Player motivation / teamstacking

[lawANDorder]

Hello Renegade X community, wall of text incoming!

I would like to share my thoughts about the current situation with you.

My thesis is that the external and internal changes done to the game have shifted the game's character away from the niche Renegade X filled successfully to a general segment where its unique assets are subordinate and insignificant. The result are decreasing player counts and lessened game experience.

To elaborate this we could try to describe the game itself before and after the to be defined effects that caused this shift, however it seems to be more practical to focus on the player motivations and needs which constitute the mentioned niche in the first place and ask in a next step, if these motivations and needs are still satisfied by the game. This leads to the following questions:

1. What playertypes are primarily attracted by Renegade X?
2. Which game elements cause the attraction to these playertypes?
3. What constitutes these game elements and why are they significant?
4. What distiguishes Renegade X from other games?

Without any doubts do the devs know the answers to these questions, how else could they develop a successful game. Having said that I would like to try to answer the questions very briefly from my point of view:

1. Player-types can be classified by the Bartle taxonomy of player types (better description, see page 17, table 3) while their motivations can be explained by Yee’s Motivational Facets (see page 8 f.). Although Bartle and Yee focused on MMORPG's for their studies, the classification of player-types and subsumption of motivations is not limited to these type of games but applicable to most single and multiplayer games. As it is very hard to find out the dominating taxonomy of player-types it seems to be more practical to explain the attracted player-types following Yee's approach. From my personal experience the only relevant motivations to play Renegade X are based on the factors "Relationship", "Grief", "Achievement" and "Leadership". I would sort them into the following order: L, R, A, G. this means: the players attracted by Renegade X primarily prefer to group rather than solo (L), secondarily make good friends online, and tend to have meaningful conversations with their online friends (R), have only a slight desire to feel "powerful" (A) and gain little satisfaction from taunting and annoying other players (G).
2. So why is that? The game mechanics itself encourage player interaction (which R and L are all about) in many different ways. The weekly PUG is a good example to show why R and L are what Renegade X is about. Game elements that feature interaction are the whole chat and spotting system, the requirement to take care of other player's tanks or your own base, the voting system and basically the assumption, that you can not win a game on your own but only as a team which requires communication. By implication this means that even a team of bad players can win a game if their R and L is superior to the team that is made up of individually good players. Generally speaking, the dependency on your team and the nonexistence of independent personal goals and achievements  offer a challenge that fits the LRAG motivation perfectly.
3. Partly answered above.
4. Not important for this post

Does this represent the gameplay at the current state? No.

The main reason why Renegade doesn't satisfy LRAG at its current state is in my opinion the phenomena, that certain players have such an influence on the outcome of a game, that the desire for R will not be satisfied as it is not a requirement anymore which undermines the development of L. I'm speaking of those very skilled players that primarily play the game to get very high killstreaks and high kill-death-ratio, those who belong primarily to the "Killers"/"Achievers" taxonomy because of their primary motivation of "Grief" and "Achievement". 

Some time ago there have been players that sneaked into bases and also had a very big influence on the outcome of a game (you rarely see them in public servers anymore). This rarely happens now due to the bigger server population which makes sneaking nearly impossible. The difference is, that their actions affected the enemy team as a whole while the players that dominate the servers now cause pain to individual players (and dominate one each of them) but so effectively, that the whole team suffers from it. This makes a huge difference at the receiving end and contradicts the assumption from above that you can not win a game on your own but only as a team. Furthermore, "Killers" are those who have least interest in communication as their motivation is independent from what happens to the team. Also the other players will not be able to identify with the dominating player's success and accept his or her leadership, if this player has no interest in L and R.

To summerize it: The ability of a certain player to decide the outcome of a game contradicts the satisfaction of other player's motivations, if the dominating player's motivation is primarily based on contrarily factors (grief or achievement). 

Personal proposals to mitigate this effect

There is no "good" or "bad" player-type and there is no "right" or "wrong" motivation. But there is a niche this game fits into and we should try to get it back into this niche. I don't think that we should alter weapon stats or anything like this, we need to lower the attraction for player-types or motivations that doesn't fit to the game and increase the attraction for those, who are the main target group. 

• By taking away the achievements, the "Achiever" will not be attracted anymore. By not showing the domination to others, the Griefer doesn't feel like he is dominating anymore. Humans are easy to manipulate. Delete Kills, Deaths, K/D from the scoreboard and from global stats. This greatly affects their main psychological motivation: to feel great and to dominate others.
• Improve team-balance: Modify the "Switch team" mechanism so that players can't join the team with those game-changing players at start resulting in heavily stacked teams. Think about other mechanisms to balance the teams based on the player skills.
• Encourage and focus on "teamplay" and communication (the commander mod even if it was buggy was a great addition and many liked it).

In other words:

MAKE RENEGADE X GREAT AGAIN!

Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by lawANDorder

[Madkill40]

4 hours ago, lawANDorder said:

• By taking away the achievements, the "Achiever" will not be attracted anymore. By not showing the domination to others, the Griefer doesn't feel like he is dominating anymore. Humans are easy to manipulate. Delete Kills, Deaths, K/D from the scoreboard and from global stats. This greatly affects their main psychological motivation: to feel great and to dominate others.
• Improve team-balance: Modify the "Switch team" mechanism so that players can't join the team with those game-changing players at start resulting in heavily stacked teams. Think about other mechanisms to balance the teams based on the player skills.
• Encourage and focus on "teamplay" and communication (the commander mod even if it was buggy was a great addition and many liked it).

All of these plz.

In fact, updating the scoreboard to have Repair Points, Offensive Points and Defensive Points to replace Kills, Deaths and K/D would be useful in encouraging the gameplay RenX expects from the teams playing.

RP, OP, DP could then be based accordingly;

Repair Points: Repairing Infantry/Vehicles/Buildings.

Offensive Points: Any points achieved on the enemy teams side of the map.

Defensive Points: Any points achieved on your teams side of the map.

Or however the game dictates who gets into those 'MVP' slots at the endgame.

All three combined add to your overall score.

 

Team Swapping should be enabled 10 minutes into a game imo. (Basically when a team is allowed to surrender)

 

The Commander mod had two other unassigned slots, @yosh56 Any chance of adding "Tank Commander" [Blue?] and "Base Commander" [Orange?] into those unassigned slots as additional roles whenever you get round to fixin'up the Commander Mod? I miss the additional interface stuff such as player-set objectives and the upto-5 targets so gosh darn much.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Madkill40

[xeb]

@lawANDorder You know I wasn't always killing ppl my biggest achievement in renx was in beta 3 only sneaking and the success rate was high back then now with beta 5 this success rate is so low that I just lost interest. Being killed while sneakin with stank/sbh etc. isn't fun for me the only reason why I started killing in beta 5 and I won't stop you can remove kd I am fine with it. Removing kd will be better for me so I can play much more aggressive than I used to play  GL 

And by the way I still can count my kills so you will not manipulate me with this "humans are easy to manipulate" shit.  

