First off, that was a VERY bad ai imitation. Secondly, you make me look very bad with that imitation and making me look like a child which still haven't reached puberty.
Thirdly you yet again you assume that I just 'skimmed' through (or haven't read at all) your stuff which it wrong. So you try to make me look bad.
Fourthly I HAVE described my system in detail (now who's the one who's not paying attention?), whether it was in this thread or another (can't remember the place).
Fifthly, I never said my 'system' is best, I said it's a compromise of both worlds.
And lastly, you basically just took one concept of the entire discussion and summed it up to describe me which is so wrong to do.

I do not appreciate people making fun of me this way and possibly spreading false impressions on other people. This makes you look immature instead. During this whole discussion I haven't let any feelings get in my way of either writing posts or judging the whole thing. But it seems as you have put some feelings into it and it has grown to a dislike against me. I still respect you and your opinions and never thought less of you during this entire time. I can control my feelings but I'm not so confident others can as well as me.

But anyway, do NOT respond to this post here. If you indeed want to respond please do so in PM. This conversation is getting off track and I don't want to steer it that way.
We've already solved the stuff we've been discussing and no more is needed at this point. What we should do now is discuss the protection thing and what people think about that.

I still haven't made up my mind and I believe it still will be a while before I develop an opinion about it. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Cheers.

Bubble idea will fail like the speed reduction.

Alien wrote:Bubble idea will fail like the speed reduction.

Based on my original idea of a -20 (4 failed attempts), I imagine the bubble would be created after 4 consecutive failures... meaning you'd need to have a 1/4 success rate or 25%... which this poll indicates is just about right. Of course, this could be adjusted as well.

Care to explain your reasoning behind this statement or do you just like filling this thread with your opinions that lack supporting evidence?

I already told you to read why. And this poll does not indicate that your idea is right anyway.

'Evidence' is a wrong word in this concept. No one has evidence of anything. But elaborating opinions is what you actually mean (which you did say so no harm there).
What I think he meant is that, people disliked the speed reduction and that they will dislike the bubble idea as well.

I have evidences, but some people seem not to pay attention whatever would be said here. They instead compare such ideas to cars and horses. Main evidence is that mods on such ideas were created long ago and they didn't survive because good players don't like such rules and noobs either leave, either become good or either get kickbanned.

Saying that Nexuiz differs too much that traditional and tested CTF practice couldn't be applied is probably much more "evident" even the video was presented, which was of course refuted as not suitable.

Alien wrote:I already told you to read why. And this poll does not indicate that your idea is right anyway.

Because it's not quake 1 CTF? I'm at a loss here, please, help me understand.

The poll indicates what percentage of captures people prefer. The bubble would help enforce this percentage.

Play a game with a teammate who has a capture rate of 5% and try to tell me you're having a good time. The bubble is supposed to help those who can't help themselves or their team.

What I think he meant is that, people disliked the speed reduction and that they will dislike the bubble idea as well.

The big difference here, is that the speed reduction was a global change that would punish ANYONE. The speed reduction also changes the physics of the game.

The bubble merely punishes those who can't get a specific capture rate (assuming 20-25% though most likely this would be a configurable cvar) because this hurts the team.

Alien wrote:I have evidences, but some people seem not to pay attention whatever would be said here. They instead compare such ideas to cars and horses. Main evidence is that mods on such ideas were created long ago and they didn't survive because good players don't like such rules and noobs either leave, either become good or either get kickbanned.

Saying that Nexuiz differs too much that traditional and tested CTF practice couldn't be applied is probably much more "evident".

By this logic, portal was a bad idea too.


Please enlighten me as to how the bubble would negatively affect good players. "good players" wouldn't ever see the bubble.

I'm sorry to inform you but POLL IS NOT ABOUT BUBBLE.

Alien wrote:I'm sorry to inform you but POLL IS NOT ABOUT BUBBLE.

I'm sorry to inform you but you don't understand how the bubble will be implemented if you think a poll about capture rates doesn't apply.

