Tremulous Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: benmachine on March 04, 2008, 10:54:42 pm
-
Hi guys,
I'm posting this here because I honestly think that some people are so used to /share and /donate that they haven't even thought about what it implies for the game, and I think its introduction has made many Tremulous servers a great deal less fun to play, even for those who believe it to be a good idea.
Here is a brief list of the reasons I believe credit redistribution systems such as share to be detrimental to Tremulous:
1. It encourages camping at home since you no longer need to leave the base to get a luci
2. It makes it significantly easier for single players to determine the outcome of a game. This not only makes the team balance more volatile and therefore less interesting, it also means that real teamplay, i.e. taking a leading role in commanding a co-ordinated assault, is far less important to victory.
3. It discourages newer players (and older ones too) to learn how to use all classes and weapons effectively since they can just rifle or dretch until their wage packet comes around
4. It makes it much, much harder to defeat a skilled enemy player or make a dramatic comeback from a disadvantaged position since the elites of the team can farm credits from their teammates, effectively neutering the 2000 credit cap (which is there for balance, not technical reasons). This makes games less dynamic and exciting.
5. It encourages killwhoring and feeder farming as a tactic to support a team, and therefore makes kamikaze runs and base assaults less appealing as a strategy - these being the very elements that make many games so interesting, challenging, and entertaining to play.
6. It completely changes the operation of several major game mechanics and plays merry havoc with the delicate balance of Tremulous without any concern for what effects will result.
Yeah, so that summarises my views. I hope this thread will help server owners to think twice about their allowShare setting, and maybe for players to think about playing Tremulous more often 'as it was intended'.
Out of interest, qstat reports that of the 77 servers that report a value for g_allowShare in their serverinfo, 13 have it disabled and 64 enabled. Those 13 are:
[The Void]
I.T.A. Prolinux - powered by servergame.net
++Beer Garden++ Tremulous
Brothers In Arms {B|A}
~Adrenaline
HighBp Trem
PureTremulous
PureTremulous 2
PureTremulous 3
ATCS+@tm
Public@tm
The Linker's Servermaybe you should drop by and see how you like it :)
(also if you count you may note that there are only twelve names listed there. Guess which server is the thirteenth?)
love and kisses,
benmachine
-
Preamble: Just to easify the whole thing, I will refer to credits or evos as "revenues" from now on.
What you are can be described with just one word - wrong.
Meanwhile, I do not play on servers anymore that have sharing disabled. Why? Because without sharing, no teamplay is possible, and any team turns out to be just a group of lone heroes (or losers, respectively ;)), but not a team. Why?
- Sharing off discourages players from building, because they know they will not have much revenues later in the game.
- Sharing off encourages feeding, because even a rifleman or a dretch will go out for kill, just to get revenues no matter the cost, therefore feeding the opponent team.
- Sharing off weakens defences, because you have to go out killing just to get better weapons.
- Sharing off makes you camp. Nobody with common sense will go out as a rifleman when tyrants are waiting in front of your base. So you are just there, waiting for a foe to near so that you can shoot him.
- Sometimes, you are not lucky - you get killed three times in a row. Then, you are out of revenues. What do you to then? Right: You camp! Or you ask for revenues, get them, and go out again!
- Sharing enables you to teamwork better, to be more tactical: If you are en excellent dretch and take down half a dozen humans by yourself, what do you do with your credits? If you are an excellent goon or so and are unlucky, get killed a few times in a row, what do you do? Without sharing, whatever your teammates do is not that important as it is with sharing on.
- Sharing is good for teamwork for another reason: It does not condemn the unskilled player to eternal riflemanship or dretchendom - he can get revenues from other players and try out some things. I got a lot of my skills in that game because somebody once donated me something and said: Enjoy yourself, try out this or that. I did - without having to fear that I lose my hard earned revenues too easily and hardly ever get those again. My skills increased dramatically the time I avoided servers with share off.
- Never forget one thing: Sharing works for both teams!
- Sharing is also good for teamwork, because it enables players to remain what they are best in or - more important - they like most (games are mainly for fun, still, never forget that!), sharing makes it less important if you unluckily get killed too many times.
- Apropos luck: I cannot stress this too much: Even the best player can run out of revenues. With sharing turned off, he is f...ed. Sharing on makes skills more important than luck.
- Sharing is teamwork! It is a very social thing, it glues the team together. You feel gratitude for someone who shared you some revenues, and you are willing to cooperate more. This is a very important factor!
- Sharing off makes you camp. When I have maximum revenues, why should I run into enemy fire/claws and lose it? I have nothing to gain, I can only lose something. But then, well, I can share away some revenues, and go out again.
