Starcraft 2 for instance has left those options out for good reason, and I don't know why supcom has chosen to allow players to make the game worse. If you get killed by air, don't say it's op and exclude it in future games, but learn to counter it. If you get killed by a rush, change your build, not the game. Imagine if you can only play assassination, no rules: everyone would learn to play the game and they'll not be afraid to play ranked 1v1 with all the 'acu rushers oh no!1!'|||I understand that a lot of players like these rules because it takes aspects of the game away that they don't actually enjoy dealing with. I certainly did during my first hundred hours of play as they meant I could focus on the parts of the game that I was good at.
However, this did mean that I didn't actually improve at the other parts for a fairly long time.
I think you do have a good point but I don't think this will be very popular with the casual players.|||Yeah I played landwars too when I was new to the game, but if there was no ability to add these rules I would have gotten better much earlier|||Although I understand where you are going with that, even I enjoy playing one of those exclusion games every once in a while.
Also, it is fun to beat someone at their own game (exclusions, map preference and even their faction choice set up to favor them).|||Damned if you do; damned if you don't.|||Almost every other strategy game doesn't have rules/exclusions, and they don't get damned for it
Also, I added a poll :)|||NuclearPizza|||I thought about these exclusions a lot myself.
I think they are a good idea to change the gameplay once in a while for people who want to try some new stuff out or just customize the game then.
All in all, I don't like it that much...too many games.
In my opinion it hinders most players to see the full gamepotential.
Many people host games with customized settings, they choose certain factions...just to have a way to win with a certain strategy, on certain maps and factions...otherwise they would lose.
I think it is very customer-friendly but does not serve/ help the game itself.|||It splits the available playerbase who would otherwise all be hosting and looking for games with 'normal' rules, like in virtually every other successful RTS.
That isn't to say some alternate rules are necessarily bad, but as CT touched in on one of the devblogs, it works better if you have 2-4 cohesive, 'modes' where the overall gameplay is refocused holistically rather than 20-50 individual exclusions that end up being used in ridiculous numbers of combinations to create hackneyed, imbalanced gameplay and making it that much more difficult to find a game that suits your preferences (even when your preferences are 'no special rules').
This applies mostly to online play. For skirmish mode, or LAN (not that any games have that anymore), the rules and exclusions are just fine, because they're not repelling any potential players.|||Pizza
I also like the same game preferences (assassination with no exceptions); however, I totally disagree that GPG should reduce player options. The will of the many to self determine is more important than your personal experience.
Also, I have the same complaint for people who join other people's games and request game exceptions. I am not going to turn off nuke just because you joined my game your highness (common hypothetical person). If you don't like the game exceptions, please leave and make your own game or find a game with exceptions you like.
These are simple common sense rules of etiquette that will show respect for other people rather than pure self interest.
If a host wants to put these things up to a vote, that's up to him. Don't be upset if he isn't interested in the democratic process to decide what kind of game he is playing. It's easy to start another game and invite everyone who wanted that game type.
I think the options in SupCom2 are great and a nice feature to the game. It saddens me that people will use posts like this to avoid providing similar elements in the future or even DLCs, because someone might not buy DLC2 and therefor split the gamer pool. I think threads like this undermine the excellent work GPG has done and might do in the future.
I do agree with CT and Mithy that we don't need an air plane control panel to get the game started. Currently, the game defaults to no exceptions with Assassination. The player base that plays Assassination may be smaller, but they are also superior players worth waiting for. I have and will continue to enjoy exceptions for a change of pace. I hope they continue in future releases. Quality over quantity of course.
Bast|||Lol, you are so right Bast,
so many times people join the game, not even bothering saying "Hi"...first thing that pops up...."Oh disable Nukes", "disable Air", "disable Arty"...|||This would also be less of an issue with a functional 1v1 and 2v2 ranked system. Beyond tracking stats, ranked games provide a standardized match format for people who don't want to deal with browsing through games with bizarre mods, inane restrictions, poorly-made custom maps, and no-rush rules to find that 1 in 10 normal game (more like 1 in 30 for FA).