[-z-] wrote:

Alien wrote:I have evidences, but some people seem not to pay attention whatever would be said here. They instead compare such ideas to cars and horses. Main evidence is that mods on such ideas were created long ago and they didn't survive because good players don't like such rules and noobs either leave, either become good or either get kickbanned.

Saying that Nexuiz differs too much that traditional and tested CTF practice couldn't be applied is probably much more "evident".

By this logic, portal was a bad idea too.

What does the hell portal have to do? (Teleporter was in UT for your knowledge). Do you argue for the sake to argue? It seems so, so I see no point in discussing again.

Alien wrote:What does the hell portal have to do? (Teleporter was in UT for your knowledge). Do you argue for the sake to argue? It seems so, so I see no point in discussing again.

Portal the game. It was never a quake 1 mod but lo and behold, it's popular as hell. It's a twist on an old concept. It's an "enhanced" idea of the portal.

Portal is not CTF game and it is singleplayer, or maybe you'll inverse word meaning now again and will talk about portal gun. Of course, it is evident that you are right in both cases, without regards to actual portal meaning. Cause this is evident and anyone can decide this from the poll, cause success rates directly relates to portal (game) and then we can say that people voted for bubble idea month ago before it was mentioned, cause this is also evident.

All other arguments are fallacious (quoting TVR) and z's scoring system and his point of view is the only one possible, available. Beware to argue with evidences.

Going to chill out... peace

[-z-] wrote:The big difference here, is that the speed reduction was a global change that would punish ANYONE. The speed reduction also changes the physics of the game.

It didn't affect anyone, it only affected the flag carrier. Now I can probably see your response to this so I'll say this too just in case. Yes, anyone can capture the flag, but newbies probably wouldn't be able to that much. That same way, yes anyone could get a bad cap rate too (happens to me too). I do see good cappers just run for the flag die and repeat the process. Newbies, again, wouldn't be able to even get to the flag with a decent defense.

[-z-] wrote:

Alien wrote:What does the hell portal have to do? (Teleporter was in UT for your knowledge). Do you argue for the sake to argue? It seems so, so I see no point in discussing again.

Portal the game. It was never a quake 1 mod but lo and behold, it's popular as hell. It's a twist on an old concept. It's an "enhanced" idea of the portal.

I don't see how this argument has anything to do with the bubble idea This is an argument for the sake of arguing as I see it. Portal (the game) doesn't have CTF as far as I know (played it 10 times and I yet have to find that flag ), maybe a mod out there has it.

I was comparing your idea of only mods that survived are good. You seem to be against any new idea if they aren't tried and true. Portal was my example of a mod that didn't fit this criteria but was still successful. Sorry I didn't clarify I meant the game, I didn't mean to confuse you, please don't accuse me of flip-flopping.

These changes are intended to improve team play, something the community has clearly identified as a problem. We are trying out new ideas and seeing what's working... but you're trying to shoot them down without reasoning beyond "it hasn't been done before, so it can't be good". I'm asking for more supporting evidence and yes, evidence is the right word. Statistics that prove the success of a system are considered a form of evidence.

My point of view is not the only one possible, in fact, you'll see in this very thread, this very point we're arguing is one I've adopted from divVerent.

You still don't seem to understand the connection between the bubble and capture rates and I'm not really sure how to convince you otherwise... the bubble would be created because someone fails to achieve a specific capture rate.

Maybe you'll come back and edit your post after you calm down, it seems like you're getting a little worked up.

ai wrote:

[-z-] wrote:The big difference here, is that the speed reduction was a global change that would punish ANYONE. The speed reduction also changes the physics of the game.

It didn't affect anyone, it only affected the flag carrier. Now I can probably see your response to this so I'll say this too just in case. Yes, anyone can capture the flag, but newbies probably wouldn't be able to that much. That same way, yes anyone could get a bad cap rate too (happens to me too). I do see good cappers just run for the flag die and repeat the process.