- Sharing makes the team more important than the single player, because you have a kind of a collective pool of revenues one can pay in and one can get paid out of it. I don't want to miss it.
- I do not play on servers with share turned off. It sucks. It is antisocial. I avoid it.
Even today I used sharing: I knew I am not good being a tyrant in a certain map, but some were. I helped them by dretching the humans out of corners they could not reach and got evos for that, of course. They hardly ever cut one down because humans fled into those corners, but I needed them to drive players away from the long paths where they could easily gun me down. Whenever one of them got down, I shared, he ranted again, and we continued our succesful teamwork.
Sharing means teamwork, sharing means skills get more important than luck, if sharing is turned off on a server, I do not go there.
-
Shareing is good for some things, and bad for more.
-
blablablablabla
No.
-
blablablablabla
No.
+1
-
Shareing is good for some things, and bad for more.
QFT.
Anonymous credit overflow is my only serious suggestion for public servers, on the subject.
-
Stuff
Congratulations on contradicting yourself, spouting irrelevant and pointless things, and saying absolutely nothing of substance.
Come back when you have a point.
-
I know, I write too fast - slow readers cannot read it. But here's something for you:
Some people are jerks. You can't play with them with sharing turned on, you can't play with them with sharing turned off. But with those who are not jerks, sharing is something good.
-
Guess: MGDev
-
I'm pretty sure alien/human are interchangeable, please note if i'm wrong. :o
# Sharing off discourages players from building, because they know they will not have much revenues later in the game.
You either suck at building and like to suicide, or have never touched a conkit.
After not dying for 2 minutes, you get a 175 credit paycheck or an evolve. << Since you must now know about this... I refer back to my statement above.
Sharing off encourages feeding, because even a rifleman or a dretch will go out for kill, just to get revenues no matter the cost, therefore feeding the opponent team.
You learn to get that 2% dretch skill to 3%.
^
I'm sure you did read the benmach... oh wait, you didn't
taking a leading role in commanding a co-ordinated assault, is far less important to victory.
^
The "leader" is in front, he is "leading" the poor riflemen. He uses his "leading" skills to either take the blows, or dodge the alien. Typically, the poor riflemen gets some amount of credits even if s/he didn't kill the alien.
Sharing off weakens defences, because you have to go out killing just to get better weapons.
+ It creates an element of stratagy into this FPS game.
+ This is called Tremulous, not Campulous, you are trying to kill the other teams base, not to just camp and defend the whole game.
Sharing off makes you camp. Nobody with common sense will go out as a rifleman when tyrants are waiting in front of your base. So you are just there, waiting for a foe to near so that you can shoot him.
I will follow the leader out.
Sometimes, you are not lucky - you get killed three times in a row. Then, you are out of revenues. What do you to then? Right: You camp! Or you ask for revenues, get them, and go out again!
.. You tell them not to feed, but you ask them to feed.
If you die 3 times, odds are that the other player is better then you.. so it turn you are wasting team funds.
Sharing is good for teamwork for another reason: It does not condemn the unskilled player to eternal riflemanship or dretchendom - he can get revenues from other players and try out some things. I got a lot of my skills in that game because somebody once donated me something and said: Enjoy yourself, try out this or that. I did - without having to fear that I lose my hard earned revenues too easily and hardly ever get those again. My skills increased dramatically the time I avoided servers with share off.
2 minutes.. pow, a 175 credit paycheck and/or an evolve. OR, you follow the player who has the "leading role" and then you leech off his kills.
Sharing is also good for teamwork, because it enables players to remain what they are best in or - more important - they like most (games are mainly for fun, still, never forget that!), sharing makes it less important if you unluckily get killed too many times.
So you are asking players to only do things they are good at and not improve on their weaknesses. f33d me more!
Apropos luck: I cannot stress this too much: Even the best player can run out of revenues. With sharing turned off, he is f...ed. Sharing on makes skills more important than luck.
Obviously, if he is the best, he can get more money. He doesn't suddenly become worse because he is poor, he can still shoot and dodge, no?
# Sharing off makes you camp. When I have maximum revenues, why should I run into enemy fire/claws and lose it? I have nothing to gain, I can only lose something. But then, well, I can share away some revenues, and go out again.
Again, this is called Tremulous not Campulous.
+Yes. with 2k credits, you can go kill the alien base without worry because you have a something to get you back on your feet.
--
I may have misread or misinterpreted something that you have said.
buuut I know, I write too fast - slow readers cannot read it. But here's something for you:
-
Guess: MGDev
WRONG !
Answer is BenMachines own server is the 13th server with no shared enabled.
-
I'm sure you did read the benmach... oh wait, you didn't
I lol'd :D
-
Guess: MGDev
WRONG !
