Team Play

Thrax Panda said:
Team play is a natural byproduct of pitting one group of skilled individuals against another.
Click to expand...

Yes it is natural. Two teams full of skilled individuals, without team play, will be theoretically equal. Games results will lean one way, and then the other, but without any apparent pattern. When one group of individuals inherently recognizes this equality, they decide to create Team Play to gain an edge. While the actions derived from Team Play will differ, the motivation behind it is completely natural.
 
Last edited:
There will never be teamwork in any form in public server games, no matter how much the skill ceiling is lowered to compensate for the learning curve, and if that is what Thrax is implying, then Thrax is right in that respect. People don't really want to work so closely together in a game like Tribes where the individual has so much power, it's basically still a bunch of cowboys doing what they do best, be it something as humble as deploying or something as flashy as capping or LD.

That being said, I agree that the next Tribes game should use a lighter touch for leveling the playing field for inexperienced players to learn the game. Perhaps a much more in-depth set of training missions is in order, with more emphasis on tactics and how to assist teammates in specific fields such as capping, base raping, flag defense, base defense, turreting, etc. This, I think, would make pubs a bit less of a harrowing environment for newbies.

Any newbie can get good at skiing, shooting, and jetpack use with a couple hours with the bots on gradually increasing difficulty settings, but learning how to make oneself tactically useful in the anarchy of a pub isn't something you can just pick up on your first day in a brainpower-oriented FPS like Tribes. I think training missions specifically dealing with maneuvers like grabbing the flag from a competent defense and escaping, keeping enemy HO from entering the base, and succesfully body-blocking a capper from grabbing the flag would help ease newbies into fast T1-style gameplay without coming down as hard on the skilled veterans as T2.
 
Natural said:
Yes it is natural. Two teams full of skilled individuals, without team play, will be theoretically equal. Games results will lean one way, and then the other, but without any apparent pattern. When one group of individuals inherently recognizes this equality, they decide to create Team Play to gain an edge. While the actions derived from Team Play will differ, the motivation behind it is completely natural.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Teams that want to win will develop their teamwork and it will happen naturally. Don't hold the individual player back in the name of "teamwork" - let individuals kick ass all by themselves.

Individuals will quickly learn to kick massive ass with friends - all without any help from Dave G.
 
Thrax Panda said:
That's backward. Why on earth should you require teamwork in the place where it's least likely to happen, a public server? Pubs are clear evidence that forced teamwork is not fun, while the freedom to get more skilled is fun.

It's also very important to note that nobody is saying that there shouldn't be teamplay, or that teamplay shouldn't be a powerful force in the game. A well coordinated team will always be better than an individual (witness counterstrike, where 4 guys playing together will almost always win the map). We're simply saying that designing rules to force people to coordinate their actions does not produce the best possible game.
Click to expand...

couldnt aggree with you more buddy...
<3 thrax...looks like you guys are in the right "direction"
 
Thrax Panda said:
:ftardkill
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's look at your design document statement a little more thoroughly. By doing so, I'll show you where the Wall Street/Market Street stuff comes from. In short, it's accountability.

The design document reads: "Team play is a natural byproduct of pitting one group of skilled individuals against another."

The Subject, or actor, in this sentence is obscured behind the passive language. Who is it that pits one group of skilled individuals against one another? The answer, in context to the stage of development of T3, is "the developer." With what tool? The game. Therefore, in the ongoing revision of your design document, the developer needs to be drawn out of the obscure, passive language (and logic), and into the proper place as Subject in your logic, your sentences, and in your public persona. And the game (the rules thereof, the skill ceiling, and the learning curve as they pertain to the rules of the game) needs to be your object, not teamplay.

You weren't the only one present when the "forum fallout" occurred while Dynamix got sent out with Vivendi's dry cleaning. So how is the economics of your situation irrelevent with this particular title? Just two weeks ago, the New York Times published Vivendi's ongoing debate of what to do with their "American Entertainment assets" on the front page of the business section. Hence, Wall Street.