Everyone that grabs the flag.... not everyone in the game. Whereas (still in the realm of flag carriers), only those who fail x amount of times consecutively will see the bubble.


By the way... "good flag carriers that just run for the flag and die" aren't good flag carriers. Good flag carriers bring the flag back to their base successfully.

[-z-] wrote:I'm asking for more supporting evidence and yes, evidence is the right word. Statistics that prove the success of a system are considered a form of evidence.

Well, if you're asking for evidence you yourself would have to bring some too. As far as I know you don't have evidence that this bubble idea will actually work. You have a statement, argument or idea (if you want), but that is not evidence. Hence why I thought the word 'evidence' was wrong in the first place.

[-z-] wrote:By the way... "good flag carriers that just run for the flag and die" aren't good flag carriers. Good flag carriers bring the flag back to their base successfully.

My bad, I should probably elaborate on this. What I consider are good flag carriers are people who cap all the time. However, when there's good defense they won't be able to cap. I was mainly thinking about jlue, Misio, OC (back in those days) and a couple of more. Now I know they are very good flag carriers, but if there's a good defense they won't succeed as much. I consider myself as a good defender, when I defend they do have a hard time to cap but it's not impossible for them (hence their success rate will decline).
This is what I consider good flag carriers, people who can gain speed like crazy when capping, but sometimes they are not able to because of a good defense.

ai wrote:What I consider are good flag carriers are people who cap all the time. However, when there's good defense they won't be able to cap. I was mainly thinking about jlue, Misio, OC (back in those days) and a couple of more. Now I know they are very good flag carriers, but if there's a good defense they won't succeed as much. I consider myself as a good defender, when I defend they do have a hard time to cap but it's not impossible for them (hence their success rate will decline).
This is what I consider good flag carriers, people who can gain speed like crazy when capping, but sometimes they are not able to because of a good defense.

Well.. sometimes this is not always the best way to grab / capture a flag... and when this strategy isn't working, perhaps it's time to let someone else give it a go... if someone fails x times in a row... they need to reform their strategy.

And... this promotes teamwork. It emphasizes the importance of successful captures and discourages kamikazes.

In fact it doesn't discourage kamikaze. I have have never seen anyone stop attacking just because they failed. They just keep coming, and then when a protective barrier shows up from time to time they will hate it and complain, that's what I believe.

I am not convinced the bubble is a good idea, however, it's the closest thing I can live with to [-z-]'s original idea of kicking/force-speccing "bad performing" players.

"The bubble" works like this:

"Bad performers" will get a notice on the screen, and a message that tells them to defend for the time being. They will see the enemy flag surrounded by a bubble, and can't take it from the base. They still can take it when dropped, so they still can be useful.

Now who IS a "bad performer"? Everyone below -20 points. It makes sure that at most 40% of a team get that bubble. So in 3vs3, only one player of each team can get shielded off the enemy flag by it. In 4vs4, one player too, in 5vs5 it can be two (or maybe one, not sure if I implemented > or >= there, but it doesn't matter much anyway). In case there are many players below the threshold score, only the worst 40% get the bubble.

It looks like this:



I hope how this works should be cleared up now.

ai wrote:In fact it doesn't discourage kamikaze. I have have never seen anyone stop attacking just because they failed. They just keep coming, and then when a protective barrier shows up from time to time they will hate it and complain, that's what I believe.

In fact, they won't be able to "physically" access the flag, thus it does discourage kamikaze. The point of the bubble is to show them their actions are not in fact helping but rather hurting their team. They can go ahead and complain... but it doesn't change the fact that they are hurting the team. It's my hope that they can turn these complaints into something positive like, "oh, I guess if I get my capture rate up I won't get fail bubbled".

divVerent wrote:"Bad performers" will get a notice on the screen, and a message that tells them to defend for the time being. They will see the enemy flag surrounded by a bubble, and can't take it from the base. They still can take it when dropped, so they still can be useful.

Now who IS a "bad performer"?

