Wolf

Would less server options make a more united community?

27 posts in this topic

The more options a server has the more a community becomes divided and it may be cursed to last less.

 

I liked Vietcong in multiplayer, but only played it on Vietnam (no hud nor crosshair).

Only a minority played it like this and as the community shrunk with time the number of Vietnam servers became very slim.

 

2 years ago I got IL2 -1946 and I am having a blast with it playing single player.

Its cool on multiplayer aswell unfortunately I don't play it any longer because I can't find a single server with full realism.

There are many server options and the most popular servers are the ones with the realistic settings turned off and the arcade ones turned on. It amazes me that the most popular way to play a realistic flight sim is the arcade way. We are talking about of infinite ammo, no blackouts, no engine management, 3rd person perspective.

I have found some servers that have almost everything I want but they allow 3rd person view.

This is as close as full realism it gets and it just kills it for me. Not being able to do a sneaky 6 o'clock kill right after I pierced thorugh a cloud or coming from below because I am spoted long before by a very aware pilot that has 360º vision.

Some servers even provide with a key that immediately points out the most near enemy plane.

I feel comdemned to singleplayer to play the game as I want, with full realism.

 

I recentely started playing Bf3. I got it for free from a mate but never bothered trying it because I am tired of that hybrid kind of shooters, (although I was a fan of the bf series).

Still my hunger of some fps action led me to it.

I only play on Hardcore servers without minimap, which means I can only play in one server with good ping.

The admins are terrible, and may ban you if you exert your freedom of speech or call them out on one of their many admin abuses.

 

Whatever game it is, the more hardcore/realistic options are going to be present in a minority of the servers if given the option to be turned off.

For every option Ground Branch gives to servers, the more arcade the general servers are going to become. I know that the devs wish to have a respawn mode, I now know that this game type is probably going to be the most popular. These servers are probably going to have any other less realistic options Ground Branch allows them to have.

 

The less options are offered to servers the less a community will be divided and the more united the community will be. The trade off? Well this is sure to reduce the potential number of such community to begin with. Of course this worries me little because who cares how large is a community when you don't want to play in 80% of the servers?

 

Forgive me if this has been discussed to death already, and if it sounds like a rant.

It is just something that worries me and the last decade made very pessimist about games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have to worry about that, because realism is in the core of Ground Branch. Providing "arcade" server-side options or an "arcade mode" would betray the reason why it's being made in the first place. I'm pretty sure things like lethality of weapons, movement speed and camera perspective will be locked in the core game. Server-side options will likely be limited to things like weapon restrictions (e.g. "pistols only", "no explosives"), game modes (which includes round-based and respawn types), day time/weather conditions and so on.

 

Think original Ghost Recon: there were server-side options, but the core gameplay didn't change, nor was the community fragmented by them. Unless you count the handful of players who play either co-op or adversarial exclusively.

 

Mods are another story, though one has to wonder why somebody would mod Ground Branch into a run-and-gun arcade shooter when those already exist by the dozens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was suprised with Il-2 because it is a very realistic flight slim.

Yes and mods can to that aswell. I know Il-2 players that have 3 versions of il2 installed with different modes so that they can play in many servers. I do fine using the JGSME to switch between mods.

There was one expansion for Rogue Spear that allowed to turn off reticule knock.

 

I think i expressed myself a little poorly. Now i am recalling that Rogue Spear was full of server options but none ruined the game.

You could ban weapons and gear, pick team sizes, pick their uniform. I guess i am just a little worried with the respawn mode and how much popular it can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The less options are offered to servers the less a community will be divided and the more united the community will be. The trade off? Well this is sure to reduce the potential number of such community to begin with. Of course this worries me little because who cares how large is a community when you don't want to play in 80% of the servers?

I agree with your premise. Now the question is: how desirable is a united community? If you don't want to play at 80% of the servers, then just don't do it. What matters to me are the 20% that I can play on how I like it. Important thing is that one can recognize such servers (server settings, game mode, required mods, etc.) already in the server browser and filter them properly.

