The best defense is a good offense. If you're up a flag carrier's butt, you're getting in his way and killing his momentum, not to mention, the many times teammates eat your exit rockets.

If you want to help the flag carrier, kill the enemies, keep them weak and give your FC space to run.

Why do you need to over-complicate the game with such things as blockage or spectating? Maybe we should start discussing TVR's idea about non-returnable flags again?

Player gets lower score, that's enough. Why gameplay should be artificially changed at all?

Ok, ok, div won't agree with me. Here it is, why his idea is bad. 3noobs 1good at both teams. 3noobs camp and kill 1good each time he takes the flag. Both good ones can't take flags anymore and 3noobs won't attack cause they're happy campers. Game is stalled.

torus wrote:Jesus Christ, have you all gone mad? Stopping players from picking up the flag? Kicking them if they pick it up too much? This is absurd. We need to be PROMOTING defense of the flag carrier, not punishing him if his team is too stupid to defend him. IMO, I think this problem would be solved by eliminating points (added OR subtracted) for flag returns. That would also discourage people from doing stuff like lasering teammates away from a flag so they can return it, which is bad for the team.

Finally, some SANE voice.

[-z-] wrote:Those who can't learn how to play, shouldn't be allowed to ruin the game for those who have.

It's better to have pw protected server than to kick those who are unable to play according to your standards.

I am, and will always be for a cap only system. No points for flag returns or for taking flags. However, people apparently hate this.
And to Z, your solution is no solution. Even if it takes effort to lose that hard, the option to FORCE players to spectate is no option. No sane person would ever agree upon this. Selfish, arrogant, stupid, misbehaving, teamkilling and etc. doesn't matter. It's still an admins job to deal with such players not the ACTUAL gameplay. No one will ever play CTF with such system.

Yes, I know that Div agrees with some points, but his last posts didn't give me the impression that he liked this system.

The overall thing should have a simple solution, not a complicated where points fly about everywhere. That is not a CTF game. A true CTF is a cap only CTF, that's the case and that's how it always will be.

Well I can see you don't care enough to prove your points with evidence. Your passion is admirable but your preconceptions and assumptions aren't enough to convince me that my proposed system won't improve gameplay. Letting people continually degrade the quality of gameplay through selfish acts that require EFFORT TO FAIL as hard as they do go unpunished doesn't provoke a change in mentality or understanding of how the game is meant to be played.

Your opinion != everyone elses

Please stop stating things as fact if you cannot back them up with evidence.

My scoring system doesn't change "classic CTF". It attributes a risk to the flag, creating further depth in the achievement of a flag capture while simultaneously teaching new players how to strategize non-verbally.

I have explained from a psychological standpoint how this system will improve gameplay, there is evidence the system has made a difference.

Points aren't "flying about" it's a really simple system, if you aren't willing to sacrifice 5 points to pickup the flag, you lack the confidence needed to be a successful flag carrier and can probably earn more points playing defense.

divVerent wrote:What about, instead, showing to the "bad performers" a shield around the enemy flag point, and making them unable to pick up the enemy flag from the enemy's base, combined with a message "You have been forced to defend for multiple unsuccessfull capture attempts - defend your base until further notice" that is displayed all the time? They'll learn fast. Of course they should still be able to pick up DROPPED flags.

Of course, one would have to make sure that not many of a team are blocked by this. So maybe the threshold would be -10 points, but if more than half of your team has -10 points, only the worst half would get this "flag blockage". Also, the blockage would not suddenly appear when someone else joins (with 0 points) or a bad performer disconnects, but only when you actually lose points.

This is a similar solution I'd agree to, probably even accept over forced spectating... though I still believe spectating is one of the best ways to learn. My solution while not as elegant as this, was just a simple way to have the program admin for you.


Another thing I think can help is an emphasis on the flag score time. I know divVerent doesn't want to add more columns but the "fastest flag cap time" column would also emphasis the importance of capturing fast.

While you hold the flag, you are a liability. The faster you cap, the smaller the liability.

I don't really understand what you mean with back up my standpoint. What have I stated as a fact? All I said is that your system with forcing players to go to spectating mode won't solve anything. They will get annoyed, troll on the forums and then disappear forever. I'm not saying this is a fact, I'm saying this is a very high probability.

Also your system is not "classic CTF". Classic CTF does not force players to go to spectate mode, classic CTF does not give points for flags you take, classic CTF does not give points for flag return, alas your system is not classic CTF. Cap only system is classic CTF. Go play older games such as UT and you'll see (If I'm wrong about this I'll apologize later).
I know my opinion != everyone elses, never stated it was either. However, many people still wants cap only system. Are you just gonna ignore their opinion? Try at least to COMPROMISE, don't shun them away. I have compromised, why are you so afraid to do it?
Also, I say the same thing to you. Your opinion != everyone elses.