The bubble looks great! However, I had envisioned a slightly different system. I figured more "after x number of failed tries, any player can get the shield for x number of minutes."

I'd recommend 4 failed tries for 2 minutes as a test (25% cap rate). These "x's" can be better determined by your other thread about capture rates.

This bubble idea is going to make the game even more defensively oriented than it already is...

TwEaK wrote:This bubble idea is going to make the game even more defensively oriented than it already is...

Yep, and that is NOT the direction to go. Why do players need to be punished for picking up the flag and losing it? What if it's the team's fault? WHY NOT JUST HAVE NO PENALTY FOR LOSING TO FLAG?

Can someone please explain this?

Forcing a punishment system upon 'poor' performance will solve:

[ ] 1337 solo flag carriers in a team-based game mode
[ ] CTF as a form of entertainment exclusive to the flag carriers
[ ] Fundamental flaw by rewarding inefficiency for the elimination of a target after touching the flag, rather than as soon as possible
[ ] Spawn frags
[x] Kamikaze behaviour

And will result with:

Keyhunt receives a much needed boost in terms of player count -> I support this proposition!

torus wrote:

TwEaK wrote:This bubble idea is going to make the game even more defensively oriented than it already is...

Yep, and that is NOT the direction to go. Why do players need to be punished for picking up the flag and losing it? What if it's the team's fault? WHY NOT JUST HAVE NO PENALTY FOR LOSING TO FLAG?

Can someone please explain this?

I've explained it plenty of times.


The system requires you to fail hard. Most players will never see the bubble. You should never see the bubble. If you see the bubble, you need to improve your technique. You have to try to fail this hard.



If this doesn't make sense, please explain to me why failing to capture the flag less than 25% of the times you've picked it up from the base is a good thing. How has this aided in the overall goal? Moral support? Should players feel good about making it to the flag and dying? Should they feel good about holding the flag as long as they did without ever scoring? I understand the later could be due to a team related issue but this may also be due to a selfish teammate, which, in order to succeed you would have to play a different position on the field because they will _always_ run to the flag. Here it's saying "hey, we need you you on defense."

The bubble is a way of letting new players, or perhaps stubborn old players, understand how to succeed in the game. Something a x% or less flag capture rate doesn't usually bring, unless both teams really suck or are really good. This is where the negative point system comes into play. It gives players a better idea of their overall contribution to the team.

I understand the negative flag base pick-up sounds weird but if you think of in consideration to the common goal, winning by flag captures, it needs to have a higher liability than a flag drop. A flag drop is pain the entire team shares and cannot simply heal because of the associated loss of power or advantage in reference to the match. A flag pickup is an individual pain the flag carrier must have the strength and confidence to take. One who's able to succeed in capture can heal the wound as it was just a deposit.

Putting fifty dollars down on top of the cost of the beer for a keg sucks but when all your friends chip in you actually save (or make) money. Having a successful party and returning the keg back unharmed gets you that money back.

Let's just make this simple, let's vote. Cause as I see it now, a lot of people are against this bubble thing (even Div says it's not the best solution), and there is only one person that's totally for it, that's Z. So let's vote and we'll see what people think about negative flag pickups and the bubble, and not let ONE person decide what everyone else disagrees about.
For instance, what IS wrong with 1 cap = 1 score and a flag drop = 0.25 points (i.e 4 drops = 1 flag cap for the returning team) . That's pretty much the same system except here you do not get negative score (25%).
Now I'm not saying that system is the best either, but at least let's vote and see what the majority thinks before possibly wasting time on something that everyone might hate anyway.
If none of these systems is good then it's time to think about something else, or if nothing gets decided then just create SEPARATE modes, one true CTF and one with whatever crazy stuff Z tries to implement. What's so wrong with two modes anyway, the option should at least be there IMO. Servers might pop up once that option is available.

By now everyone should know the flag bubble concept (by reading up on it), it can also be applied to other systems beside the negative flag pickup as well (I'm really against negative flag pickup, NO MATTER where on the map you are).
As it stands now, people are really against this flag bubble thing, and only Z truly for it.

ai: it is useless to vote for such stuff.