Not my fault that the Renx community  lack the aiming vs good aimers and we aren't that hard to beat  get good. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by xeb

[xeb]

Spoiler

 

@lawANDorder Forgot to mention something , the so called "Killers" have a purpose too like killing sneakers, engi, techs/hotwires and more .

I played so many renx games that I learned one thing , ppl like me aren't ruining this game , ppl can't even buy tanks after the 8 min mark everytime I play my team has 1/8 or 1/11 vehicles or If I call gunner/rocket rush no one is following the instruction so why would I give a f*** about the so called "teamplayers who can't even buy tanks , mine properly or watching out for sbh, nukes etc." I am tired of this shit and this game needs to increase vehicle limit and remove 1 sniper because we have 2 sniper classes which in my opinion is useless give havoc/sakura a new weapon and it is fine for me and nerf the sbh/lcg.

sbh and lcg should have limited ammo not unlimited this is bullshit and op and make lcg faster again this guy is so slow and useless.

[Kaiser739]

@lawANDorder makes some good points. About the removal of K/D statistics - how about making them appear on the after match scoreboard only, so that during the game they're not displayed? I think this could already lead to a change in the gameplay. Even though I don't care too much about my K/D, it's always interesting to see those stats. 

On 13.6.2017 at 5:35 AM, Madkill40 said:

Team Swapping should be enabled 10 minutes into a game imo. (Basically when a team is allowed to surrender)

Agree with this. I'm currently taking a break from the game, mainly due to some high skilled players team stacking in every single match they play. I understand that people want to play in the same team as their friends, but it gets really annoying when they completely dominate game after game, sometimes just to rub in the other players' faces how good they are. From a competetive point of view, would it not make more sense to actually play against each other to find who's the best? With restricted team swapping there will be less team stacking.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Kaiser739

[xeb]

15 minutes ago, Kaiser739 said:

Agree with this. I'm currently taking a break from the game, mainly due to some high skilled players team stacking in every single match they play. I understand that people want to play in the same team as their friends, but it gets really annoying when they completely dominate game after game, sometimes just to rub in the other players' faces how good they are. From a competetive point of view, would it not make more sense to actually play against each other to find who's the best? With restricted team swapping there will be less team stacking.

agree with that one +1 :D.

 

[j0g32]

Just on a sidenote: seems like people are complaining about players or certain playstyles - I dont see how this going to help improve the game?

I certainly agree (although without personal experience) that a handful of players shouldn't be able to decide every single match, and frustrate others.

If there is a discrepancy between how RenX should be played (for you to be fun) and how it is played (at least by some) - why don't you try to ask yourself and then explain to us, where the gameplay mechanics get it wrong? Why can't you have fun, while others can?

 

Rewarding teamplay/kills with points/stats is one thing. Providing means to coordinate a team another...

And finally I think a lot of the problems might also arise from having few options to defend, attack, sneak, flank - improving map design/layouts...

 

Another more general problem could also be that with a limited player base, there is only one server that is playable - and you dont have many options to switch, if you are not happy with the current server population...

 

Edit: definitely bring back Commander Mod!

Edited June 14, 2017 by j0g32

[Sn4ke]

@lawANDorder Your "wall of text" has some good points but all in all your argumentation sounds like "I don't want/like to play against skilled players".

You didn't mention these certain players, at least no names... But if a handful of players are deciding a full-server match (doesnt matter if 20v20 or 30vs30) there is something wrong with all the other players, apart from the "certain players", ergo ~95% of the server population.

Seriously, 1-2 players are not deciding the match. Tanks do. And tanks. And tanks. And yeah, base-def, repair bitches, snipers, support units and teamplay. (did I forgot something? maybe the little pinch-of-luck to get the early Mammoth crate (as Nod ofc!!)).

Most of the players you are complaining about have no clue how to use vehicles properly. Of couse they claim "anyone can use a tank" (wrong).

So how to deal with the exceptionally skilled players?

Easy-peasy...

1) group up on them

2) use Soldiers / flametroopers / grens / shotgunners only (no use to waste credits)

3) use tanks

4) if you can't handle these players, go somewhere else and support your team.

I couldn't play the last two weeks, so I have no clue if the j-poi-stack is back, but 2 weeks ago that stack was dead. Know why? Every time* they stacked players began to group up on them and ruined their precious K/D until one of them (or both) raged problem solved

* okay - let's say: most of the time...

Edited June 14, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[lawANDorder]

2 hours ago, Kaiser739 said:

About the removal of K/D statistics - how about making them appear on the after match scoreboard only, so that during the game they're not displayed? I think this could already lead to a change in the gameplay. Even though I don't care too much about my K/D, it's always interesting to see those stats. 

It is indeed a very restrictive proposal. I just don't see those stats fit into the game, they do not tell if you are a valuable player and serve the only purpose of boost the stated players egos while frustrating those at the recieving end. Satisfaction should derive from winning the game not how many kills you got while playing it.

Hope to see you back soon.

 

1 hour ago, j0g32 said:

Just on a sidenote: seems like people are complaining about players or certain playstyles - I dont see how this going to help improve the game?

You're right, it doesn't directly help to "fix" things (although I tried to keep it abstract to not find myself complaining about players or playstyles.) My intention was to point out how the current state of the game affects those different players and why this is a thing (imo). I hoped those who read it would be able to come up with better analysis of the causes and better ideas on how to actually improve things than i could.

Food for thought of smarter people than I am.

1 hour ago, j0g32 said:

If there is a discrepancy between how RenX should be played (for you to be fun) and how it is played (at least by some) - why don't you try to ask yourself and then explain to us, where the gameplay mechanics get it wrong? Why can't you have fun, while others can?

The effects do not only result from game mechanics but also from psychological factors like frustration of dominated players. A game that requires teamwork can't be won by a team of frustrated and angry players. That's my point. We need to mitigate the negative effects these dominating players cause. So we either take away their ability to dominate (can't imagine how this could be done) or we reduce the relevance of their actions for the affected players.

You have to see both effects: The dominating players certainly affect the game directly to some point. Besides this factual direct effect those players cause an indirect social effect: the dominated players will get frustrated which affects their and their team's gameplay negatively and as a result amplify both effects reciprocal.

Thats what I meant when I compared it with famous sneaking players like @Quincy is for example: they had a major factual direct effect on the game but only a minimal negative social effect on individual enemy players. If he managed to sneak threw you knew your team including yourself wasn't alert which is a thing you would try to to improve and thus would communicate with your team.