I agree with Alien that picking up a flag is a good thing, I say it again, picking up a flag is a GOOD thing. So if a teammate loses a flag HE should be punished not the next guy coming there and tried to save the flag. This is beyond ridiculousness, honestly it's the most stupid idea I've heard. Not trying to be mean or anything I'm just saying my statement. Always thought this was stupid and always will.

Unless you actually meant if you lose the flag but then you again pick up the flag THEN I understand why he would lose points. But don't punish the next guy, he had nothing to do with the flag being dropped. And don't come with "but he could help the flag carrier etc." as firstly, the flag carrier could be someone who acts on his own without hintest clue that he has teammates, and secondly he COULD have tried to help but failed. Then he DID a good thing but he simply wasn't able to fulfill his goal. So now, even though he did a good thing, he should be punished for doing another good thing? Why not just send him straight to hell where good things doesn't matter?

Alas I'm also not saying your entire system is stupid, but I'm saying forcing players to spectate and punishing for flag pickups THAT'S stupid. THAT'S what I'm debating about. And there are people who are with me on that point, like Alien AND Div ... and Torus I believe?

Hmm... I never said my opinion was everyone else's, in fact, I believe it's painfully obvious I'm going AGAINST the norm.

Seeing as how the point system is a secondary system, meaning only flag captures count, it still is classic CTF. There's just an added dimension in personal achievements. Do you read my posts? Do you even understand the system you're fighting against? I know you don't because of the issues I've addressed below.


I agree that picking up the flag is a good thing but I don't think you should say, "Congratulations for making it into the base, grabbing the flag and dying, here's 5 points for touching the flag!"

This hurts the team.

So if a teammate loses a flag HE should be punished not the next guy coming there and tried to save the flag.

Furthering my point that you don't understand my system. OUT OF BASE FLAG PICKUPS ARE NOT NEGATIVE. Only in base pickups are. If fact, you can gain up to 5 points for picking it up. I don't want to confuse you further if you haven't even taken the time to read about my system, but if you're interested it's a time based system detailed in the link I provided below.

This is beyond ridiculousness, honestly it's the most stupid idea I've heard. Not trying to be mean or anything I'm just saying my statement. Always thought this was stupid and always will.

Insults come from a spot of weakness. You haven't taken the time to understand why my system is designed the way it is and based on these assumptions, it's no wonder you think it's bad.

Alas I'm also not saying your entire system is stupid, but I'm saying forcing players to spectate and punishing for flag pickups THAT'S stupid. THAT'S what I'm debating about. And there are people who are with me on that point, like Alien AND Div ... and Torus I believe?

Again, thanks for taking the time to read the post I made above this...



this is my system explained if you want to educate yourself before telling me I'm wrong based on your assumptions.

You made three points which tell the same thing. I have read your system. I don't care where on the map you are, you still should not be punished for flag pickups. That's just my opinion.

[-z-] wrote:Insults come from a spot of weakness.

I didn't insult, or meant it as an insult. I said it as that's what I think it is. Also, I have no weaknesses I'm all smooth like GI Joe's other regions.

And lastly, forcing players to spectate IS stupid. Yet again, this is not meant as an insult but as actual TRUTH.

The only thing that's stupid is you not admitting you didn't read or comprehend my system. Your points were clearly against your assumptions, not my system.

I don't care where on the map you are, you still should not be punished for flag pickups

You not caring and you not understanding how the system is designed are two different things. Focusing on the fact that negative flag pickups seems backwards is silly if you're not looking at it with consideration of the entire system.

From a consequential view, the system is working and I welcome ideas that don't require a negative pickup but still achieve the same results. Something divVerent's "punish bubble" suggestion actually works more towards than saying, "Make it like the old games! You're breaking it! It's stupid!"

And lastly, forcing players to spectate IS stupid. Yet again, this is not meant as an insult but as actual TRUTH.

Stating your opinions as fact again... and even after I told you to read my previous post, you still think I see this as the best solution. I understand that you don't like it but calling it "stupid"? You couldn't find a better description? "Frustrating for new players", perhaps but it's also "frustrating for old players" if these kamikaze players aren't learning from their mistakes.

However, we can drop this argument because I've already said (3 times) I'm in favor of divVerent's protective bubble idea.


I'm trying to clarify misunderstandings, not win an argument. I'd appreciate it if you took an honest second to understand my system before denouncing it.

The word 'stupid' doesn't only act as an 'insult' but the word stupidity means that it's not intelligent or as wise as another equivalent solution. Thus I used that word. Not because I dislike you or your system, it's only the forced spectation I referred to as 'stupid'. If it in fact somewhere along the posts was perceived I did refer to the whole system as stupid I do apologize for that.

