Chris Discussion

Discussion in 'Game Play' started by spellman23, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're wrong. People play like being in a war against an enemy army. You the commander are the general, but the people on the lines are the heroes. They decide what happens, you decide the path you want to take based on the ability of the troops you command, and the best strategy for the terrain (map). They make it happen, or not. If Empires worked properly, commanders would be able to adapt their tactics according to how the battlefield evolves, and create complex strategies that players can try.

    The reason you can't do such complex strategies in many regular rts's is precisely because the units do not have a functioning brain. They can't make tactical decisions on the fly and adapt their playstyle to ensure the success of their mission. RTS units also can't deny their orders in favour of another objective that is more apparent on the ground. This is where commanding comes in - if you're a good commander, the troops will trust your decisions and go for your objectives rather than their own. If you are not, or if the player is rogue, then they will freelance at whatever they want.

    The lack of controls on players means it really is up to the leadership skill of the commander to get players to work together. There doesn't really need to be an incentive, because if you trust your commander, the incentive is that you defeat the enemy, and by doing so, win.
     
  2. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And how many people in the world do you think want to play a game based around trust exercises?
     
  3. -=SIP=-

    -=SIP=- Member

    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    About 4000 (number is from the old g4tc stats).

    Did you notice that this thread has already 137 pages when you print it on paper?
    [​IMG]

    Some more pages and we can start to sell this as book ;)
     
  4. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A lot. That's your problem if you view the world in, and subscribe to a, cynical point of view.

    I find your lack of faith disturbing.
     
  5. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    4000 people out of the millions of people who can play empires actually want to play it.

    Compared with the millions of downloads of natural selection, or the millions of people who bought games like counter strike or tf2.

    That is frankly pathetic.
     
  6. Demented

    Demented Member

    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does that include signatures?
     
  7. -=SIP=-

    -=SIP=- Member

    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Counter strike is a good example.
    Very simple gameplay. Minimal teamwork. Most servers are playing dust2 only.

    What do we learn? Most people want to play a simple shooter on the same map all over and over.

    So throw away all the complexity and teamwork from Empires and create a dump shooter with a map like district just to get more players?


    Demented: Yes. I printed the whole page.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  8. Demented

    Demented Member

    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It'd probably be much, much smaller without signatures or the excess vbulletin board features.

    A quarter of the filesize is probably Ikalx's sig alone. =P
     
  9. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, but certainly consider that such games are far more popular and that 'commanders' as a selling point is really not a good justification because almost nobody thinks it's a good idea, or at least nobody enjoys playing with one that much that it can sell the game.

    Good combat sells combat games, NS is built on the aliens vs marines interplay more than the commander and it works much better even though the NS comm has to do all the shitty busy work the empires one does. When the command view gets in the way of the infantry play the infantry play must take precedence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  10. Sandbag

    Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Empires has terrible deathmatch. It's intentionally so, it equalises the skill of all of the individual players so that teamwork takes precedence. If you reduce empires to teamed deathmatch, There really isn't anything under the bonnet, this game would fall apart, because the deathmatch isn't what's fun in empires. Even "squad deathmatch" isn't especially brilliant in empires, and that's the apex of empires infantry combat. What's good in empires is being a cog in a huge machine, doing your part for the greater good. Holding the line while your team push elsewhere. Giving a damn what happens on the other side of the map. Being a part of the big team-sized tactics like a rush north and watching them succeed or fail.
     
  11. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except doing all of that isn't fun because by your own admission, the mechanics are terrible.

    Oh what fun let's do this incredibly boring and unenjoyable task so that other people doing incredibly boring and unenjoyable tasks can win the big unenjoyable boring task game.

    Doing boring and unenjoyable tasks is what people do at work, games are a leisure activity, saying that the game is intentionally crappy to play because if it was more fun it would somehow be less fun makes no frigging sense.

    If the fighting was more fun and didn't break all the time because the commander is required to get even basic functionality out of the game then people might actually play the damn game. If the fighting is fun that doesn't stop you from working as a team, the only thing it does do is mean more people play and therefore you don't get to have your little super leet circlejerk of people because, oh no, the game is suddenly popular and there are all these people who are like, playing the game and having fun by shooting each other and perhaps they enjoy this so much they don't have to create their own reasons for playing like teamwork and stuff because the game itself is actually fun now...