 

1 hour ago, j0g32 said:

Rewarding teamplay/kills with points/stats is one thing. Providing means to coordinate a team another...

I agree, like I said before I intended to make those who think about changes or additions consider the perspective given in this post.

Edited June 14, 2017 by lawANDorder

[lawANDorder]

42 minutes ago, DarkSn4ke said:

@lawANDorder Your "wall of text" has some good points but all in all your argumentation sounds like "I don't want/like to play against skilled players".

If this is your conclusion I really have to work on how to express myself. Thanks for the feedback.

[Sn4ke]

sounds like you stopped reading my post after the first sentence

 

[lawANDorder]

7 minutes ago, DarkSn4ke said:

sounds like you stopped reading my post after the first sentence

 

I read your post but don't know how to answer it without derailing the thread into "Tanks > Snipers" or "FU LOOSER TEAM!!11!".

Edit: @DarkSn4ke You're right about the thing that I can't prove my basic assumption that certain players decide the outcome of a match. This makes my thesis indeed very vulnerable 

Edited June 14, 2017 by lawANDorder

[Sn4ke]

the less people play, the more impact exceptionally skilled players have...

so for low-pop matches your assumption is defenitely right, but 20vs20 ? 30vs30 ? no way.

for "full server" matches a "stacked" group of 5-7 players organized on TS might make the difference, but even then this group is just 16-23 %  (not even a quarter) of a team (25-30% for 20vs20)

[Madkill40]

RenX could have the best team balancing in the world but if people swap teams upon joining a game before everybody in the previous game has joined then efforts of auto-balancing made by the game will be undermined.

The difference between two players can change a game massively depending on their role, if a team is left without people to communicate on that teams' behalf then that team will suffer.

Commander mod enabling in-game voice chat for the three assigned roles would be a bit of a game-changer.

I.e. unless a player already has Discord or TS they don't care.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Madkill40

[xeb]

@yosh56 Can we please remove ramjet ?

I would like to see havoc/sakura with another weapon. 

We have like 2 sniper classes and we only need 1 sniper class not 2.

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by xeb

[lawANDorder]

14 minutes ago, DarkSn4ke said:

the less people play, the more impact exceptionally skilled players have...

so for low-pop matches your assumption is defenitely right, but 20vs20 ? 30vs30 ? no way.

for "full server" matches a "stacked" group of 5-7 players organized on TS might make the difference, but even then this group is just 16-23 %  (not even a quarter) of a team (25-30% for 20vs20)

I have a different opinion. Even in PUGs @poi ❄ makes the difference (just to name one of these exceptionally skilled "Killers"). I think you underestimate the factual and especially social effects I stated in a post above these players cause. Big IMO because I can't prove it.

 

[xeb]

3 minutes ago, lawANDorder said:

I have a different opinion. Even in PUGs @poi ❄ makes the difference (just to name one of these exceptionally skilled "Killers"). I think you underestimate the factual and especially social effects I stated in a post above these players cause. Big IMO because I can't prove it.

 

 watch this one played vs poi 

[lawANDorder]

9 minutes ago, xeb said:

watch this one played vs poi 

Under is one of the few maps where snipers are of exceptional insignificance. Show me any other map (except mesa) and we are talking.

Edit: If you want to show me how @Minji goes to town to disprove the huge influence of certain snipers - that doesn't work.

Edited June 14, 2017 by lawANDorder

[xeb]

Just now, lawANDorder said:

Under is one of the few maps where snipers are of exceptional insignificance. Show me a walls match and we are talking.

I don't play pugs anymore 

[sterps]

I have to agree with lawANDorder in relation to team stacking.

This is very prevalent after PUGs, when remaining PUG players that remain in Teamspeak, then join the public server.

Pretty much every game, most of the remaining PUG players, if not, all of them join the same team, and absolutely dominate each and every game. 

Player numbers drop, and understandably so. People want to invest their gaming time into something fun, and enjoy what they play. It's not enjoyable to play against unevenly matched teams (skill and experience wise), which result in very short lived and unsatisfying games 

Don't get me wrong, team work is the best and most satisfying thing of this game, something that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in, be apart of those really close nail biting games, or those games where the teamwork and co-operation is outstanding.

Players will leave satisfied, and most likely wanting more.

 

But it's currently not really the case, and I would like to think the regulars who participate in the PUG matches who stack the teams in the public server would know better, but also realise if they face each other, they may have a better playing experience as well.... I guess just like in the PUG.

[Calvin]

Spoiler

 

[swaffelen]

13 hours ago, DarkSn4ke said:

@lawANDorder Your "wall of text" has some good points but all in all your argumentation sounds like "I don't want/like to play against skilled players".

You didn't mention these certain players, at least no names... But if a handful of players are deciding a full-server match (doesnt matter if 20v20 or 30vs30) there is something wrong with all the other players, apart from the "certain players", ergo ~95% of the server population.

Seriously, 1-2 players are not deciding the match. Tanks do. And tanks. And tanks. And yeah, base-def, repair bitches, snipers, support units and teamplay. (did I forgot something? maybe the little pinch-of-luck to get the early Mammoth crate (as Nod ofc!!)).

Most of the players you are complaining about have no clue how to use vehicles properly. Of couse they claim "anyone can use a tank" (wrong).

So how to deal with the exceptionally skilled players?

Easy-peasy...

1) group up on them

2) use Soldiers / flametroopers / grens / shotgunners only (no use to waste credits)

3) use tanks

4) if you can't handle these players, go somewhere else and support your team.

I couldn't play the last two weeks, so I have no clue if the j-poi-stack is back, but 2 weeks ago that stack was dead. Know why? Every time* they stacked players began to group up on them and ruined their precious K/D until one of them (or both) raged problem solved

* okay - let's say: most of the time...

Quoted for truth.

I must say that last week or weekend there was a strong Bioz, Denuvian, and Pirate stack and it was very noticeable. Big unbalances develop because of differences in experience. It doesn't matter how good you are at other FPS games or sniping if you don't know the mechanics and strategies, mine locations, common beacon locations, tank use, etc. RenegadeX is a tough game to learn. It's complicated.

[Madkill40]

So... Disable team swapping for the first 10 minutes of every game?

[Sn4ke]

to pick up @dr.schrott suggestion from yesterday (ingame): disable team swapping after 1 minute.

no more "join the winning team"

[lawANDorder]

Adjusted title

[Calvin]

People should be able to play with who ever they wan't if 2/3 people are on ts they should be able to play together.. Theres nothing wrong with that ;o! I feel like some people just bitch and complain all the time even though they like to chat more in the game instead of actually playing the game which is fine but don't call the other team stacked if you don't do anything for your team. I seen that a lot people refusing to play seriously when they think the "teams" are "stacked" just please stop making useless topics like this lol. Just let people play the way they want and git gud. 