 

Of course this worries me little because who cares how large is a community when you don't want to play in 80% of the servers?

To answer your (rhetorical) question: maybe the guys who developed the game to make money out of it? Profit might not be the number one priority here, but at the end someone has to pay the bills.

Moreover a larger community usually means more available mods. And finally the preference of a player might change over time. Someone might initially be attracted to the more arcade things in a game, but then stumble into a hardcore server and actually like it.

 

A last point to consider: with some options it's not obvious whether they increase or decrease realism. For example a HUD-radar showing team-mates. Many people, probably even a majority, claim that this replaces the lack of peripheral vision. I personally think that free lock and 3D VoiP are good enough, and that the lack of a few degrees of vision doesn't justify a 360° radar working through walls and thick vegetation.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't vote all for arcade options here. Just saying there are some arguments for it. At the end this is imho, as you said yourself, a trade off.

Edited by AST_Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor about the rethorical question it was on the perspective of a player who cares only for a small portion of the community so he could not care less for how big it is in total, since we only plays a certain way. But i agree a 100% with you that if the devs make a game more versatile they are going to make more money.

 

About the HUD, again i agree with you, i was just trying to demonstrate that certain elements that i prefer tend to be less used and i have to really dig to find somewhere i like to play and i wish this doesnt happen here like it did with Il-2 :(.

I like how the RainbowSix/GhostRecon crosshairs were more realistic than Cod/Bf2 iron sights.

Those little crosshairs gave you much more information of what your gun was doing, how big it was, etc; without you ever seing the gun.

Bringing a G3 or a M16 indoors could be a pain in the butt compared to the submachine guns, but in cod/bf3 size makes no difference. A pistol is as good as a bolt action barret model indoors, as far size is concerned.

 

Yes there are many benefits of having a less restrictive game. The old Il-2 is still alive because of it, a pity its not in a form i would like to play. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raised this a long time ago.....control how mods are released ie: like a pack via BFS then everyone has the same mods installed its then just a choice of what server is running what mod you like to play or just create one yourself. The problem is when mods fracture the community when you want to game with the few servers that are running but you need to spend ages looking & installed mod A, B , C...just so u can play the damned game~!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about "arcadey" servers... there won't be any settings that allow that. I guess the only thing that could get unrealistic in a way would be kit restrictions. Pistols only isn't "realistic" but it can be a lot of fun. :)

 

Mods have always been a double edged sword and we really don't have any control over how servers use them, unless we didn't allow mods in MP at all. I don't think that is a path most people want to go down. We can't really curate or "publish" mods that pass some sort of quality control either. It would simply be to much work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about "arcadey" servers... there won't be any settings that allow that. I guess the only thing that could get unrealistic in a way would be kit restrictions. Pistols only isn't "realistic" but it can be a lot of fun. smile.png

 

Mods have always been a double edged sword and we really don't have any control over how servers use them, unless we didn't allow mods in MP at all. I don't think that is a path most people want to go down. We can't really curate or "publish" mods that pass some sort of quality control either. It would simply be to much work.

 

You need to ensure we have a killhouse with an accessible roof for FOOKR. Pistols only there is fun for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking your time to respond John, it is reassuring. :)

 

I loved pistol only servers. USP 45 all the time back on the old rogue spear, but if i was playing raven shield the five seven felt like cheating. The range advantage it had over the other pistols could define the victor on the csl.

 

Speaking of pistols, and going way off topic, any of you thought they were a little too powerful back on rogue spear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't really curate or "publish" mods that pass some sort of quality control either. It would simply be to much work.

You could "greenlight" mods though, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could "greenlight" mods though, correct?

 

We could, but that still takes time and effort. Plus I'm sure people would get ticked off if theirs wasn't approved or we took a month to get to it. Honestly, its just a rabbit hole I don't want to go down.

 

Now that doesn't mean if there is a really nice mod out there every now and again that we wouldn't give it a stamp of approval or something. It just wouldn't be something that was a regular occurrence or officially setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. how will they do that?