But, when you imply teamplay as a selling point for this game, as you have, you must emphasize the importance of Market Street, where your game, not Vivendi's shares, meet make or break.

If you set the skill ceiling high in Tribes 3, and offer a virtuous learning curve that allows players of various skill levels to enter and learn the game at their respective paces, then and only then will you have the necessary cornerstone for a successful "threequel."

I believe that you can do it! I look suspiciously upon the logic that you ought to "keep Tribes 3 simple" insofar as I believe that to be a reactionary, fearful approach in context to the Tribes 2 debacle. I look very forward to the unveiling of an ambitious Tribes 3 project, and offer my criticism, however cryptic, in that spirit. I hope it is received in the same spirit.
 
Thrax Panda said:
That's backward. Why on earth should you require teamwork in the place where it's least likely to happen, a public server? Pubs are clear evidence that forced teamwork is not fun, while the freedom to get more skilled is fun.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe this, you need to release a host of well made maps, which not only have stand alone virtues, but also come part and parcel with a rotation that makes sense and is fun. Constant voting punctuated servers in Tribes 2, and ruined meditative play continuity, because of an unstalbe map rotation. You must address this in Tribes 3.

We're simply saying that designing rules to force people to coordinate their actions does not produce the best possible game.
Click to expand...

A true devil's advocate does not fold so quickly. But, I agree with you. :)
 
Thrax Panda said:
That's backward. Why on earth should you require teamwork in the place where it's least likely to happen, a public server? Pubs are clear evidence that forced teamwork is not fun, while the freedom to get more skilled is fun.
Click to expand...

(Note: The words in bold type are my highlighting; not Thrax's)

The focus shouldn't be on forcing or requiring teamwork (and I agree with you about pub servers being the least likely place it'll occur), but you should concentrate on rewarding teamwork. By stating that it will occur naturally you avoid going into detail on one of the major hooks that make gaming so addictive in the first place.
 
Wils said:
(Note: The words in bold type are my highlighting; not Thrax's)

The focus shouldn't be on forcing or requiring teamwork (and I agree with you about pub servers being the least likely place it'll occur), but you should concentrate on rewarding teamwork. By stating that it will occur naturally you avoid going into detail on one of the major hooks that make gaming so addictive in the first place.
Click to expand...

What did T1 do to encourage teamwork that was actually made of use? Isn't there teamwork in T1 that's completely unrelated to the game's design?

The reward is victory. Teams can create teamwork in almost any enviornment to gain an advantage on their opponents.
 
Natural said:
What did T1 do to encourage teamwork that was actually made of use? Isn't there teamwork in T1 that's completely unrelated to the game's design?

The reward is victory. Teams can create teamwork in almost any enviornment to gain an advantage on their opponents.
Click to expand...

T1 is not, IMHO, a suitable yardstick for a commercially successful FPS, and victory on its own is not motivation enough to keep players hooked any more, especially when there are so many competing games on the market compared to 1998.

Not everyone is as good at the game as you are, and your average player needs more immediate goals and rewards to keep him interested.

T1 is great (and I happen to think T2 is too), but T3 needs to do more to convince people to continue playing it after the first month or so, otherwise it'll go the same way UT2K3 et al have. Not that that would bother me, necessarily - I'm happy with the general size of the T2 community I play in - but I imagine it would bother Sierra when it was time to decide whether to make another tribes-like FPS in future.
 
i hope there isn't too much headiness going into the design/production of the next tribes installment. its the happy accidents that make a game great, as well as the intensity, immediacy, inspiration of its imagination... not as much the deliberate nature of its team aesthetic... seems offcenter to me.

rilks post was funny though.
 
