from completing or contributing to objectives. Optionally allow players to be matched based on their team stat. This allows rank or exp level and team rating to be separate and match making on that stat optional.

 

[RobertR1]

One thing to keep in mind is that for whatever reason the PC crowd is a bit more patient than the console players. On the PC, often the same game gets played routinely for many many years and people understand the importance of team strategy.

On the console, it's "all about me!" mentality and that seems to be reinfornced by seeing the most popular shooting titles such as Halo3 and CoD4. Being a lone wolf in either game is more than fine and number of lone wolves overshadows the amount of clans and such playing. Other games naturally see the success of these games and follow it. This is my current issue with BF BC. They tried to keep the Battlefield theme but moved the line towards the CoD4/Halo3 like scoring to draw in that crowd.

Seeing the high rate at which console owners cycle through games and the kind of shooting games that end up dominating the console charts, it'll take a large shift in mindset to get something high team based/strategy successful for a long period.

 

[Cornsnake]

Battlefield BC does have a good way of telling how useful you have been. It has a ScorePerMinute stat. You get points for blowing up the objective or causing damage to it. killing enemies, healing teammates, repairing vehicle's, etc. The more you do all this the higher your SPM will be. Sadly this is just another stat. you won't get anything for a high SPM.

A blacklist for this game won't help. Its the majority that does nothing useful. I think part of the problem is that all the different classes take a while to get used to, and part of what makes a class useful in some situations needs to be unlocked first. I don't know if MAG is going to have different classes, but Killzone 2 does. Hopefully they find a good way to ease players into the different classes, and get them to divide themselves more evenly across them. Out of the 5 classes Battlefield BC has, assault and snipers are by far the most commonly selected. Even if that particularly map favours one of the other classes.

 

[patsu]

yes XBL already does filter people as I mentioned to keep YOU from being matched up with them again but it certainly does not black list them from the game. And players in MAG will be paying customers as well if they purchased the game to play online, so you can not ban them from the game either. So filtering out the "lone-wolves" as you suggested is not a viable solution IMO.

Black list are personal. So if player A black lists player B, they won't see each other in games; but that does not prevent player B from getting into the game.

If you're refering to match making, then it's game specific.

Filtering out "lone wolves" may mean they are discouraged from signing up for the game (or get kicked out often). So they'd either not pay for the game in the first place, or accept the game rules -- if it is messaged to them very clearly up front. There is no cost to them unless they voluntarily pay for the game and "suffer"

They may be able to play other non-256 man games though.

Clan listings and such may help but not everyone wants to be in a clan. sorting the general population of inconsiderate gamers is not an easy fix. There would have to be extreme penalties for not participating (as mentioned above). Only awarding points for team objectives is the only way I see to encourage it in such a large team game. I wish BF:BC did this as well. Or at least have a method to calculate a players participation in team based play that do not equal kills or solely obtaining objectives but actually recognize what good team play is (assists, and such) and reward accordingly. BF:BC does recognize when you assist a teammate by killing someone who is about to kill them for example but the points for kills is still too high IMO for an objective based game.

Some sort of grouping (players of 8) will be in place to serve the common players. It may just be a convenience/management feature with no strong clan identity. Or like Planetside, you can pick a tribe/race/clan and swear loyalty.

Awarding points is certainly necessary for existing team players, but it may not be a good enough incentives for uncooperating players -- as BF2 may have proved. They can certainly try to improve the incentives further, but there will always be griefers or people who don't care.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying enforcing team play rules up front will solve everything. In general, I think it has its merits, especially when used with other incentive schemes.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Why are you so keen on reducing the lone wolves. They are not the problem.

People often cry about this, but i really dont know what your crying about for the most time.

I usually play as a lone wolf, even in objective based gametypes in shooters. Its not that i wouldn't like teamwork, but the average online console fps gamer isn't particularly good, nor does he know how to play as a team. This is mostly because the average online console player never played a tactical shooter in a clan, they have no experience with teamwork. The average console players teamwork is running together to the same dot on the map.

There are a lot of "lone wolves" out there that are more effective than the rest of the team. The bad players need to learn teamwork, dont force away the lone wolves as they usually know what they are doing. I often manage to kill between 30%-60% of my teams total kills in CoD4 and sometimes in the bfbc demo aswell. I work alone, sometimes i manage to take objectives, most of the time i just kill a lot of people because i memorize all hot spots in such games (i dont spawn kill, but if the other team sucks, i will camp outside your base. . I see lots of other players doing similar things, and doing it well.

In many games, if it wherent for the lone wolves, that team wouldn't win. The people that run together on console games are usually rather bad, they dont know how to cover eachother, and what it ends up with, is them staying to close, and one big easy target in close quarters combat.

Clans etc have more organized teamwork which works well, but unless things are organized (which it never is if you play with random people) teamwork doesn't work. Aspecially if your attacking, defending\camping is easy anyway.

Aspecially in a game like this, with 256 player, they need to do something clever to make it easy for players to organize themselves. The only team work i see from random people "teamworking" is usually a silly mass attack that usually come from the most obvious directions, and are very easy for 1-2 good players to take care of (in games like bf, obviously taking care of 128players at once you might need some more people, or some stationary MG's and explosives.

Im all for encouraging teamwork, but do it by making some training tourturial where you can learn how to effectively cover eachother and stuff like that. Dont try to force away the lone wolves.

On the PS3 the biggest problem is that there is no standart ps3 headset that came with the ps3. The amount of mics are low, and thats a huge restriction, make some special pack that costs $15 more but has a headset