(the 2 sniper classes are fine btw, just don't run in a straight line and you'll be OK. >>ProTip<<)

Enjoy! 

Edited June 15, 2017 by poi ❄

[limsup]

@lawANDorder An elaborate article, recommending action versus the top 1% of "Killers" / Achievers". How refreshing to see an analytical person come by now and then

Regarding this, while this post has highlighted a number of things, I still feel (despite me usually being at the bottom of the food-chain as Tech) that this ecosystem needs it's "Apex predators" too.

In my humble opinion, team swapping rules should be reinspected, and perhaps revised...

@j0g32 "Another more general problem could also be that with a limited player base, there is only one server that is playable - and you dont have many options to switch, if you are not happy with the current server population..."

- This is a very profound observation!

@DarkSn4ke "I have no clue if the j-poi-stack is back, but 2 weeks ago that stack was dead. Know why? Every time* they stacked players began to group up on them and ruined their precious K/D until one of them (or both) raged ;)"

- Well they too aren't immortal per se, but there is no reason to get personal here...

@lawANDorder "The effects do not only result from game mechanics but also from psychological factors like frustration of dominated players. A game that requires teamwork can't be won by a team of frustrated and angry players. That's my point. We need to mitigate the negative effects these dominating players cause. So we either take away their ability to dominate (can't imagine how this could be done) or we reduce the relevance of their actions for the affected players."

- So how do you recommend "taking away the ability to dominate" of a player, who is horrendously lethal with basically everything, because it has superb aiming skill/reflexes (besides permanent ban)? Teamwork is (or at least would be) the only effective counter.

@DarkSn4ke  "... the less people play, the more impact exceptionally skilled players have..."

- E X A C T L Y ! ! !

@sterps "It's not enjoyable to play against unevenly matched teams (skill and experience wise), which result in very short lived and unsatisfying games "

- Agreed, any recommendation / specifics?

[limsup]

1 hour ago, poi ❄ said:

People should be able to play with who ever they wan't if 2/3 people are on ts they should be able to play together.. Theres nothing wrong with that ;o! I feel like some people just bitch and complain all the time even though they like to chat more in the game instead of actually playing the game which is fine but don't call the other team stacked if you don't do anything for your team. I seen that a lot people refusing to play seriously when they think the "teams" are "stacked" just please stop making useless topics like this lol. Just let people play the way they want and git gud. 

(the 2 sniper classes are fine btw, just don't run in a straight line and you'll be OK. >>ProTip<<)

Enjoy! 

It is easier to blame personally You (first and foremost), and recently jp and NieR, for any and all grievances in the game, INSTEAD of honing one's individual skills, AND TEAM PLAY / COORDINATION.

Edited June 15, 2017 by limsup

[roweboat]

I think Poi hit the nail on the head actually.

there needs to be less "oh this is a problem" and more of "let's come together and find a solution in real time". 

I see too many players get quickly de-motivated just because they aren't willing to come together to think of a new plan.

For example. Many times in game, ill get picked off by someone like 5-6 times in quick succession. Do i get frustrated? I mean yeah, sometimes. But it also forces me to think of new strategies on the fly. 

This game would get incredibly dull if everyone was at BOT level player skill. 

[lawANDorder]

2 hours ago, poi ❄ said:

People should be able to play with who ever they wan't if 2/3 people are on ts they should be able to play together.. Theres nothing wrong with that ;o! I feel like some people just bitch and complain all the time even though they like to chat more in the game instead of actually playing the game which is fine but don't call the other team stacked if you don't do anything for your team. I seen that a lot people refusing to play seriously when they think the "teams" are "stacked" just please stop making useless topics like this lol. Just let people play the way they want and git gud. 

(the 2 sniper classes are fine btw, just don't run in a straight line and you'll be OK. >>ProTip<<)

Enjoy! 

If the topic is useless you don't need to reply to it. If you do so, show some respect. The post's intention was not to complain about poi but to talk about an abstract aspect that I wanted to discuss (which means I have an idea that I would like to talk about without claiming it is a fact). 

It's true that I do dislike you but this is a thing that comes with your attitude and is not bound to your or anyone's ability to point and click on stuff. Sorry sweetheart. 

@limsup

I agree with you, that's why I said

or we reduce the relevance of their actions for the affected players."

and generally suggested to 

Encourage and focus on "teamplay" and communication

because

On 14.6.2017 at 5:22 PM, lawANDorder said:

You have to see both effects: The dominating players certainly affect the game directly to some point. Besides this factual direct effect those players cause an indirect social effect: the dominated players will get frustrated which affects their and their team's gameplay negatively and as a result amplify both effects reciprocal.

As @poi ❄ noted the psychological impact is what spoils the game. It should be possible to decrease the relevance of being killed many times by adding/encourage opportunities to act as team ("active measure") and hiding the stats relating to this ("passive measure"). I agree there has to be a niche for "Killers" but the moment this niche becomes the most relevant feature in the game (my assumption) and thus primary motivation to play you can forget about the teamwork stuff and as a result watch the game dying. 

 

 

[Kaiser739]

5 hours ago, DarkSn4ke said:

to pick up @dr.schrott suggestion from yesterday (ingame): disable team swapping after 1 minute.

no more "join the winning team"

I like this solution even more than Madkill's idea, I'm all for it.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Kaiser739

[j0g32]

I think the main problem here is not getting killed by skilled players (multiple times) per se.

Yes, I see that this is obviously demotivating, but only if you have run out of options to counter or circumvent such a very skilled player.

Take this video with sniper footage on Under posted earlier in this thread for example:

If you are one of those poor souls, who gets sniped in the GDI base or repairing a tank. What could you do?

0) just avoid the area where you got killed if possible, even a skilled player can only cover so much ground - find yourself another route/purpose

If you cant avoid the area, e.g. because you are killed in the base - or because you are just in rage and want payback:

1) figure out where this sniper is

2) tell your team to look out and possibly attack the sniper, make it a priority! Use team polls?

3) try to flank the sniper; e.g. through the tunnels (and not from the front via GDI inf path)

4) you can use smoke grenades to cover your own advance towards the sniper as well as protect engineers repairing tanks for defence

5) gather more players to outnumber and simply rush the sniper's location

6) you can even try to coordinate distraction tactics, or attack from multiple angles.

 

So, these are just some ideas of what I would do/try, if I would get frustrated on the field.

Nobody is invincible...