 

i think the community will sort it out itself. crap mods won't get any play time or it'll be relegated to those one or two servers that no one uses, and eventually disappear into oblivion.

 

but i don't be running mods anyway. if i wanted to play a different game, i'd play a different game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many server options can really kill a game. Mods can also do the same. And there will be arcade servers, if the options allow it, that's just the way players are these days. I am very happy about what Jsonedecker said about server settings. :)

 

The good thing here is that I mostly want to play GB in co-op mode. Me and my friends against AI enemy. Using only one server (my own), the settings and mods will be just the way I want them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would providing only one single server option make an absolutely indivisible community?

 

Specu4r.jpg

 

One Ring to rule them all.

 

I'm kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I think the problem with a lot of games is server options which simply betray the spirit of the game - i.e. ultra-casual settings which dillute the game down into just another shooter. As long as those are avoided, then despite the variety of settings involved, any server should be reasonably enjoyable.

 

Some examples:

 

- TDM mode in True Combat Elite (and most other tactical shooters)

 

- Red Orchestra 2's casual "realism" mode (thought its "classic" mode carried a separate set of flaws)

 

Conversely, I think server options depicting different combat scenarios, forces, and gear are all good as long as they lay within the game's spirit (i.e. where tactical shooters are concerned: realism).

 

Are there examples of server options which divided communities that had nothing to do simply with casualized modes that diluted the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of Vietcong, the vietnam mode was the option, the same thing with Battlefield 3 and the hardcore mode.

Both games were made to be played with a hud with the option to remove it. I can't call them casualized modes.

But yes, i agree with your point that its not the amount of options but their nature.

Il-2 1946 and Operation Flashpoint are both simulators but the difficulty options are available can turn them into very different games, and not in a good way.

 

True Combat was a pretty cool mod, it is a pity that True Combat Elite became so arcade during its development to please the Enemy Territory crowd. I liked both for different reasons, but not TCE.

The best multiplayer experience i ever had was playing True Combat with friend in pad maps like padgarden and padkitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that TCE was too arcade. I think the root shooting mechanics and movement speeds were OK and this worked well with the generic "plant the bomb" gamemode, but I kept waiting for additional realism improvements that never came. It was one of the few tactical shooters populated at the time, and it was playable in one-life gamemodes, which made it fun for a while... but inevitably as hardcore players got frustrated with the lack of updates and left, unplayable TDM servers began taking over and the community died.

 

I think Insurgency (2/retail) is very much like TCE. The movement and shooting is a bit more realistic, but it doesn't have a solid one-life gamemode to keep things tight. Likewise, updates to realism have basically ceased as the devs keep pushing out "content updates" that just amount to new weapon skins and other gimmicks. There isn't a commitment to tight core gameplay to sustain hardcore interest. Like with RO2's unrealistic "realism" mode, they keep trying so hard to please both casuals and hardcore that they wind up pleasing nobody.

Edited by GnaM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's the reverse side...

 

Would you like to be stuck with only one option that infuriates you? No? I didn't think so. The ability to say that you can have a preference is the best.

 

The fact that your favorite game mode or setup isn't played anymore doesn't mean the game was supposed to be that way, the whole "this is how you should play the game" mentality needs to go right out the door as Developers don't go to work and do my job for me and turn around and then pay their wages with that money. Developers are not going to cater to your preference but neither should they restrict you from being able to have a preference, that just means the game will end quicker as you play it their way and when it comes to modern games where these pencil pushing developers are designing games around focus groups, its moronic to think they will or have played the game... Battlefield 4's lead art director turning the HDR rendering and BLOOM from Reasonable settings during the closed beta to OMG MY RETINAS BURN! on release because it's "cinimatic" and then turning around and banning people who disabled it is just one example.....

 

Don't worry about "arcadey" servers... there won't be any settings that allow that. I guess the only thing that could get unrealistic in a way would be kit restrictions. Pistols only isn't "realistic" but it can be a lot of fun. smile.png

 

Mods have always been a double edged sword and we really don't have any control over how servers use them, unless we didn't allow mods in MP at all. I don't think that is a path most people want to go down. We can't really curate or "publish" mods that pass some sort of quality control either. It would simply be to much work.

