Team Fortress 2

[phenom]

Well at this point I think the way things look they won't even be the same genre really. Both are FPS of course but they're nothing at all alike. I don't think FF will be overly complicated because its fundamentals really aren't hard to grasp. And once when you grasp those fundamentals everything generally seems to click. Just keep in mind when playing FF that its all about capping and defending those flags. Think about how best to do that and you'll find FF becomes far less complicated in your eyes.

I could be completely wrong though.

[Circuitous]

FF isn't hard to grasp at all, if you understand TF to any extent.

[phenom]

I think the issue is a lot of people really don't understand what TF really is in the end.

[kam]

Great read Dospac, although I think you avoided touching on intuitiveness vs. depth (understandable since the post was long enough as it is).

Needing tutorials and hints for advanced skills just isn't intuitive enough for Valve (and their target demographic). Bunnyhop for me was probably the most unintuitive skill to learn of any game ever, but it was so rewarding, fun and deep once you 'get' how it works. It made me think a lot more about game mechanics in general after that (and hate the movement in every other FPS henceforth haha ). Still it's a lot of time to invest into a game these days just to get the most out of it, but... uhh what was my point... fuck it.

Anyway, I think the Street Fighter series is a good role model for intuitiveness vs. depth in a complex game. As for TF2 - the apparent Mortal Kombat of Team Fortress - I just hope it's a case of a) bad journalism b) Valve isn't telling us everything c) all of the above, because I would love to believe they still have it.

Also I think you're onto something with that grapple/hitching-a-ride concept. It would be really interesting to see and/or expanded on in a (any) game.

[Dospac]

*big editz*

Yes, but we know the release maps(1 ctf, the rest this new point capture/dm mode), and all the weapons in the game. To this point, only the scout's "scatter gun" remains unexplained.

What I didn't touch on was designing the learning curve of each skillset in a game to be shaped well, with a steady, long slope upwards from a easy introductory period and diminishing returns in effectiveness compared to the beginning as you reach beyond the 'new' period.

Anyway, the point is there is nothing stopping a game from having these design principles effectively put to use except lack of knowledge and understanding from the designers both in general and specifically of their game. The immense advantage we had in designing FF compared maybe to other online shooters was we were already very familiar with how the game played, and how it would play after years of experience were dropped into the equation.

There are fewer unknowns then, which gave us the opportunity to both see and shape the various skill curves better. Making the timing of concs less dependent on latency for example was something we knew would improve the game, but only because we had the experience already(in TFC) to know that.

I'm not convinced that Valve grasped this concept within TFC when they began working on TF2. I don't think an emphasis was put on keeping concing in TF2 for example because it wasn't a skill you would commonly see within Valve. It was rather poorly designed, both because of it's utter lack of integration in the game(a common problem present not just in all previous TF games, but in PC FPS games in general) and because of finicky results depending on network and server performance.

I don't believe for a second that if more folks at Valve were brought into the fold on conc jumping and all the various things you can do with it(Christ, a whole community emerged based JUST on concing in single player maps.. that Valve completely ignored), that we would be missing it now in TF2.

In fact, the conc map community was so strong in TFC, it's tragic that Valve didn't embrace it and make a wide release of their own(or community made) conc maps included with a TFC update.

How powerful would it have been to give the opportunity to any TFC player to get into concing because of an officially released conc map. What better way to get people more interested in your game and the incredibly rich skill subset of concing than to do just that. Players would then go back to the regular game with a whole new view of things. The impact of the deafening silence from Valve in areas like this cannot be overlooked when we look back at the history and downturn of TFC. It truly amazes me how much was lost because of the lack of support given to the game, and how much people fail to realize this.

[phenom]

That client side conc timing is going to be a huge blow to bM (I kid guys I kid!)

[BobTheChainsaw]

But you gotta remember, Valve does lots of playtesting. According to them, they do what's fun. Maybe Valve is more into the simplistic games, maybe in their mindset the more variables you add the equation the less fun it gets. Eh, what do I know?

Valve also said they went back and played TFC, they said it was terrible. Maybe the game they're making now is the goal they had in mind when they were invisioning what they wanted the game to be.

[mistermojo]

Thing is, valve and most other people don't care about the competetive community. I love concs and bunnyhopping, but I realize that most people just want to play a game that doesn't have hidden skills they have to practise to get. Besides, they are releasing it on consoles as well as PC, so that might be another big reason for simplifying the game.

[Dospac]

Yes, but totally hidden skills = horrible horrible design mistake. The 'competitive' game is different in only one important way: a higher % of players in the server play for the objectives.

If more players are compelled to play to the objectives in the map, and you create the game to put a larger emphasis on this(and not by cutting features) then you improve the game. Past a 'critical mass' point(usually about half of the people playin in the server), you get the situation we see in CS pubs where by and large the players in the server are all trying to play the game as it is designed.

That's what is missing from TFC and TFC-CTF specifically, anyway..