However, these options might not be available/viable, and I see 2 major factors why:

1) lack of player communication / coordination: others are not listening/reading chat, or dont want to follow instructions.

Possible solutions: commander who sets visible priority targets, squad-system to team up with a few like minded (team-)players, voip?

Here you could obviously add point/credit rewards for teamplay related actions, such as eliminating priority targets, spotting enemies, sticking close to your squad members etc. in order to incentivize even the lonest of wolfes to consider putting in some effort for the team....

 

2) map design: "unflankable" sweetspot, especially coupled with bottleneck base entrances, should not exist...

We might need more alternative routes/paths, which have to be sufficiently seperated, such that movements on one path cannot be observed/intervened directly from another path.

Take the additonal vehicle path on C&C Field which is fairly seperated from the main field, or the tunnels on Islands.

It should be more of a binary choice which path I take to attack (and which i am therefore giving up) and it is also the enemy's binary choice to defend only one of them and to not cover the other.

Another good example are the high/low highway vehicle paths on C&C city - once you make that decision, you cannot simply switch between paths.

Opposed to that it doesn't matter if I run 5m to the left or right of a rock across an otherwise fairly open field - it is still the same path from a gameplay point of view. A sniper looking at the rock would most likely hit me regardles of which side I choose.

But there is a balance to be struck in terms of meaningful choices and player concentration.

If there are too many options, no team can possibly hold them all (defence), or create enough pressure to break through (offence).

Getting back to the above example:

If the sniper was marked as a target by the commander, the tanks could redirect some of their shells to the sniper, who is forced to seek cover, giving infantry a possibility to counter attack. Alternatively, an additional path, e.g. connecting both bases back to back as in the TS reborn version of Under could allow the frustrated players to open up another front, circumventing the high skilled sniper...

The "negative psychological"effects of skilled players on the "loosing" team are only a consequence of the available gameplay mechanics. In the first instance, getting your ass kicked should also make you rethink your strayegy, and try other options. If you keep doing the same thing, e.g. rushing the infantry path, why would you expect a different result everytime - #insanity ^^

Some suggested to "reduce the impact of high skill players" - I fully agree and I think this is only achievable by analysing (and improving) gameplay choices.

 

Thanks if you succusfully made it through my wall of text

Cheerio

[Idiotas]

11 hours ago, lawANDorder said:

If the topic is useless you don't need to reply to it. If you do so, show some respect. The post's intention was not to complain about poi but to talk about an abstract aspect that I wanted to discuss (which means I have an idea that I would like to talk about without claiming it is a fact). 

It's true that I do dislike you but this is a thing that comes with your attitude and is not bound to your or anyone's ability to point and click on stuff. Sorry sweetheart. 

@limsup

I agree with you, that's why I said

or we reduce the relevance of their actions for the affected players."

and generally suggested to 

Encourage and focus on "teamplay" and communication

because

As @poi ❄ noted the psychological impact is what spoils the game. It should be possible to decrease the relevance of being killed many times by adding/encourage opportunities to act as team ("active measure") and hiding the stats relating to this ("passive measure"). I agree there has to be a niche for "Killers" but the moment this niche becomes the most relevant feature in the game (my assumption) and thus primary motivation to play you can forget about the teamwork stuff and as a result watch the game dying. 

 

 

I get @poi ❄'s attitude. it's in a bad way but.. ehh zzz

If you can aim good (even if it's a little bit) people will complain and call you out. Even trying to kick you (because you're obviously using an aimbot when killing people who walk in a straight way or standing still). People are more motivated by complaining about people than actually playing the game. You can tweak/nerf/buff weapons/characters but it still comes down how the person itself plays the game. It's a fact that some people only look at k/d and ignore everything else, so removing the k/d on the scoreboard could be a good idea, but tbh.. i don't think it will actually work. If a player is a sniper or any other character he/she is good with, the player will still play the same even with or without the k/d stat.

Maybe it's an idea to show tips when you die by a certain character/tank? or just tips in general if you die? For example "you can use EMP grenades to stop the rush of the enemy team" or "use Smoke grenades to be invisible for base defences and snipers" ect. Or make a small text that pops up when you hold your mouse on a character/tank that shows what's it good for.

Getting people motivated in general is difficult to do. Some get motivated by k/d stats, others by ranking up(veteran, elite, ect) or by killstreaks or !recs (for example by repairing till an certain score), or just simple as teamwork and communication. It all depends on the person.

Now it's time to...sleepzzz.. o/

Edited June 16, 2017 by Minji

[vandal33]

I do see team stacks these days and if that doesn't scare away the new players getting stomped then it's the constantly bitching and whining from the losing team members and the banters from the other stacked team.

[Schmitzenbergh]

1 hour ago, vandal33 said:

constantly bitching and whining from the losing team members

This is, in my opinion, what is dragging down some RenX games.

An example, yesterday I played a game on Islands for half an hour or so. I was there from the start and as GDI, we were doing quite great. Constantly pounding the nod base with a whole array of tanks. The suddenly, a nuke was placed at the ref and it was succesfull -> GDI lost the ref.  A whole shitstorm and votes for restarting the map came up because it "wasn't fair" that we lost the ref. I read something about someone that was hindering the Nuke disarm, but then again. 

Instead of bitching and moaning about that the match "wasn't fair" anymore we should have gather so many flipping tanks and steamroll the whole nod base to oblivion (The money was there just after the ref was destroyed). But instead we started whining (Not everyone though, some kept their warface on).

The lost ref was our fault, not the game itself. We didn't disarm the nuke. But we now lost our income and suddenly it isn't fair anymore. Just because we were at the upper hand until the ref got destroyed? 

I don't know the exact situation at the ref because I was in the tank team, but I've seen the behaviour in other games as well. As soon as you lose one building->Whine instead of lose building->Buckle the fuck up and try something else.

This is just my experience with some games I've played, yours may differ. On the PUG matches this behaviour is different, when you lose building you buckle the fuck up and try something else. That why I reccomend more people joining the PUG's to experience a different RenX (This is also due to the better communication.)

 

Edit:

As for sniping. I was sniping for some time in that match as well. I am litterally the worst sniper ever, but somehow I killed quite some chars on the nod team. But all that time, nobody tried to attack me with either a vehicle (Protip) or a SBH (Protip). And I was just plain in sight on the battlefield. I even killed some people multiple times, but even they ignored me. If you do this with better snipers, well tough luck. You're going to get raped indeed. 

Edit2: 

2 minutes ago, SvN91 said:

It could be the 60 player limit

I agree wit this, 60 peeps is way too much on certain maps. 60 people on, for example, Arctic Stronghold is fine, but on Islands it isn't.