 

Game: Rogue Spear

Kit restrictions: frags only

Map: Kill House

end result: Body blocking enemy's until the time the frag is about to go off, Misery and dread over the coms from the trapped person in the room, The maniacal laughter of the evil sob blocking and taunting you.

 

Game: Rogue Spear

Kit restrictions: Flash-bangs only, Light armor

Map: Kill House

end result: being blind deaf and dumb to your surroundings... Funny to play and watch when someone inevitably gets flashed enough to die.

 

Game: Rogue Spear

Mod: Smurf Arsenal (? not sure of the name, it has a bb gun in it...)

Kit restrictions: BB gun only, Heavy body armor

Map: Kill House Double

end result: shooting 100's of rounds until its last man standing (aim for the head if possible with the Aim-Flinching from being shot)...

 

Game: Rogue Spear

Mod: Smurf Arsenal (? not sure of the name, it has a bb gun in it...)

Kit restrictions: .50 BMG pistol

Map: Kill House Double

end result: Insta-Gib matches with the accuracy of a sniper (not accurate on the move) in the package of a pistol with a single shot before you had to reload...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bangurdead, you seem to be projecting, onto myself, a type of person whose attitude bothers you.

You also come off a little bit agressive, which explains your strawman arguments.

You are don't seem to be arguing against me, but at someone else.

I beg your forgiveness for not being who you seem to think i am.

 

here's the reverse side...

 

Would you like to be stuck with only one option that infuriates you? No? I didn't think so.

Only one option? If it is a core feature that i heavly dislike why i am playing or even worried about this game?

I would just drive my attention elsewhere.

The ability to say that you can have a preference is the best.

Thats quite a conclusion that misses the point of the whole discussion. No one is arguing that options lead to a more flexibile

experiences that are bound to please more players. What we are arguing were the costs of having too many options, that could lead to a fragmented community.

Having a fragmented community isn't something bad, but on games that have small communities to begin with, might lead to the undesirable effect of reducing its lifespan.

 

 

The fact that your favorite game mode or setup isn't played anymore doesn't mean the game was supposed to be that way,

My "favorite game mode" for IL-2 is with full realism on, but i am not angry nor upset that there are no servers set up like this.

Although i had the expectation of playing a flight sim with realistic features online.

Both the Vietnam and Hardcore modes are not the way both Vietcong and Bf3 were made to be played. I made that clear.

They were just examples of what kind of options and effects could derive of them on the community.

 

the whole "this is how you should play the game" mentality needs to go right out the door

That sounds like a horrible mentality. I have no desire of forcing others of playing a game the way i want.

 

Battlefield 4's lead art director turning the HDR rendering and BLOOM from Reasonable settings during the closed beta to OMG MY RETINAS BURN! on release because it's "cinimatic" and then turning around and banning people who disabled it is just one example.....

That sounds dumb. I am all for not imposing graphical options on other players. Pick your FOV, brightness, remove the hud, use configs to get visual advantages over others.

Go for it, i don't care. When i was talking about server options i wasn't considering even those, but game changing features like allowing or not 3rd person view, "reticule knock",etc.

 

As i said before, i had great fun playing Pistol only games, as i had with Frag only. I never tried the light armor + flashbangs combo but we did play in heavy armor + shotguns with slugs only.

 

Even Jsonedecker reasured me i didn't had to worry about arcadey servers, that i thought could divide the community and make it last less.

Edited by Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bangurdead, you seem to be projecting, onto myself, a type of person whose attitude bother you.

You also come off a little bit agressive, which explain your strawman arguments.

You are don't seem to be arguing against me, but at someone else.

I beg your forgiveness for not being who you seem to think i am.

 

You're right I did project my argument onto you. Because the thread started off by you tends to bring the control freaks out, the ones that would try and force others to "play it their way". Already there was one person advocating the restriction of mods and another with proposing a "green lit" mod feature....