The 'happy accidents' you refer to will never, ever get the chance to make the game great if they're being blotted out by a number of glaring design flaws, though :)

Good design should iron out all the possible flaws, leaving room for those moments of inspiration/luck to actually have an impact on the overall experience. T2 has a lot of really solid, good design, marred by a hell of a lot of shitty design, and they need to fix the latter for T3.
 
rilkean panther said:
The Subject, or actor, in this sentence is obscured behind the passive language. Who is it that pits one group of skilled individuals against one another? The answer, in context to the stage of development of T3, is "the developer."
Click to expand...
Recockulous. That's like saying that the grounds keeper pits the Yankees against the Sox. I'm just building a field.

rilkean panther said:
You weren't the only one present when the "forum fallout" occurred while Dynamix got sent out with Vivendi's dry cleaning. So how is the economics of your situation irrelevent with this particular title? Just two weeks ago, the New York Times published Vivendi's ongoing debate of what to do with their "American Entertainment assets" on the front page of the business section. Hence, Wall Street.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly imagine that I've changed the design of the next Tribes game in any way because of a New York Times article? Wall streat has nothing to do with this game design. That sort of worry is so far above my position within this company as to be a total non issue. I don't give a rats ass who my parent company is, as long as they keep paying the bills I'm fine.

rilkean panther said:
But, when you imply teamplay as a selling point for this game, as you have, you must emphasize the importance of Market Street, where your game, not Vivendi's shares, meet make or break.
Click to expand...
OK, honestly, I have no idea at all what that means. Are you from Belgium?

rilkean panther said:
I believe that you can do it!
Click to expand...
Thank you. :) So do I.
 
Wils said:
T1 is not, IMHO, a suitable yardstick for a commercially successful FPS, and victory on its own is not motivation enough to keep players hooked any more, especially when there are so many competing games on the market compared to 1998.

Not everyone is as good at the game as you are, and your average player needs more immediate goals and rewards to keep him interested.

T1 is great (and I happen to think T2 is too), but T3 needs to do more to convince people to continue playing it after the first month or so, otherwise it'll go the same way UT2K3 et al have. Not that that would bother me, necessarily - I'm happy with the general size of the T2 community I play in - but I imagine it would bother Sierra when it was time to decide whether to make another tribes-like FPS in future.
Click to expand...

You have forgotten the topic. We are discussing teamplay as a byproduct of two skilled teams. My point is that competitive teams FOUND ways to create elements of teamplay in areas that were not programmed for it. This happens in almost EVERY competitive game... That's what Thrax is saying--I think.
 
Thrax Panda said:
I'm getting paid for this, what's your excuse ;)
Click to expand...

Well.. my backup pc is stuck downloading a mix of anime and porn. My main pc is running linux, so you know my penguin power is compiling something sucking up 99% of my cpu. And since i dont have a life, HELLO!
 
Ok, well how hard would this be -- since you want to reward players for teamwork but not force it let's use the personal points system. Is there anyway to have the computer identify when an act of teamwork is occuring? The easiest way we know of now is that teamwork occurs when roles are fullfilled. I think I'll make a list.

Capper -- points for grabbing, points for capping. That seems pretty strait forward.

Chaser -- points for downing the flag capper. Points for returning caused a lot of problems in tribes2. Perhapes modify the rules as such: Points are only given for a return when a cap is made 10 seconds after -or- if an enemy is in a given range of the flag. If the flag is grabbed 10 seconds after a return you are awarded no points (communication teamwork right?)

Repair monkey -- I see nothing wrong with giving a point to someone for fixing the generator.s or turrets.

HO -- points for blowing up gens, turrts. Points for clearing the flag. And kills around the flag stand are awarded greater if the flag is grabbed in under 10 seconds (includes players gens and turrets).

HoF -- points for body blocking. Any enemy kills made by the HoF.
LD -- Same as HoF pretty much.

Turret Monkey -- recives small ammounts of points for his turret kills.

Esscort -- Gives points for kills around the enemy flag. Points to both parties for a flag toss. Maybe even just give points for BEING around the capper when he on his way home.


If you don't want to give points in tribes3 and are going with a statistic method instead, then make it so it awards medals after so many acts of team work. For example, someone who's just dueling people in the field might be getting a lot of kills, but they'll have no medals. But someone who's clearing then flag, and then 10 seconds later grabs are being made is gonna get the bling bling. Guys who keep their capper alive on a route home gets awarded.