 

[SvN91]

I have not played Renegade X much lately and I have noticed a decrease in players, personally because I think something is lacking from the game right now but I'm not sure what. It could be the 60 player limit, the constant complaining in the chat or maybe the teamplay isn't as good as it used to be. What happened to the commander option?

I really don't get the hate on the good players like poi, you just have to keep moving all the time so you don't get killed. Just like it has been since original renegade. But I do agree that something have to be done with the team swapping, why is it allowed at all?

[Madkill40]

I have had very little difficulty in telling the team to stfu and march on in the past, not hard to motivate people when all you do is make them feel bad for being dick etc. (i.e. Motivation by way of Knocking down to pick them up)

On 6/15/2017 at 11:52 AM, DarkSn4ke said:

to pick up @dr.schrott suggestion from yesterday (ingame): disable team swapping after 1 minute.

no more "join the winning team"

That still leaves for an imbalance from the start of a game doesn't it? The issue is more of people swapping before everybody joins a public game on the next round. 

Disabling team swapping after 1 minute is like saying. "If your computer and internet are fast enough, you can swap teams because you have managed to join within the first minute"

Whereas if you disable team swapping for the first 10 minutes the server/game can balance the teams into the next round and any players which have left after 10 minutes the remaining players can swap only if there is an imbalance. 

TL:DR

"Disable team swapping after 1 minute." <--- Idiotic & partially-elitist. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Madkill40

[lawANDorder]

14 hours ago, j0g32 said:

The "negative psychological"effects of skilled players on the "loosing" team are only a consequence of the available gameplay mechanics. In the first instance, getting your ass kicked should also make you rethink your strayegy, and try other options. If you keep doing the same thing, e.g. rushing the infantry path, why would you expect a different result everytime - #insanity ^^

Some suggested to "reduce the impact of high skill players" - I fully agree and I think this is only achievable by analysing (and improving) gameplay choices.

This. 

As already pointed out there are many players complaining for several different reasons. To say, stop complaining, "git gud" won't solve the problems that cause the bad game experience in the first place for those players. I'm disgusted by the prevailing opinion that complaints are the root problem. I will adapt nontheless.

There is no teamstacking. The game is not decided by only a few. Player counts didn't drop. Everything is great. If you want to complain please stfu and gtfo.

/thread

[Sn4ke]

2 hours ago, lawANDorder said:

There is no teamstacking. The game is not decided by only a few. Player counts didn't drop. Everything is great. If you want to complain please stfu and gtfo.

even though it's sarcasm, this sentence is way different from your inital post.

calm down and "fight" for your thesis by argumentation

[j0g32]

2 hours ago, lawANDorder said:

This. 

As already pointed out there are many players complaining for several different reasons. To say, stop complaining, "git gud" won't solve the problems that cause the bad game experience in the first place for those players. I'm disgusted by the prevailing opinion that complaints are the root problem. I will adapt nontheless.

There is no teamstacking. The game is not decided by only a few. Player counts didn't drop. Everything is great. If you want to complain please stfu and gtfo.

/thread

That is not what I was trying to say. It seems like you have read my whole post, since you are only quoting my last paragraphs, so I am getting a bit confused here...

Complaints are always a helpful feedback to identify where things go wrong. But the next step should be to figure out WHY/WHAT is actually going wrong.

Is it something inherent to how the game(play) system/mechanics are set up?

Because if it isn't - then what is there to fix and how?

As I tried to explain in detail above, I don't think that the problem lies with the general ability to switch teams and communicate with your friends... (and the resulting t"eam stacking")

Perhaps a "change team request" could help, where someone from the other team has to accept and swap places?

 

Anyway the frustration does not result from fighting against better or more organized players as such, but from the fact that you might not see or have any option to counter them. And THIS is imho the only area where we could think of how to improve that.

Hope this makes more sense now...

[Sn4ke]

20 minutes ago, j0g32 said:

Perhaps a "change team request" could help, where someone from the other team has to accept and swap places?

if teams are balanced (in numbers) this is already the case.... (since v5.26? not sure which patch it was, have to look it up)

[j0g32]

13 minutes ago, DarkSn4ke said:

if teams are balanced (in numbers) this is already the case.... (since v5.26? not sure which patch it was, have to look it up)

I knew it was familiar

 

[limsup]

4 hours ago, lawANDorder said:

I'm disgusted by the prevailing opinion that complaints are the root problem. I will adapt nontheless.

There is no teamstacking. The game is not decided by only a few. Player counts didn't drop. Everything is great. If you want to complain please stfu and gtfo.

I sincerely think that your recent topic touches upon fundamental issues related to the overall gameplay. Generally games such as this one, have a diverse player base, with actual active player numbers fluctuating due to a variety of reasons, such as seasons (school season, summer vacation, etc.), time of day (time zones), and people’s own amount of free time. Also, like you mentioned, there are numerous „type” of players: from the first-time gamer, who downloaded this out of sheer curiosity / nostalgia, to the casual player, who plays for fun, and when he/she is in the mood, to the more dedicated people, hanging around day-long, leading up to the top 1% „monsters” (some of which were named in your topic).

            I think there is a need to have a debate about this particular issue, in my humble opinion, you did well, to bring this up, and have a discussion about it. But we have to note, that this is also a particularly complex problem! Since this is practically an “Indie” game, and also free-of-charge, it is exclusively made by people voluntarily, in their free time, at their own expense. It emphasizes a certain degree of open-mindedness. Players are the users of this software, and (based on my own previous software development experiences) this Game caters to the most people it is capable of, within reason.

            All of this said, and if I correctly assumed that I understood your point, your dispute lies with those few, albeit extremely talented players, who, even on their own, could make a disproportional amount of impact in-game. In your opening post, while not directly asking for active alterations for their preferred character classes, but you were asking for measures to “lower their attraction” for this game, practically asking to inhibit them in one way or another…

            Many players (including the “Killers”), have posted to this topic, offering numerous advice, that are worth considering. Nobody is immortal, no one single being is invincible. There are fruitful strategies against such threats, as some people have proved this in-game. When others spoke of “less whining”, I believe that they have meant something along the following line: many of us, Humans in general, like to win. When the tide of the battle starts to turn against us, we tend to lose composure, focus and hope. To a certain degree this in all our nature. Then we tend to make even more mistakes, finally many people, instead of adapting their tactics, and consulting with the team, give voice to their frustration and quit instead, often leaving behind a gaping hole in their team’s defense. It is practically a domino-effect, given time, a statistically significant portion of players have either left, or switched teams. This is an issue (on which I do not have any viable solution / recommendation).

