View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: Squad-based multiplayer games |
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with these? Can you tell me any good ones, and reasons why they're good?
Are there any that don't have "Tom Clancy" in the title? Or, better, that aren't first/third-person shooters?
Has anyone played that Resident Evil online game? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Worms?
There's not much outside of the first person perspective. Shadowrun is intended to be team/squad based game, and it works really well if you play it like that. There will of course be Team Fortress 2 starting tomorrow.
I assume that you're looking for something that isn't an MMO, because most are based around squad based gameplay. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Worms isn't co-op, is it?
Team Fortress 2. Okay, yeah. I feel dumb. Of course, I have no actual money. But. Yeah. Good point there.
Surely someone must have played Resident Evil Outbreak? It sounds so interesting! _________________
Last edited by aderack on Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Great Unwashed .
Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 359 Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F.E.A.R. Multiplayer is some of the best squad-based FPS action I have ever played. I know you weren't after FPS' particularly, but it is a beautifully crafted piece of work and I encourage you to check it out with some mates at a LAN if you get the chance - and after all, it's free. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aderack wrote: | Worms isn't co-op, is it? |
If you pass the controller around it is. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does that work, exactly? I'm not too familiar with FEAR. How is the squad business organized? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shapermc wrote: | aderack wrote: | Worms isn't co-op, is it? |
If you pass the controller around it is. |
I've not actually played worms, so I can't read if you're being sarcastic or not. Is that supposed to be how it works? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ethoscapade .
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 276
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
worms can be co-op; when setting up a multiplayer game, you assign each player's team a different color, and if you assign two people the same colors (exactly like smash bros., now that i think of it) then they are on the same team.
it doesn't really lend itself to any kind of co-op play, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Redeye .
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 986 Location: filth
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallout Tactics Multiplayer.
In RT mode this is kind of idiotic, but fun to watch.
Turn Based, it's chess with guns.
Assault, Capture The Flag, and Skirmish maps.
Demo
There are still people out there playing this.
Lotsa Poles and Hispanics _________________ I felt sheer anarchic joy when I ran over my first pedestrian. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
parkbench .
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 145
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my god ENEMY TERRITORY!!
That's more of a "team" than a "squad," but by god if it's not the best team-based FPS I've ever played.
And it's free. It's fucking. FREE!
I can ramble more about it if you'd like. It has two huge flaws that you need to be willing to sift past, however (though I could help steer you right): a mediocre server browser, and a terrible server culture that ends up with most servers loading your computer with tons of unnecessary pk3s which aren't even just custom maps, but custom menu setups and very annoying mods that change the core gameplay without you realizing it.
But I loves it.
Ill get some screens if ya'd like. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Define the distinction between team and squad. Squad being that everyone is more vital? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Squad:
1 : a small organized group of military personnel; especially : a tactical unit that can be easily directed in the field
2 : a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation
Team:
4: a number of persons associated together in work or activity: as a: a group on one side (as in football or a debate)
So, while I know the distinction is going to be vauge, I imagine that squad based is where everyone is very similar where team is going to be a game where there are different roles within a squad and each person plays up to that role.
For example: in Quake Arena everyone is the same and when you're playing team based games you're actually playing as a squad. Team based would be something like Team Fortress 2 where everyone has a different role to play (like football where you have different positions to play).
PERHAPS I ACTUALLY HAVE THIS BACKWARDS?
I don't know. There is a distinction though, even if slight. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking maybe a squad is where everyone is focused on one discrete mission, and has to work together as a single functioning unit. If someone fails, to some extent everyone does. Does that sound right at all? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say it sounds a bit like a squad could be defined as a group of subservient people all following the orders of a seperate commanding entity, while 'teams' are more democratic affairs where every member is important and equally 'in charge'.
google image search to the rescue:
SQUAD
TEAM
As I see it, teams are the sum of the various abilities of the individuals comprising it, but there is no room for individuality in a squad.
EDIT: Oh wait that's exactly what Shaper said. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silentmatt .
Joined: 27 Nov 2006 Posts: 305 Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, the hypothetical Go! Squad would be much less entertaining then? _________________ PSN: Twitch_City ||| Wii: 8083 5371 5767 6700
"Jadis, si je me souviens bien, ma vie était un festin où s'ouvraient tous les coeurs, où tous les vins coulaient." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
They'd sort of just all rap at the same time, then all play the harmonica at the same time, then all play guitar at the same time. It'd be neat if nothing else! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 3725
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest Halo in a Capture the Flag gametype?