 

Last time we had control freaks in charge (Ubisoft) they ######-canned Raven Shield's SKD, they trashed the series with no reprieve for the Long time hardcore fans to salvage anything out of the series with mods, with Vegas1,Vegas2, and now Siege. The same control freaks that have pretty much then repeated their same mistakes with Ghost Recon. So on one hand no where did I say options need to be extensive diverge from the main game, I mean even an option for how to handle Team damage would be taboo for some...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bangurdead, i also consider myself a hardcore fan and i also dislike when certain people who have a ton of games to play come into the forums of niche games and demand that they turn them to be like the rest ot the mainstream ones.

 

I think i read, some time ago, people asking in this very forums for some kind of graphical restrictions. I am against that.

I am not against modes, i am playing IL-2 1946 modded right now.

 

So on one hand no where did I say options need to be extensive diverge from the main game
It is true, you didn't. I'm sorry if my reply implied that you did.

I don't now if you noticed but i ended up correcting myself that its not really about the ammount of options you have but their nature.

 

A little bit off topic, i noticed you didn't mentioned Lockdown. Do you think it is unsalvageable or did it allow modding?

I had little to no experience with lockdown, i just saw a couple of trailers and played the demo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit off topic, i noticed you didn't mentioned Lockdown. Do you think it is unsalvageable or did it allow modding?

I had little to no experience with lockdown, i just saw a couple of trailers and played the demo.

 

Lockdown was doomed before it was even released on PC due to the reputation the Console versions had, its DRM (securom) and its engine which If I recall correctly was a souped up version of Ghost Recon engine greatly decreased the accessibility of modding and no amount of modding could revive the game with such pitiful reputation and sales. Sure It was a step back from Raven Shield with the missing planning phase, linear shoe-horned in story that's immediately forgettable in a setting that was forgettable, and stupid kiddie scripting of AI to shout pretty much their daily lives in a video game, but the multiplayer was decent and so was the ability to use a mic to issue voice commands to AI teammates. Considering that it followed Raven Shield as the next Rainbow Six game the PC received it was glaringly lacking, but in comparison to the following games it was immeasurably better.

 

No 3rd person cover systems

No "Blind" firing around corners

Lean mode

No floating icons

No icons to tell you how many of the enemy are left...

No rainbow warriors

decent player sizes

decent PC server files...

decent map sizes online

no hit markers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockdown was doomed before it was even released on PC due to the reputation the Console versions had, its DRM (securom) and its engine which If I recall correctly was a souped up version of Ghost Recon engine greatly decreased the accessibility of modding and no amount of modding could revive the game with such pitiful reputation and sales. Sure It was a step back from Raven Shield with the missing planning phase, linear shoe-horned in story that's immediately forgettable in a setting that was forgettable, and stupid kiddie scripting of AI to shout pretty much their daily lives in a video game, but the multiplayer was decent and so was the ability to use a mic to issue voice commands to AI teammates. Considering that it followed Raven Shield as the next Rainbow Six game the PC received it was glaringly lacking, but in comparison to the following games it was immeasurably better.

 

No 3rd person cover systems

No "Blind" firing around corners

Lean mode

No floating icons

No icons to tell you how many of the enemy are left...

No rainbow warriors

decent player sizes

decent PC server files...

decent map sizes online

no hit markers

Don't forget, the Ghost Recon engine was the same engine Rainbow Six was created on, just updated for the style of game GR was. It was even updated for RS. Still, I would agree with your assessments. When Ubi sent me to Games Convention in Leipzig, I tried the XBox version and was flabbergasted at how messed up it was. Ubi Montreal was responsible for the XBox version while RSE had ported that over to the PC version. That has been the last that RSE has been involved in any R6 game. Sad considering that is where it all started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the beginning of the end. anything ubisoft touches just turns to utter garbage. when ubisoft takes over development for a franchise that started elsewhere, that's invariable when the game will change for the worse. all i can remember about lock down: cornrows. corn. rows. how? why?

Edited by 213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now