            The most dedicated, (often most proficient) people tend to combine their forces. Why? Maybe they realize not only each other’s individual strength, but their combined strength (even) as a (small) team, with the whole, being more than the sum of its parts. By all means, if “average” people run in to one of these “Rene-Gods”, the most trivial solution would be to pool their resources, and defeat them with a combined effort. Even a “Rene-God” could only defeat a certain number of casual players, not more! With myself, being often at the receiving end of a rifle, having tried this, I definitely say, it WORKS. Perhaps it took five of us, mortals, but we DID take down a “Rene-God”. Well perhaps it is a win-win situation for both, as we pushed him to his upper limits, he was not bored, and we enjoyed the fruits of our labor 

            But more often than not, teamwork, probably the single greatest skill there is, goes neglected by the casual gamer. From this, frustration is born.

            I do not presume to know a solution. But venting our frustration on that handful of players, who are among the most dedicated seems not to be a feasible solution to anything (nor being ethical). Complaints themselves are not “the root of the problem”, it is indecision, and the lack of efforts/coordination which often follow, are in my opinion the fundamental problem.

Conclusion: by sufficient effort and teamwork, these few, (statistically) disrupting players can definitely be counterbalanced.

(We have a saying in my country: "A flock of geese can take down a giant boar.")

P.s.: I apologize to everyone for my own “Wall of Text”!

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by limsup
Minor revisions to my article...

[lawANDorder]

1 hour ago, j0g32 said:

That is not what I was trying to say. It seems like you have read my whole post, since you are only quoting my last paragraphs, so I am getting a bit confused here...

Complaints are always a helpful feedback to identify where things go wrong. But the next step should be to figure out WHY/WHAT is actually going wrong.

Is it something inherent to how the game(play) system/mechanics are set up?

Because if it isn't - then what is there to fix and how?

As I tried to explain in detail above, I don't think that the problem lies with the general ability to switch teams and communicate with your friends... (and the resulting t"eam stacking")

Perhaps a "change team request" could help, where someone from the other team has to accept and swap places?

 

Anyway the frustration does not result from fighting against better or more organized players as such, but from the fact that you might not see or have any option to counter them. And THIS is imho the only area where we could think of how to improve that.

Hope this makes more sense now...

Sorry @j0g32, @DarkSn4ke my admittedly not very valuable last post was intended to highlight what you had written, by "this" i meant i agree with it

Spoiler

20 hours ago, j0g32 said:

I think the main problem here is not getting killed by skilled players (multiple times) per se.

Yes, I see that this is obviously demotivating, but only if you have run out of options to counter or circumvent such a very skilled player.

Take this video with sniper footage on Under posted earlier in this thread for example:

If you are one of those poor souls, who gets sniped in the GDI base or repairing a tank. What could you do?

0) just avoid the area where you got killed if possible, even a skilled player can only cover so much ground - find yourself another route/purpose

If you cant avoid the area, e.g. because you are killed in the base - or because you are just in rage and want payback:

1) figure out where this sniper is

2) tell your team to look out and possibly attack the sniper, make it a priority! Use team polls?

3) try to flank the sniper; e.g. through the tunnels (and not from the front via GDI inf path)

4) you can use smoke grenades to cover your own advance towards the sniper as well as protect engineers repairing tanks for defence

5) gather more players to outnumber and simply rush the sniper's location

6) you can even try to coordinate distraction tactics, or attack from multiple angles.

 

So, these are just some ideas of what I would do/try, if I would get frustrated on the field.

Nobody is invincible...

However, these options might not be available/viable, and I see 2 major factors why:

1) lack of player communication / coordination: others are not listening/reading chat, or dont want to follow instructions.

Possible solutions: commander who sets visible priority targets, squad-system to team up with a few like minded (team-)players, voip?

Here you could obviously add point/credit rewards for teamplay related actions, such as eliminating priority targets, spotting enemies, sticking close to your squad members etc. in order to incentivize even the lonest of wolfes to consider putting in some effort for the team....

 

2) map design: "unflankable" sweetspot, especially coupled with bottleneck base entrances, should not exist...

We might need more alternative routes/paths, which have to be sufficiently seperated, such that movements on one path cannot be observed/intervened directly from another path.

Take the additonal vehicle path on C&C Field which is fairly seperated from the main field, or the tunnels on Islands.

It should be more of a binary choice which path I take to attack (and which i am therefore giving up) and it is also the enemy's binary choice to defend only one of them and to not cover the other.

Another good example are the high/low highway vehicle paths on C&C city - once you make that decision, you cannot simply switch between paths.

Opposed to that it doesn't matter if I run 5m to the left or right of a rock across an otherwise fairly open field - it is still the same path from a gameplay point of view. A sniper looking at the rock would most likely hit me regardles of which side I choose.

But there is a balance to be struck in terms of meaningful choices and player concentration.

If there are too many options, no team can possibly hold them all (defence), or create enough pressure to break through (offence).

Getting back to the above example:

If the sniper was marked as a target by the commander, the tanks could redirect some of their shells to the sniper, who is forced to seek cover, giving infantry a possibility to counter attack. Alternatively, an additional path, e.g. connecting both bases back to back as in the TS reborn version of Under could allow the frustrated players to open up another front, circumventing the high skilled sniper...

The "negative psychological"effects of skilled players on the "loosing" team are only a consequence of the available gameplay mechanics. In the first instance, getting your ass kicked should also make you rethink your strayegy, and try other options. If you keep doing the same thing, e.g. rushing the infantry path, why would you expect a different result everytime - #insanity ^^

Some suggested to "reduce the impact of high skill players" - I fully agree and I think this is only achievable by analysing (and improving) gameplay choices.

 

Thanks if you succusfully made it through my wall of text

Cheerio

completely. 

Edit: Thanks for the interesting and constructive discussion, I really appreciate it. Had some troublesome days, sorry @poi ❄ and @all for bad manners.

Edited June 16, 2017 by lawANDorder

[Guest Gliven]

The problem with any type of game, where you can remove a player from the game for a set amount of time (killing them). There will always be a snowball effect.

If your team can remove players from the game at a higher rate than your opponents. You will start to dominate or dictate the match. It is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what strategy you use, as long as you can achieve this. You will most likely win.

Once you have the number advantage (by eliminating players) you can push to better strategic locations, like the hill on whiteout, or the short side on mesa. Once you take those positions, its even easier to dominate or dictate the pace of the game.

One of the better ways (in my opinion) to mitigate this snowball effect, is to use objective oriented game-play.

What i mean by this, is that instead of using just straight up brute force to win. You can capture objectives to give you an advantage. We already use this type of game-play by the means of the coms and the silo. 