[GhOsT]

And yet people here are complaining that Valve has switched the focus to CP/Dustbowl style maps. It's much easier to get people doing the objectives in this style of map and in just about every dustbowl pub I've been in I've seen people try and complete the objective. Why? Becuase it's easy to understand. Attacks move the flag to the goal. Defenders stop that from happening. Most CTF pubs consist of a bunch of DM in the yard, a bunch more people hanging around the base, and a few people actually trying to go for the other flag.

[phenom]

well they complain because those style maps don't work as well for competitive play. In CTF maps you can actually lay out positions and strategies and such whereas on maps like dustbowl its more about kill kill kill.
I'm not saying there isnt strategy involved because there is. Just CTF maps offer a complex position based play that you can't find in the other maps. If you're unsure what I mean by that I can try my best to explain it.

[mistermojo]

Originally Posted by Dospac

Yes, but totally hidden skills = horrible horrible design mistake. The 'competitive' game is different in only one important way: a higher % of players in the server play for the objectives.

If more players are compelled to play to the objectives in the map, and you create the game to put a larger emphasis on this(and not by cutting features) then you improve the game. Past a 'critical mass' point(usually about half of the people playin in the server), you get the situation we see in CS pubs where by and large the players in the server are all trying to play the game as it is designed.

That's what is missing from TFC and TFC-CTF specifically, anyway..

I like what FF is doing, with making concs and bhop easier and teaching people how to do it, but the game is focused towards competetive players who already know this. What Valve is doing is simplifying the game A LOT, and although I feel that it's worse, I'm sure people who have never played any TF game, people on consoles and others would rather have a game they can understand.

[Formaldehyde]

What's so hard to understand about TF, really? I mean, I'm sure no one here stuggled for months trying to understand how this extremely complicated game works. I'm no genius and by my first week I had already figured everything out... and from there on it was just a matter of evolving...

Every single RPG or RTS game is far more complicated than TF, and that doesn't mean they don't get played because people "don't understand" them.

[Dospac]

Well, now we get into the next phase which is, how do we make playing the game for the objectives fun, more fun than just messing about in the nml? That's certainly an important part of the game, but if you add a reward structure within the game to the objectives and the gameplay that relates to them, we hope that will make the game more fun..

[GhOsT]

Originally Posted by phenom

well they complain because those style maps don't work as well for competitive play. In CTF maps you can actually lay out positions and strategies and such whereas on maps like dustbowl its more about kill kill kill.
I'm not saying there isnt strategy involved because there is. Just CTF maps offer a complex position based play that you can't find in the other maps. If you're unsure what I mean by that I can try my best to explain it.

I can see what you are saying. I have been in a 8v8/9v9 clan for most of the time TFC has been around.

With that said, I think the people who play in AvD leagues might disagree with you.

[phenom]

Oh I agree AvD has strategy, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I think AvD has a bit less emphasis on the team working together as a whole as it does on the individual or on small groups of them. For instance, the way one guy might snipe a teammate to send them flying somewhere and the like.


I could be completely wrong, as I've never played in an AvD league so I know very little about it.

[fad]

I dont know how much team based play CTF has anymore in TFC tbh. Especially offy wise. I mean, offence nowadays basically comprises of stats... no. of runs, kills, touches, sgs down. It's more individually focused than ever before. Just because one guy gets the SG down and his team mate comes in and takes the flag doesnt necessarily mean its teamplay, it's more a case of right time, right place.

Gone are the days of "meet at the enemy lift". Its just too time consuming nowadays and the main objective is to hit the enemy defence as fast and as hard as possible. The main team work involved in offence nowadays is communications. "Top spiral weak", "SG short" etc. but thats just information, its hardly an advanced type of team play.

I dont really play AvD too much anymore but just remember, to achieve these jumps - like the sniper jump scenario - the rest of the team need to be constantly pushing and communicating to gain ground and space. In regards to it only being a small group in the AvD clan working together... I would say that rings more true to CTF. The defence and offence in CTF hardly ever communicate, whereas the whole team communicate in AvD.

Im not trying to imply that this makes CTF or AvD better. Maybe its just something that can be worked on in the future. I mean, theres nothing more satisfying than when a true piece of team work comes off!

[Jiggles]

Yeah, though that's partly because of the smallish CTF maps that are popular and the general superiority of the 4 concing-class offense. Constant pressure is typically superior to "targeted assaults" in those circumstances.

[fad]

Yeah, I do find the "Lets all attack spiral/lift" thing doesnt really work anymore either. Mostly due to better comms in modern defences. So the only real way to work it is to look at death messages and comms from your team mates to know which way is best to attack!

[Dospac]

There's a lot of skill, teamwork and communication on a good offense. It just occurs faster than voice communication can be effective usually. Good offensive units transfer an incredible amount of information that shapes the attack over time. It's just not all necessarily explicit voice comms, though that ends up also being a significant part of it too.