Answer is BenMachines own server is the 13th server with no shared enabled.
mgdev doesn't have share anywhere in the code, and therefore doesn't have a cvar to enable it. benmachine doesn't have his own server afaik. the 13th server is satgnu, the original nameless server.
-
It is no surprise to anyone that I agree with this thread completely.
Out of interest, qstat reports that of the 77 servers that report a value for g_allowShare in their serverinfo
Hooray for my qvm and things forked from it :)
I like how 8 of the 13 are run by MG, hosted by MG, or have multiple admins who are members of MG. A big thank you goes out to all servers who leave share off, for not contributing to the game's continued decline toward a strategy-devoid twich FPS.
[edit] Forgot that the unlisted one is MG as well.
-
Out of interest, qstat reports that of the 77 servers that report a value for g_allowShare in their serverinfo, 13 have it disabled and 64 enabled. Those 13 are:
What about the other 100+?
Sharing off weakens defences, because you have to go out killing just to get better weapons.
That is by far the most compelling reason credit sharing is bad in this thread so far.
-
Well.... you have those, but also 80% of the servers, which are either:
A) Run on a 1.1 trem client
B) Run on a 1.1 trem server with stock qvm
C) Have a qvm that does not have share
I think most servers fit into A or B, and then servers like MGDev go into C, but there aren't many.
-
@benmachine: ;D :D :)
(http://www.scoutshop.biz/funbadges/935-star-leader.jpg)
@zybork: :o :-\ ::)
(http://www.scoutshop.biz/funbadges/1472.jpg)
:P :-* :laugh:
-
Hmmm....
Zybork: 4-5 times you repeat that sharing is teamwork. Are you trying to convince yourself or others? Since you don't play on non-share servers obviously you have lost the perspective of how sharing discourages teamwork. Share servers have one or two killwores that go off by themselves and supply "revenue" to the rest of the team camping back at base singing Kum-By-Ya. This is not teamwork.
Non-share servers have groups of players, usually organized by a leader going out to fight together. They know this is the only way they can be effective and get "revenue". This is teamwork.
I have to agree with Ben, L7 and others that sharing has really contributed to a decline in the strategies and gameplay of Tremulous. I see players join a non-share server, begging for donations and then whining and throwing a fit when they find out they can't mouch off another players skills. It is disappointing, but then again, this is just my $0.02.
-
http://www.mercenariesguild.net/forum/index.php?topic=704.msg6400
Khalsa
-
If sharing off, then mostly aliens grow big and humans have no money and it ends like humans have no armory.
By me, sharing is important factor if you hunt tyrs and goons.
If tyr kills 1 chaingunner and dies, humans profit from it.
If tyr kills 2 chaingunners and dies, aliens profit from it.
Mostly, teamleader dies first, so he gets less amount of cash back and cant buy bs+chaingun.
Mostly im second chaingunner, i get most of the cash and i survive.
If sharing is on, i heal in medi and share to teamleader cash so that we can rush as a same team again. Same All got same setup or better.
if sharing is off, i heal on medi and must be teamleader next rush. Difference is, teammates have now less firepower because lack of money.
So i have bigger chance to die and aliens have bigger chance to kill me and my teammates.
2-3 failed rushes like this in row, and aliens can freely snipe all buildings, game over.
Mostly, thats the reason why alien won often then humans, slowly draining all cash and feeding on unarmed humies. Sharing gives humans a better chance to stay as a good team.
Mostly i like social aspect of sharing, i give only money if they buy what i say and come with me. It works better then yelling "team guys, wait for team".
-
Mostly, thats the reason why alien won often then humans, slowly draining all cash and feeding on unarmed humies. Sharing gives humans a better chance to stay as a good team.
Stratagy aspect of Tremulous.
-->
Pro have rant
--->
Pro has 9 evolves
--->
Pro KillWhores
--->
1 rant
--->
Good humans sneak around, kill dretches
--->
balance of power restored
.
Instead of:
Pro rant killwhores
--->
Many rant
--->
Many rifle
--->
rifle ded
-
mgdev doesn't have share anywhere in the code, and therefore doesn't have a cvar to enable it.
true
benmachine doesn't have his own server afaik.
also true
the 13th server is satgnu, the original nameless server.
this was also my guess.
Undeference: I dunno. I used all the information available to me.
player1: *hugs*
Khalsa: I seem to recall sending that link to a friend of mine who told me they needed an account to read it. Yeah, the points I posted here were basically the same points I posted there, only perhaps a little more fleshed out.
I'm very pleased to see the amount of agreement in this thread, I was under the impression I was in the minority :)
Metsjeesus: your logic seems incredibly specific. What about stages 1 and 2? What about lucis, shotguns, bigger teams, other tactics? You can't pretend that every skirmish ends the same way.