But yeah, I too agree that we should drop this. Cause I believe your suggestions, punishing the flag pickuper and forcing player spectation won't ever happen. And that I in fact did read your whole system but convincing you of that supposedly is not possible. But I also don't really care about that either.

So, we're going with my proposal then?

Classic CTF is Threewave's CTF mod for QUAKE 1.

Anyway, take a look at this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7510655150

Upon thinking about it more, even with the protective bubble, I like negative pickups. I gives the flag carrier another challenge, if they can score it they earn points, if they can't the lose points. Is it worth the risk to pick it up? Negative makes you think twice. Selfish players may see a positive pickup as a way to null their death point loss. While beneficial to them, it hurts the team by giving the enemy points for a flag carrier kill and a flag return.

[-z-]: Again. Server has just two players. One is MUCH more skilled than the other. What do you suggest the worse player of the two to do?

If he just defends, he'll never get a cap.

If he attacks, he'll get negative score fast.

It seems to me that the lesser player would learn attacking is futile but he can work on his defensive skill, which would reflect with a personal score. Using the secondary scoring as a tie breaking system, this lesser player could theoretically win if the better player grabs the flag (-5) and he kills the player (+6) and returns the flag (+3)... rinse and repeat. Of course, the possibility of winning is nullified if the better player gets even one capture. But there is still a chance their personal score could be higher if the ratio of flag pickups to caps is high enough (2 fails, 1 success yields - 15 to 18).

Of course, we are all human and optionally the lesser player could ask the better one if he can take it down a notch. On the Ninjaz servers, I try and teach players the game a little more by creating situations to help to emphasis the importance of certain actions. Playing with someone and destroying someone are two different things. I feel like even in the "old style" system, a player would quit if they were getting ravaged, regardless of the personal score.

1on1 CTF is unlike team CTF in many respects and most players aren't too keen on the idea. I love the exaggeration of the strategies myself.

The real question is out to be this. Will Z's system be in place at all? Meaning, forcing players to become spectators and negative score for flag pickup. Will that system be in place cause if so, let's continue debating this and reject it If not then all this arguing is for nothing and let's come up with a better system more simple than this "simple" system, and more newbie/noob friendly, anyone with me?
I mean, there's no point in arguing if this is never going to happen, that's my opinion.
Who is seriously considering to implement this system more than Z?

ai wrote:The real question is out to be this. Will Z's system be in place at all? Meaning, forcing players to become spectators

READ THE THREAD
READ THE THREAD
READ THE THREAD

I said divVerent's protection bubble is a better alternative 4 TIMES!!

And I already said why all protections suck. Can't you read? Have you watched quake 1 ctf movie? No stupid protection/kicks, only caps count and game is VERY FAST, yet the game is played at team level (if you haven't noticed that).

Trying to fix public servers is impossible thing.

Alien wrote:And I already said why all protections suck. Can't you read? Have you watched quake 1 ctf movie? No stupid protection/kicks, only caps count and game is VERY FAST, yet the game is played at team level (if you haven't noticed that).

I probably play more CTF, study it deeper than 95% of the community. If you watched any of my movies or demos, you'd understand that I'm well informed on the boundaries, advantages and disadvantages in the game. Quake 1 had different physics and thus different team play, as divVerent has stated many times related to this topic.

Before cars, we had horse drawn carriages. Should we go back to using those too because they proved effective for their time?

Alien wrote:Trying to fix public servers is impossible thing.

And that attitude is helping how? At least I'm taking a stab at improving the game and not just referencing "the professionals". "The professionals" all started out as hobbyists as well.

We have cars now, should we go to flying saucers, because someone thought that they'll rock.

Alien wrote:We have cars now, should we go to flying saucers, because someone thought that they'll rock.

Is there reason to upgrade? Can you show me the design plans? Is there evidence they fly?

Imho it's not the game mechanics that's flowed,it's only that we have relatively more unexperienced players, "sunday drivers".Don't compare Nexuiz public ctf to quake threewave ctf.A:quake is nowadays only played by hc players,a newby is torn apart in a few seconds (I've played a lot ffa public,and even though I'm not a newby,I've got owned hard).Also'movies are made from LAN matches or tourneys,no wonder you can see good teamwork there (tbc.)

That's why NORMAL ctf shouldn't be ruined by "FIXING" public ctf, which can't be fixed.