I guess you'd have a lot of medals, but it could work -- I'd give them cool names like:
The Shining Seal of Capdom
For Heroic Efforts in Flag Clearing
The Purple Heart of Esscort
The Heavy on Flag Star of Fatdom

or not, but you get the idea. And if you want to really get fancy have statistics and medals saved on the server side (if the server wishes to) so you can see exactally who's being a team player, and who has a lot of kills but not much else (don't do this on a master server -- it'd just be down on the time anyways). Oh, and there should be a bravery statistic too for those offensive players. Or I dunno, but some like if you're o-sniping or long rang spamming you don't get medals. Basically you're too far away from the flag to be rewarded. It doesn't mean you CAN'T do those things, but your personal point/stats are going to relect your actions.

I suppose that's a lot of work, but you want to reward teamwork right? Not force it.

PS: I'd probably turn this off in tourney mode. Winning should be its on reward in those cases.
 
Last edited:
/me pokes Rainer Maria's Great Grandson =).


Thraxle,

I know that I will give an electrical shock here him, but am going to take an opposite position. The declaration quoted only sense of the marks in a sentimental use, nonpractitioner, if she is not totally ambiguous, outside context, and illogical. Yes, the ability is important, but like a revealer, you have precarious control on the ability of which they play his game. To mark with holes the expert groups against one others of a so simple, mathematical way is a resource that you do not have; therefore you cannot incarnate the "natural by-product" of that. The control greater than a revealer has on work in equipment is an approach in the best one of the cases. Perhaps it is establishing the particular rules of his game that you make the majority to define work in equipment like element of your game. But, that single one is not sufficient. A game that is most of the work in oriented equipment could also seat on the shelf if it does not find to hearing. It is to say are not only the rules of the game to the enormous factor in defining work in equipment in his game, but also the particularizaciĂłn of those rules of innovating ways that particular professor his hearings in work in equipment. Some terms I am safe that you are most familiar with of the industry of the game is "ceiling of the ability" and "curve that learns." Theoretically, a ceiling of the ability is a limit imputed on a hearing by the revealer, a valve that the revealer uses, deliberately or no, to define the fourth potential for the improvement in ability according to the rules of the game. One of the blows against tribes 2, a game that alleged required more work in equipment than tribes 1, is that the ceiling of the ability was made too low, ostensibly in a effort to create a field that plays enourmous but something level. It almost is as if the mountain range subjugated the rules of the game that define work in equipment to the battle of Vivendi in Wall Ăźstreet. One of the blows against tribes 1, on the other hand, was that the curve that learned was too high. Theoretically, one curves that it learns is defined by the tariff in which the average player can reach the ceiling of the ability. If Guillermo who the soldier of the weekend freza in his base and dices and frezas and dices and frezas 6 times in a row before he even experiences the confused splendor that is Snowblind, Guillermo the soldier of the weekend will not play his game, and he will not be because he does not have any potential ability or capacity teamplay. Therefore, whereas I think is irresponsible in the piece of the revealer to Wall Ăźstreet factor in the work in equipment that defines the rules of the game, I sincerely recognizes the importance of finding reciprocity in the street of the market. In the risk of making something that appears simple, more complex, it would review the declaration in his documents of the design like so: the necessity of the revealer makes its part to foment an atmosphere of the game of the equipment, being used the tools in its disposition, that are: the rules of its game, of the ceiling of the ability defined by those rules, and of the curve that learns defined by those rules. Finding an attractive and pleasant combination of these things, the revealer can establish reciprocity in the street of the market, and alternadamente, it satisfies Wall Ăźstreet.

Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
A key excerpt....

Rainer Maria's Great Grandson said:
Theoretically, one curves that it learns is defined by the tariff in which the average player can reach the ceiling of the ability. If Guillermo who the soldier of the weekend freza in his base and dices and frezas and dices and frezas 6 times in a row before he even experiences the confused splendor that is Snowblind, Guillermo the soldier of the weekend will not play his game, and he will not be because he does not have any potential ability or capacity teamplay.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top