Even with the current poll now. Whatever we do, close to 50% are for it, and 50% are against it. It simply does not matter.

And, the problem with your system is that there are no _personal_ scores for other useful things, like killing flag carriers (i.e. defense).

And sure they will all be separate modes.

I'm not totally against bubble thing but against strategies which could be formed in competitive play or very noob game using that bubble:

1) 3 vs 3 good players with dedicated positions:
One teams camps/defends and lets other team attacker attack and grab the flag. Then they kill him and do this until he gets negative score (-20 or smth). Then he can't attack and their flag is relatively safe from him, so this lurker team can attack in 3 instead of sending 1 attacker and having 1 middle-fielder to support. If both teams employs this strategy, game stalls. It means basically the same what Tweak said.
2) Public CTF:
Let's imagine game is balanced. So good players are distributed equally. Not so good (N) amount > decent/good players amount (usually). Possible situation is 2 good, 6 N. Knowing that N. like easy frags and the easiest way to get those is camping for other attacking N. or spamming around in closed areas, possibilty that N. gets a flag diminishes with every additional player. So the only 2 good players can actually reach the flag where they are met with huge resistance in electro balls, bouncing crylink and hagar splash damage and sometimes successful nex shot. Health goes down quickly in tightly spaced maps cause you even don't need to be accurate to kill somebody. You can easily lose flag 4 times in such situation. After that the only thing which remains is staying back at your base and camp for other good players or N. from opposing team, who are trying to attack. You can even employ strategy at 1) to decrease the amount of good attackers from opposing team. So the situation of both two good players in each team getting -20 is not so impossible and the only way to increase the personal score is to defend. Ultimately, we get 2 defending teams consisting with 8 players and a casually vaporized N. It means basically the same what Tweak said.

The whole CTF thread was begun because div wanted to fix speedcaps. This does not fix the speedcaps, cause bad maps, which allowed it, are unaffected. Those maps and the gameplay in those suck as it sucked before bubble idea. This tries to fix kamikaze, which does not affect gameplay a lot (you kill kamikaze and return a flag). If we count only-caps so kamikaze score is not related at all to the victory of the team, cause it only affects kamikaze. Kamikaze means the person, who SUICIDES and does not return the flag. Yet, you may say that kamikaze might have a chance to be a successful, capture the flag and bring victory, but this only shows that your team lacked defense to stop solo attacker. Instead of fixing kamikazes, you better fix your defense. You increase personal score easier, so here is defenders incentive to kill kamikazes.

Now when the bubble idea would work. It would work when all people are similar in skill and can attack, defend, roam equally. In this case, scores would be distributed equally so one wouldn't need to camp to get his score up. If all team has -20, you can still pick the flag and try to cap.

From the j/k side: if smbd wants bubbles, he should try bubble trouble.

The one thing I liked from the TVR comment is that team should stop enemies as soon as possible. This could be implemented as -1 or bigger number for whole team members personal scores when flag is picked from the base by enemy. Neither this, neither return nor pickup should affect the deciding value: the amount of flags captured.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity deleted about z's negative deposit and teaching neural networks. Don't want to argue about that.

divVerent wrote:And, the problem with your system is that there are no _personal_ scores for other useful things, like killing flag carriers (i.e. defense).

You can add some if you want. I actually prefer to have personal scores as well, I'm not against that, I'm just against negative pickups. The main thing is that you'd get 1 point for 1 cap, and not 20 or alike.

divVerent wrote:And sure they will all be separate modes.

Good to hear.

have to agree one cap = 1 capture point, then just do personal scores for certain things like flag returns, flag capture (personal points also) flag kills, frags, assists?

ive read this negative scoring, and its got a lot of negative feedback for good or worse im not sure, but everything seems to be getting over-complicated...


and i like the idea of flag carrier speed-reduction if it helps to fix maps.