I suppose that's more Team and less Squad though in that you get to respawn quickly if you die. Personally, I prefer being able to respawn.
-Wes _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I used to freaking love the team vs. team mode in Action Quake 2. The unique, quiet pace of the game was like nothing else I'd played and the whole thing was put together with a wicked sense of humour (motherfucking KARATE KICKS??). Reservoir Dogs vs. Swat in the Museum level was bliss.
Everyone kind of graduated to Counterstrike after that, which was a shame because I never had as much fun with CS as I did with AQ. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So how exactly does Counterstrike work, anyway? At least in theory, if you remove the kind of people who seem to play it all the time? I've managed to avoid this whole area of life. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
seryogin JRPG Kommissar
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 886 Location: Occupied Stalingrad
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's impossible to speak about Counter Strike in theory. You can't separate it from the people that actually play it.
Thinking over it now, I'd say that if everyone actually played Counter Strike the way it was meant to be played, then everyone would divide into small groups attempt to accomplish their objectives (setting bombs if you're playing terrorists, preventing bomb-setting if playing couter-terrorists) while communicating to ensure the most effective coordination of efforts.
This doesn't happen for the most part.
I'd say the best squad-based multi-player game, from my view anyway, has been Day of Defeat, which is a Counter Strike mod. It takes place in WWII Western Front and it has a good weapon balance that allows for a lot of teamwork. A lot people still play it like Counter Strike, though this doesn't work as well there. The players that the game usually draws are those that are somewhat concerned about historical accuracy. The maps reflect this and discourage the type of sneaky gloating that Counter Strike promotes. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ethoscapade .
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 276
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i played counterstrike for an hour once.
i ascertained that what makes it good is the fact that you do not respawn. it's "round" based; your whole team starts in one area, you go meet the other team, and you all die slowly until one team wins.
this is entirely unique in my experience. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seryogin wrote: | Thinking over it now, I'd say that if everyone actually played Counter Strike the way it was meant to be played, then everyone would divide into small groups attempt to accomplish their objectives (setting bombs if you're playing terrorists, preventing bomb-setting if playing couter-terrorists) while communicating to ensure the most effective coordination of efforts. |
Yeah, that's the impression I got of "squad-based" games. That, plus the no-respawning thing. So it sounds like I've based this idea entirely on an idealized impression of Counter-Strike that doesn't at all match the reality?
Are there other games where you don't respawn? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swimmy .
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 990 Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seryogin wrote: | Thinking over it now, I'd say that if everyone actually played Counter Strike the way it was meant to be played, then everyone would divide into small groups attempt to accomplish their objectives (setting bombs if you're playing terrorists, preventing bomb-setting if playing couter-terrorists) while communicating to ensure the most effective coordination of efforts.
This doesn't happen for the most part. |
Mind this doesn't happen because the structure of the game makes it very difficult to play this way. The bombs are there and the hostages are there, but that doesn't mean messing with either of them is ever easier or better than just shooting at the opposing players. Setting the bomb is useful if a match is dragging because of a camper, but otherwise it's just impossible to sit there that long. On top of this, there are no specific player types; people choose the character model they think looks the coolest and then buy the weapons they're (player, not character) best with. There are no jobs, just tactics. I'm pretty sure any type of game player would turn into a typical Counterstrike player once they learn that's just the most efficient way to play. _________________
"Ayn Rand fans are the old school version of Xenogears fanboys."
-seryogin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ethoscapade wrote: | i played counterstrike for an hour once.
i ascertained that what makes it good is the fact that you do not respawn. it's "round" based; your whole team starts in one area, you go meet the other team, and you all die slowly until one team wins.
this is entirely unique in my experience. |
It's a concept they got from the brilliant Action Quake 2, which was to my knowledge the first no-respawn FPS team game. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
seryogin JRPG Kommissar
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 886 Location: Occupied Stalingrad
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Swimmy wrote: | seryogin wrote: | Thinking over it now, I'd say that if everyone actually played Counter Strike the way it was meant to be played, then everyone would divide into small groups attempt to accomplish their objectives (setting bombs if you're playing terrorists, preventing bomb-setting if playing couter-terrorists) while communicating to ensure the most effective coordination of efforts.