    Nothing stops clanners from organising together and playing a game of 'who can be the most functional and uninteresting peon' if they really want to, but the game should not have that as its only selling point by deliberately removing all the others.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  12. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would think the game would be more fun, and more people would play, if the current mechanics were "fixed" and "adjusted" so that Empires is not only "fun," but epic. People don't play Empires just for the deathmatch, or the tanks, they play it because they want to be part of that big, epic struggle between two teams. Both big strategy and individual success. That is what the commander is for. The commander needs to be fixed, not destroyed.
     
  13. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People keep saying that and I keep pointing out that nobody does play empires.

    If being part of a command structure was a selling point empires would be selling like hot cakes because it has extensive command structure, the point is that none of it works because nobody wants to be a part of it.

    Most players seem to just want to go around shooting people in tanks. Most squad leaders don't lead and most commanders fuck up and far more people simply won't do it, and the popularity of games with no strategic element suggest that simple fun fighting is far and away the most popular thing empires can possibly do well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  14. Sandbag

    Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can argue that completing a mindless task and being rewarded by having a number associated with you increase a tiny amount isn't fun, but it's the premise that most RPGs run on. Similarly, you can argue that doing mindless tasks for a big team instead of just for your own amusement isn't fun, but I think most people who play empires would beg to differ.

    Now, if we can make the tasks that are currently mindless in the game less mindless and emphasis the fun part (c'mon! it's a no brainer)... then we can definatly make this work. The reason the game isn't popular is because it is absolutely plagued with simple design flaws (e.g, stare at wall for 30 seconds to build something, spend the last 10 minutes of any match fighting invincible tanks with a weak anti tank class, walk for 5 minutes without seeing any combat, 1% of being commanding is actually making strategic decisions) and because it doesn't look beautiful.


    People don't want to go around shooting people with tanks. I've played tank wars. it's fun for about one hour. That people are willing to try complex strategies as commander with the current system is all the proof I need that this would happen even more with one that doesn't punish inexperienced commanders or require commanders to constantly complete silly tasks.

    You believe that empires isn't popular because it's too complicated for players, and the strategy tacked on gets in the way of the fun. Your evidence is that there aren't any successful games like empires, but tonnes of simple games that work well. This is all true and logical.
    I have played many games, and with empires, I have at times tasted the elixir of pure awesome. It's something I want to share with the rest of the gaming population of the world. It doesn't come from the average combat. I have witnessed first hand that there is some incredible gameplay possible with this type of game, and that we don't need to change the game into a tweak on what already exists commercially to a much higher standard.

    This is why we must 'fix instead of destroy'
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2009
  15. Emp_Recruit

    Emp_Recruit Member

    Messages:
    4,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Empires can't compete with commercial productions in the "drive around and shoot shit" category. It has niche appeal and there are plenty of successful games that are incredibly complex.

    Problem with empires is just not that good.
     
  16. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it can compete. Having lots of money and time dedicated solely to development is a good formula for success, but not the only one. All games fill a niche since no game can appeal to every single person. The key is to find a good (and unfilled) niche and focus development on that part. That's why I think Empires should implement more RTS into the FPS gameplay, because thats the niche it fills.
     
  17. =PVCS) Cpatton

    =PVCS) Cpatton Member

    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    exactly. Your logic is so flawed Chris everyone sees it but your own wannabe trollness.
     
  18. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i still mostly agree with chris, stop being a total jerk and assume other peoples opinion cpatton

    *hugs*
     
  19. =PVCS) Cpatton

    =PVCS) Cpatton Member

    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not. He jumped logic and assumed that people didn't play it and find it mundane and boring because the mechanics were broken. Again, he writes off that people actually just don't like the flaws, but like the mechanics. As Sandbag pointed out, and most people are of the same opinion as Sandbag. Like myself, Scardy, Emp Recruit, aaaa50..... etc. etc.

    I'm *logically* making the conclusion he *stubbornly* chosses to ignore and therefore puts a flaw in his logic: That people actually like the commander, a LOT. Yet he still uses the same logic jump over and over, as if the former proved the latter, which 4 people were rather quick to point out.
     
  20. Deadpool

    Deadpool SVETLANNNAAAAAA

    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    burn

    win cpatton
     

Share This Page