What i truly believe that will solve most of the problems for this game is;

1. a larger player base - its too hard to balance a match with such a small player pool. There is only 1 full server. If a high skilled player joins a match filled with medium skilled players. That high skilled player will give a pretty big edge to their team. whatever role they fill

2. More developers - We need skilled map developers. @Madkill40 I will never play on anything you make ever. Your mind is too chaotic to make anything that is not over the top or ridiculous. Kenz is busy with a baby, and Thommy is too busy building 30 dif maps that end up being reworked 20 times. We also need WAAAY more people to help test maps. @DarkSn4ke and Try-Out cant be the only ones testing maps. If we want good, non-stalematey maps that encourage teamwork and objective based strategies, we need people to help make them and test them.

3. ?????

4. Profit

5. I dunno, you come up with number 5 

[Sn4ke]

1 hour ago, limsup said:

The most dedicated, (often most proficient) people tend to combine their forces. Why? Maybe they realize not only each other’s individual strength, but their combined strength (even) as a (small) team, with the whole, being more than the sum of its parts. By all means, if “average” people run in to one of these “Rene-Gods”, the most trivial solution would be to pool their resources, and defeat them with a combined effort. Even a “Rene-God” could only defeat a certain number of casual players, not more! With myself, being often at the receiving end of a rifle, having tried this, I definitely say, it WORKS. Perhaps it took five of us, mortals, but we DID take down a “Rene-God”. Well perhaps it is a win-win situation for both, as we pushed him to his upper limits, he was not bored, and we enjoyed the fruits of our labor 

definitely the best reply to the initial posting!!

23 minutes ago, Gliven said:

1. a larger player base - its too hard to balance a match with such a small player pool. There is only 1 full server. If a high skilled player joins a match filled with medium skilled players. That high skilled player will give a pretty big edge to their team. whatever role they fill

+1 ! double the playerbase and there are many more good players to counter the current Champs.

23 minutes ago, Gliven said:

2. More developers - We need skilled map developers. @Madkill40 I will never play on anything you make ever. Your mind is too chaotic to make anything that is not over the top or ridiculous. Kenz is busy with a baby, and Thommy is too busy building 30 dif maps that end up being reworked 20 times.

I love you @Gliven ! but I hope @Madkill40 appreciates your mentioning of his mapper skills (and that he is aware of the meaning)

23 minutes ago, Gliven said:

@DarkSn4ke and Try-Out cant be the only ones testing maps. If we want good, non-stalematey maps that encourage teamwork and objective based strategies, we need people to help make them and test them.

Dude, we're not the only ones. Some just don't report them on forums though. And please keep in mind that Try 'n me mainly test maps in regard of general glitches, graphic issues, exploits like "B2B" and don't focus on gameplay (at least not on the stategic) issues.

We have our opinion about the map design and "stalematishness" but.... we think that this is up to the mapper to decide. We stopped bringing such things up, as most mappers don't care about our (or any?) opinion in this particular regard. And that's okay for me... Even on stalematey-maps the players can make up decent tactics (at least for a while ). The community, especially the active members on forums have much more influence on the mapper to redesign his map.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[limsup]

14 minutes ago, Gliven said:

If your team can remove players from the game at a higher rate than your opponents. You will start to dominate or dictate the match. It is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what strategy you use, as long as you can achieve this. You will most likely win.

 

Generally speaking, indeed its true. However, unexpected infiltration, and greedy players picking up CrateNuke and taking half their team with them could turn the tides  

16 minutes ago, Gliven said:

One of the better ways (in my opinion) to mitigate this snowball effect, is to use objective oriented game-play.

 

What else? Something like the TCN Nodes in C&C 4?

18 minutes ago, Gliven said:

2. More developers - We need skilled map developers. @Madkill40 I will never play on anything you make ever. Your mind is too chaotic to make anything that is not over the top or ridiculous. Kenz is busy with a baby, and Thommy is too busy building 30 dif maps that end up being reworked 20 times. We also need WAAAY more people to help test maps. @DarkSn4ke and Try-Out cant be the only ones testing maps. If we want good, non-stalematey maps that encourage teamwork and objective based strategies, we need people to help make them and test them.

Most insightful remark!

22 minutes ago, Gliven said:

5. I dunno, you come up with number 5 

5. Tutorial map (a MUST!), and perhaps some scheduled PUG/like games, where more experienced players could demonstrate interactively to an audience how it is done right  In-game voice chat could help a lot, I do not know if this is planned at all, or how feasible would it be to incorporate...

[Madkill40]

Jokes on you @Gliven! CNC Valkyrie is so damn big it will be an extraordinary flying map that RenX needs. (But nobody wants) and your face will be full of 3 poorly blended materials just like Frostbite!!!!!1!!eleven!11!! 

(criii)

[ex_member]

...

Edited September 22, 2018 by ex_member

[Madkill40]

There has been mention of a better system for servers to auto-balance players, a system which will keep teams fair and balanced each and every game, I honestly feel any auto-balancing system is doomed to fail if players can swap teams the moment a new game has loaded and whilst other players are still joining... So no immediate ability to swap team when a game has loaded would be absolutely fabulous. [This isn't to stop teamstacking specifically, this is to give auto-balancing a chance to work before other players fck it up, for the good of the game.]

Regarding the numpty dumpty players...

When a game lasts a long time with both teams losing buildings, or if a game lasts a long time with one team being dominated until they take advantage of a team cocked up on their dominance or just a fun siege or just any game which lasts over 40 minutes, this is automatically a good game.

In fact, I find that longer games and games in general are only ruined when players start wanting a map change because they've run out of money and/or ideas (i.e. they are bored) and these are the players not worth listening to, because a bored player is unwilling to engage with the game. They usually let everybody know they suck at being a player in general by babbling some bullshlitz in the chat and this can put people off in several different ways causing several different consequences. It happened on a singular and theme-specific RP community server on Gmod I admin'd and once we handled these players directly the population count shot back up to 40/40 & 60/60. (Rp servers are hard to keep populated) 

What I am getting at is: players who abuse the chat by spewing gamehate need muting, "but freedom of speech!"-No. You are bored. You are blaming the game to be less bored. Everybody consider this;

The moment a player starts blaming the game in chat because they are bored consider them trolling. Forums are for criticising the game, not the server.

Nobody is an exception, even if a regular babbles gamehate out of boredom then letting a regular get away with this is 10x worse. 

Admins/Mods muting players just let people on the server be aware it has been done otherwise nobody learns.

Don't bother to kick or ban, that is OTT and will have dire consequences. If you mute them they will just leave of their own accord or they will buckle up and play.

Players can VoteMute other players right? If not then they should be able to so servers can be more self-moderated. Q-Commands are still possible for muted players so don't worry about them not being able to "help" should they actually keep playing. 

[P.S. typed this using phone, expect grammatical mistakes] 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Madkill40
/ThreadMoFo