From one point,imho it's not the developers task to make the game better,but the player's.You can't force anybody to play better,just because you make them more rules.I bet most public players don't even know how to look at the scores during a match while they're alive (no,he/she is not looking at it while being dead,but clicking the mouse to respawn asap).And what happens,in case one plays bad?He'll get a large,blinking message:

"Sorry Sir,but your team is loosing because of you being an ignorant dumbfuck." ? Lol,that would be even more discourageing,not to mention the player'll get enough,and leave?Also,teamplay is based on teamsays.Now,how do you force that?The minimap is great,but I still prefer the good old teamchat (yes,it helps me to plan my route,but it still doesn't give me sufficient info... hp?weapon?armor?)
Public is public,and there's nothing derogative

Nevertheless that "flag protection" could get implemented. It probably won't be on by default, but could be an option for server admins (especially on beginner servers).

The hardest part would be ensuring not too many players are shielded from the flag, and telling the shielded players CLEARLY so they don't even try.

in this,it's just you can't be sure who you play with.You can't fix stupidity.I'm not telling to leave public unmaintained,but those,who can evolve,they will do so,and the rest...well,you can't help that anyway.
And now,for those self-claimed pros:USE THE PICKUP FFS!I can assure you that there you won't find "newbs",who can't play as a team. I have now tons of idle logs from #nexuiz.pickup,but I haven't seen,but only one ctf match!

sorry for the splitted post,but I'm "typeing" this from my phone,and I'm limited to a number of characters by each post.

[-z-] wrote:

ai wrote:The real question is out to be this. Will Z's system be in place at all? Meaning, forcing players to become spectators

READ THE THREAD
READ THE THREAD
READ THE THREAD

I said divVerent's protection bubble is a better alternative 4 TIMES!!

Yeah, you did say that but you clearly are reading between the lines. What I'm looking for is CERTAINTY. You assume a lot of things in my posts and say things which I never intended to be answered. I asked if your system would be implemented, that wasn't certain, and also by that point the protection STILL wasn't certain EVEN if you said it was better than your suggestions. That's the thing I was looking for, not half-done ideas, but ideas which would or wouldn't be implemented.

Read carefully my posts in the future and respond only to the things I'm actually looking for, don't make assumptions. At least not with me, I'm a simple guy, a simpleton if you want, I don't complicate things.

Even by this point is there 100% certain that the protection will be implemented? Yes I've read Div's post, he says it 'could' get implemented not that it 'will'. So no matter what you think about this matter, you (or anyone else) still haven't answered my original question. At best, at this point it's 'probable'.

Well, why should I "promise" I'll implement it? I'll try in some days, but won't promise that it gets done. For example, I'd need a sphere model for that that's somewhat transparent. Not sure if I can use the shield model used by onslaught control points.

In open source, there is no certainty what will be implemented until it IS implemented.

However, one thing you can be certain of: it won't be enabled by default in the next release. MAYBE in the release after that.

I don't mind what it's going to be. I don't enjoy CTF anymore. I only play DM and Minsta at the moment.

ai wrote:Read carefully my posts in the future and respond only to the things I'm actually looking for, don't make assumptions. At least not with me, I'm a simple guy, a simpleton if you want, I don't complicate things.

Sorry but I have to fill in the blanks because your points are arguing against things I've already clarified. You can't tag on "z's system is going to force specing" if I've already covered the fact that I'm in favor of divVerent's idea over forced spectating... which again... was just the first solution I could think of.

I do read your posts very carefully and I bring to light the errors in your logic to dispel myths and correct misunderstandings. My scoring system is pretty certain... though as I've said numerous times, the numbers aren't perfect, the logic behind it is solid.


Lets recap:

ai: Yeah... so z's system sucks because flags are always negative for pickups and we should make flag captures only count. Also, forced spectating is stupid.

-z-: You obviously haven't read about my system because negative pickups are only from the base pickup, world pickups are positive. Also, my system is flags only scoring. The points are a secondary system.

ai: Whatever, forced spectating is dumb.

-z-: yes, I understand that people don't like the idea of forced spectating and we can drop this argument because I'm in favor of divVerent's protection bubble idea.

ai: I just skimmed what you wrote but yeah, lets drop the ENTIRE scoring system because I don't like the idea of forced spectating. I'm ignoring the whole psychology and supporting evidence behind your argument because my way is the best, even though I have no way of proving it, I have a gut feeling. K guys, just trust me. I still can't drop the fact that these are two separate ideas but yeah, lets do my idea that I haven't really described in detail.

-z-: here's a further explanation about the reasoning behind the negative pickups

ai: Hey, it's me again, why do you want to force spectating, that's stupid?

-z-: hmm... I guess telling you 4 times that I'm in favor of divVerent's bubble isn't enough

ai: omg, stop making assumptions. Be more certain about what you say.



I'm pretty certain I've outlined my system, the reasoning behind it and for the 5th time, we've acknowledged forced spectating isn't going to happen, it's separate from the scoring system and I'm in favor of divVerent's bubble idea. Can you please, please, please drop the forced spectating idea. I feel like you're trying to add it into my scoring system to use it for leverage against my system which is a dirty move.