A good ranked system still isn't an excuse to turn online game hosting into Mr. Potato Head. Sure, there is no 'wrong' way to set up a game, but there are plenty of really, really stupid ways, and it seems more often than not people gravitate toward those. Yes, you put the feet on top of his head. Hilarious. Nobody's ever seen that before.|||Maybe rather than restrictions in the menus, instead leave all of those things to mods.
Mods will tend to "bundle" gameplay types together, so rather than a mishmash of different combinations, you'll get a smaller number of mod gametypes becoming popular.|||It would at least make people have to work a little harder to host and/or find players for their wacky games, although only as far as the game doesn't auto-download maps or mods.
It's not as though FA and SC2 are the only games with this problem; any game with dumb custom maps has this issue to some extent, including StarCraft. Even 9-10 years ago, it was almost impossible to find a non-ranked game on Battle.net using a stock (or 'normal' custom) map. I can't imagine how bad it is now that there are probably 500 different versions of all of the crazy infinite resource and/or scripted maps to fit everyone's particular fancy.|||Mithy|||I hate the endless lists of No nuke, no arty, no air, no fun games.
However I think options are good. There are clearly enough people wanting to play those games because they are so popular. So even though I, and apparently a handful of other people hate those game modes, who are we to try to take away other people's fun?
It would be a pretty selfish and douche bag thing to suggest.
I love the fact that out of the box, supcom/fa/2 have plenty of options to allow a player to try different game modes and play the game how they want.
If you can't find enough people to play the game the way you want to, that's your problem. It's not fair to try to make it their problem.|||I know, it wouldnt be a good idea to remove all the options now. I mean if they have never let them in, the community would probably have been better, and everyone would see the potential that this game has. I know that standard games are much more fun because I used to play customised games too, and I regret that now
|||Point is people wouldnt have missed them if they werent there to begin with. I kinda like that sentiment because exclusions promote narrow minded thinking instead of innovation. Talking about personal experience in FA.|||NuclearPizza|||Nephylim|||I see what you're saying about "not having the option to begin with would we miss it? "I dont know. What I do know is, that I like having options. The more options a game has, the better from my point of view.
FA has a ton more options that Supcom2 and I played supcom 2 for about 3 months yet I'm still playing FA after about 3 years.
The difference here is, that by having options is not taking anything away from those who want to play the standard game. But removing options is taking away from a whole bunch of other people who enjoy having the options.
Its like saying "I prefer motorbikes to cars therefore only motorbikes should be sold".
Which is a rather selfish way to be thinking.
BTW, to emphasise, I also hate the amount of restricted games that are available in abundance to play, but I'm not going to get into a jealous rage about it, and suggest that ONLY regular games are to be allowed in future.
Thats rediulous. Let people play how they want and do your own thing.
EDIT:
Imagine how you would feel if someone came on here suggesting that ONLY No Nuke, No Arty, No Air games should be the ONLY games available?
You would think it utterly preposterous.|||Stin, you're the one raging. I'm just saying this game maybe could have been better if they thought twice before putting these options in.
Quote:|||I think the massive amount of rules/exclusions split the community. The community was small to start with, this didn't help.
Other FPS games have had the same problem. With hardcore mode or softcore mode. It splits the community. Smaller player pools are a bad thing.|||In all honesty would this game still have enough players to be a "living game" if the rules were not in there? The amount of players who like no rules + assasination is a minority at this point so imo even tho the rules are stupid and ruin the ballance they should be in the game and should be treated as a separate gamemode.|||While I agree that more options is in theory better, you will automatically limit yourself to certain limitations. You cant really deal with air and find game enders annoying > no air and no nukes. And youll stick to doing that for a LONG time instead of learning how to deal with it, and after that enjoying all the available options. I think you will be limited to some options however many there are present, just without realizing it. It removes replayability from the game.
Again, personal noob experience in SC1/FA.
No comments:
Post a Comment