This doesn't happen for the most part. |
Mind this doesn't happen because the structure of the game makes it very difficult to play this way. The bombs are there and the hostages are there, but that doesn't mean messing with either of them is ever easier or better than just shooting at the opposing players. Setting the bomb is useful if a match is dragging because of a camper, but otherwise it's just impossible to sit there that long. On top of this, there are no specific player types; people choose the character model they think looks the coolest and then buy the weapons they're (player, not character) best with. There are no jobs, just tactics. I'm pretty sure any type of game player would turn into a typical Counterstrike player once they learn that's just the most efficient way to play. |
You're right.
This brings up the question, then, was this a design oversight, or were the bombs and hostages just window-dressing from the get-go? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Redeye .
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 986 Location: filth
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone here played Tribes?
Apparently it can be good if Counterstrikification can be avoided. _________________ I felt sheer anarchic joy when I ran over my first pedestrian. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Redeye .
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 986 Location: filth
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seryogin wrote: | Swimmy wrote: | seryogin wrote: | Thinking over it now, I'd say that if everyone actually played Counter Strike the way it was meant to be played, then everyone would divide into small groups attempt to accomplish their objectives (setting bombs if you're playing terrorists, preventing bomb-setting if playing couter-terrorists) while communicating to ensure the most effective coordination of efforts.
This doesn't happen for the most part. |
Mind this doesn't happen because the structure of the game makes it very difficult to play this way. The bombs are there and the hostages are there, but that doesn't mean messing with either of them is ever easier or better than just shooting at the opposing players. Setting the bomb is useful if a match is dragging because of a camper, but otherwise it's just impossible to sit there that long. On top of this, there are no specific player types; people choose the character model they think looks the coolest and then buy the weapons they're (player, not character) best with. There are no jobs, just tactics. I'm pretty sure any type of game player would turn into a typical Counterstrike player once they learn that's just the most efficient way to play. |
You're right.
This brings up the question, then, was this a design oversight, or were the bombs and hostages just window-dressing from the get-go? |
It was a half-life mod, so technically the whole thing was window dressing. _________________ I felt sheer anarchic joy when I ran over my first pedestrian. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 3636
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Redeye wrote: | seryogin wrote: | the bombs and hostages just window-dressing from the get-go? |
It was a half-life mod, so technically the whole thing was window dressing. |
Nuh-uh |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Redeye wrote: | Has anyone here played Tribes? |
That's something else I've heard a lot about. Wasn't it one of the first really big team FPSes? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cycle Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 2767
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tribes 2 was awesome, yes. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
aderack wrote: | Are there other games where you don't respawn? |
Shadowrun, though it does have the ability to resurrect people if you have that magic spell. Either way it makes you fight tough as steel so you don’t end up sitting around spectating for up to two minutes.
I played CS a bit a year of so after it came out. I got one of those spray-paint-decals that looked like the character I selected and would spray it on back walls and hide in corners waiting for people to see it and go after it. When they did I’d shoot them from behind. If I tried anything more forward I was dead from guys hopping around taking headshots. I did play a lot of Day of Defeat too. It was quite a bit better than CS. Basically, that’s how I’d define the difference: CS = Squad, DoD = Team.
Maybe?
Anyways, yeah, DoD was pretty good because the maps were fantastic. That’s one of the reasons I loved SR too, the fantastic maps. I would always take the really heavy guns in DoD and hold a point so that no one could progress on our side and if anyone wanted to cross to the other side I could support them with heavy fire. I did a lot of sitting in a dark spot and shooting anything that moved. It was also the first game I ever used voice chat with, I even bought a mic specifically for that game because it made much more sense than typing while shooting.
I guess I could list a few other Team/Squad based games:
Battlefront
Quake: Enemy Territories
Warhawk (PS3)
Unreal Tournament (also has Deathmatch style though)
Starcraft (can have teams)
Note: I'm not really familiar with these games too much. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silentmatt .
Joined: 27 Nov 2006 Posts: 305 Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Warhawk is less "team" or "squad" though.... Yes, it is blue team vs. red team, but there are so many people and things going on that, on most servers, you don't really play as a tight-knit squad, really.
It is more just everyone rushing forward and killing anything not their color.
That being said, CTF rounds and even some zone control, if you are playing with friends/people with mics, do show much better teamwork than straight up deathmatch rounds.
I'd liken Warhawk to the online component of, say, Starwars Battlefront.
Don't get me wrong - it is still damn fun, but without the intricacies of the other titles you mention. _________________ PSN: Twitch_City ||| Wii: 8083 5371 5767 6700
"Jadis, si je me souviens bien, ma vie était un festin où s'ouvraient tous les coeurs, où tous les vins coulaient." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sediment .
Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 428 Location: SUPERPOWER GEORGIALAND
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I seem to recall team vs team deathmatch in Rise of the Triad? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
parkbench .
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 145
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pro games of CS--which are smaller--tend to lean more towards the 'squad' side of things, as it does rely on you being a tight team.
The problem with judging it the way we are is that we're talking about pub play, which is inherently irregular--people dropping in and out as the rounds go on. For this reason there's very little incentive to form a concrete team or strategy. I have found, however, over the years, that there [is a certain way to go about it. If you show yourself to be a skillful or knowledgeable player, you can sort of assert yourself as a de facto team leader and kind of push the team certain directions.
In CS this could amount to sending people different directions or having them follow you certain ways, but in ET this works out very nicely. As an avid player, when I used to play a lot I would know how most of the maps worked, and really, a lot of the time the reason a game would be lost or would just be unfulfilling would be because there was no organization; people lost sight of the objectives and just spent time getting caught in "deathmatch zones" and such. When a player--such as I (heh)--would come in and kind of whip everybody into an alert state and kind of coordinate some strategy, the game would start flowing a lot better, and we ceased to resemble a team: we became a squad. A squad with sub-squads, if you will (esp. in a game like ET). This also forced the other team to react similarly or lose. You'll find this in other complex team-based FPSes like Natural Selection, which can also easily become aimless without a sense of purpoe or leadership.
I've never gone pro myself, but I have friends who have. I'll talk to them a little bit, but I'd be interested to hear pro experiences. It's so vastly different. Playing on pub servers is like spelunking into some unknown cavern pretty much every time (until you start playing on a server with a pretty consistent community). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
parkbench wrote: | I've never gone pro myself, but I have friends who have. I'll talk to them a little bit, but I'd be interested to hear pro experiences. It's so vastly different. Playing on pub servers is like spelunking into some unknown cavern pretty much every time (until you start playing on a server with a pretty consistent community). |
See, I like the spirit of Pub matches but playing like pros. Like, the tactics and shit and teamwork, but not the seriousness of it all. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That whole issue of command, and its effects: that is really and truly fascinating. Can you go into more detail? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cycle Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 2767
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had lots of fun playing RtCW multiplayer, which was team-based. It also has one of the best team maps in any game, ever, which was also the one I pretty much exclusively played.
I was an awesome medic.
Shrub mod made it even better.
When my friends and I made a server, we changed it so you only have a single life. This made my job as a medic very important and made team-play incredibly important, it was great. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pink Teddy Bear .
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 180
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
parkbench .
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 145
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, aderack, the interesting thing is that since you are not a "real" commander, you have to coerce your team to do what you want more than order them, at least at first. When the team is dying every round in CS, for example, you might throw out an...emphatic suggestion, shall we say, that people should split up or rush a certain hallway. If the technique works, as i said the team then gains that much more of your trust.
In ET, which is more objective-based the strategies go beyond just methods of killing, they are methods of execution (of a task). And so because they are complex you need people to listen to you. It's just the urgency of the moment, I think. If you're playing on...Seawall let's say, and there's 8 minutes left (not a whole lot in terms of the overall map time), and your team is just walking into a deathtrap over and over again...you can use that sense of hopelessness/urgency to rouse the team. Especially with statements of encouragement. "Come on guys--8 minutes left, we can do this." "Somebody come with me to the back route, I need an engi and a field op to cover. We can break in through the back door." Stuff like that. People do get caught in that trance where they're just in the fray and are purposeless, so if you give them a purpose they might just listen. And like I said--showing that you're a 'worthy' player certainly helps. As a medic, I can usually gain peoples' favor by keeping them in tip-top shape, for example. It's inherently an 'altruistic' role (unless you're a rambo combat medic o_O).
I donno if that helped. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Intentionally Wrong .
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 248 Location: [Subject Hometown Here]
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised there's been no mention whatsoever of Gears of War. I guess it isn't necessarily any more team- or squad-based than any other multiplayer game in which there are teams; for some reason the very low game size called this to mind.
In the developer commentary for Team Fortress 2, they talk about how for a long time, there was a "Commander" class who had more of an RTS role during games--directing the attacks of his team, designing battlefield structures, etc. Apparently it was too difficult to maintain a balance between the Commander being important to victory and everyone else having fun. Normally, if you have one weak player on your team, it slightly reduces your team's overall effectiveness but the rest of you can compensate with a little coordination. The Commander undermined that too much. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dark steve .
Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 1110
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, the chief problem to get around with online team-based games is the necessity for ad hoc leadership and coordination when you're with 7 other random players; when I used to play Myth 2 online, in a team game one player would be assigned to be the leader at random. The leader's job was to select which troops to bring onto a particular map using a point system, then assign them to the other players once it began. If this position fell into the hands of an inexperienced player, well, you can sort of imagine what would happen and how everyone else would react. It reached the point where, in most cases, there was a "typical" loadout of units for a particular map you'd be expected to know and players would just be bullied into selecting it, then divvying up the most valuable units to the highest ranked player, then to the next highest ranked player after him, and so on. This worked pretty well overall in terms of getting players to accept their roles and at least try to coordinate, though he only times I ever saw a lot of real leading and large-scale, intricate teamwork was when a particularly highly-ranked player would come into a game and browbeat everyone else into listening to him (this is not necessarily a bad system–to get the best rank (not counting special ranks for the top ten players overall), you have to be in the top 10%, in terms of win-losses, of all the registered online players, meaning you're among the most experienced with the game and pretty much know how to win at it. It also helped that the ranking system was rigged into a way that forced players to be prolific at all the different types of games (ctf, team vs, free for all, etc etc.) or stand the risk of having your status drop sharply during monthly resets).
The other way players address this problem themselves is forming clans. On the one hand, you know that everyone on your team is going to know what's up and there'll probably be a clear hierarchy to follow. On the other hand, you have to be in a clan, which is going to be run by hardcore players who may or may not have control issues (I remember watching a roommate "apply" to be in a FFXI group where he had to write up pages of stuff about his character and why he wanted to join, do "tryouts" where they certify you're not a total muppet, etc. etc; it's not hard to imagine how petty and weird this probably gets). _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"ET" is Quake: Enemy Territories? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dark steve .
Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 1110
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
parkbench .
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 145
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't played much of Quake Wars, though I've heard good things. I'm talking about classic ET :E
Also, games with built-in commander features are an interesting permutation. In this case, it is still a pub server with random players and unreliable skill base, but because there's a definitive position of leadership, as x said, it's easy for it to become a point of contention for the whole team. Again, a good leader will rally the team together. Though in NS I've seen people get pissed off really quickly. The game is complex enough and long enough that a bad commander can make what is essentially anywhere from a 20 minute to hour long experience very unenjoyable.
Clans are a way to counteract this, and another way to curry favor in pub games. I've never been part of a serious clan, only de facto and informal clans with my friends which just serve as "groups" really, and if three or four of us show skill in a particular server, then the team will learn to trust that clan's name (and the enemy team will learn to fear it ). So...yah. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
parkbench wrote: | I've never been part of a serious clan, only de facto and informal clans with my friends which just serve as "groups" really, and if three or four of us show skill in a particular server |
A 'group' of friends joins 'parties'. Well, that's how I word it anyways. I have a lot of friends I use to play shadowrun with and we would form parties of whose available. Nothing as formal as a clan. _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So. Enemy Territory is free, is it.
Curious.
Are there any upgrades a person would need? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pink Teddy Bear .
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 180
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So I'm thinking we should all play some Enemy Territory right? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PC not strong enough _________________ “The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
parkbench .
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 145
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What, it's the quake 3 engine shaper.
My school is currently blocking ALL PORTZ. So I hope by the time we get around to this that changes No internet games for me (tf2 piles up dust in the corner...)
Quote: | A 'group' of friends joins 'parties'. Well, that's how I word it anyways. I have a lot of friends I use to play shadowrun with and we would form parties of whose available. Nothing as formal as a clan. |
I say clans because we would tag our names and we would be a cohesive force of sorts when we played in pub matches. So for all intents and purposes it was a "clan." I mean the only difference was we all knew each other; other clans of similarly low-key structure have met all online and they're legitimated as clans, neh?
In terms of ET unless anything has changed since I played it last, you don't need any "upgrades." My only advice is be wary of the servers! I've said it a bazallion times but the shitty server browser and server structure can unfortunately lead to tons of unwanted pk3s clientside. If you can find it, I suggest playing on the QAW ET servers (try a google search, I think they have a website); mostly vanilla ET classic maps with XP save. Nice community, no superfluous shit. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aderack .
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 1105 Location: San Francisco
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have it here! I plan to install it, and to be curious. If anyone else is interested, that will maybe make it better than playing with weird people! _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|