-
Benmachine, That changed some time ago. Check again >.<
Khalsa
-
/me donates his evos/credits all the time
-
I think both share servers and no share servers have problems. I really don't like the camping that share causes. However, some of that is due to donate, which is an abomination. Likewise, I don't like the feeding that no share causes. The answer might be somewhere in the middle. On no share servers, I'd like to see increased spawn times for frequent feeders. It should be impossible for a single player to wreck a game by dying 10 times in the first 5 minutes.
On share servers, I'd like to see donate disabled and share limited. Share could work with a 50% penalty. Perhaps an individual player could share only 2 or 3 times per game. Then it could be used strategically. On share servers, non-builders should not get free credits for camping for 2 minutes.
-
I have mixed feelings about sharing. On the one hand, games with no sharing tend to yield more interesting and enjoyable situations. But on the other hand, without sharing I'm forced to deal with a rather unfortable conclusion: in order for my team to win, I must kill the enemy less.
I can already hear some of you thinking, "Wait, you have to kill them less? How's that work?"
Simply put (and I hope this doesn't come off as too arrogant), I'm pretty good at Tremulous. Not the best, of course... but I tend to kill the enemy. A lot. The problem is that, when sharing is turned off, I either have to hold myself back or my teammates receive almost zero income. And while I may be very skilled at killing humans, assaulting their base requires a team effort...
Thus you end up with a war-game in which killing the enemy is not necessarily a good thing, because you could be hurting your teammates. With sharing turned on, however, I don't have to worry about holding back. I can donate excess funds to teammates, who can then assist with base assaults.
An interesting solution would be to divide all income evenly, regardless of who gets a kill, and then forbid sharing between teammates. I don't know how well that would work, but I'd like to try it some time :)
-
What a load.
All this debate about whether share is slowly killing the strategy involved in Tremulous is Pure Nonsense.
There are no numbers whatsoever that share has somehow increased camping or complacency, it's merely an individual perception or else one player hears it from another and it solidifies into fact. Lets make a fairly large assumption in assuming share has made it easier to obtain a higher credit- or evo-costing weapon/upgrade/class. So what? After all, it's not what weapon or class you currently have, it's how you use that and for what purpose. Many of the top-tier players (note of clarification: those that I know, almost exclusively NA) have little concern whether share is enabled or not, as they are justifiably secure in the knowledge that they have the skills to use any or most of the available weapons/upgrades/classes at hand to the teams benefit. If you want to peg individual player traits, such as camping, kill-whoring, feeding etc. on share you can. But when that same player is still camping, kill-whoring, and feeding without share, I hope the point has been made that such a minor game element like share will not make or break a player, how they choose to play the game will.
In the end, we're left arguing over what should be a non-issue. Different players have different preferences, and if they're faced with a server that is in conflict with those set preferences - leave. The fact that you're (the reader, not the OP of the thread or any respondents in particular) not being forced to play on a specific server, use a specific QVM, et cetera should in theory negate any right to complain about something like share, and yet invariably complaints arise. There are many things I don't like, whether they're related to Tremulous or not. I hardly feel compelled to stand in front of the Tremulous community and arrogantly act like I can tell the community what they should or should not condone. Like it or not, share has quickly become accepted as a common setting, and although not everyone is in full agreement with it, any decision to remove it from the QVM's or source trunks that currently have support for share would be seen as more antagonistic than meaningful. After all, it is just a game. ;)
-
I have no trouble getting credits/evos on non-share servers. The rifle and dretch are very effective starting classes. I don't understand why people think they can't get evos/creds without their team throwing it at them. What are you doing on non-share servers: sitting in base staring at a wall while complaining there there is no share? GO FIGHT! Why do you think that just because your teammates have full credits/evos and you have none, that it is not a team game anymore? Tremulous did not start with share. Do you think that there was no teamwork for all those months without share?
Personally, I would not mind having a few scrims with share off as well.
-
Metsjesus: Full ack!
Plague: Even more ack! ;)
What pisses me off about those guys who always yell, "uh, sharing is so bad, it causes camping, feeding, and skin cancer" is the fact that most of them simply don't get the fact that sharing is something nobody forces you to do, and, the hell with it, I have to quote myself, maybe none of you criticists read my posts:
Some people are jerks. You can't play with them with sharing turned on, you can't play with them with sharing turned off.
Sharing gives you more possibilites, possibilites that are great! And I wasted a lot of time playing on share-off-servers, until I found out about the benefits of it. Those benefits have their cause in a few facts those "sharing-causes-cancer"-guys did not realize yet:
- In no way does the amount of revenues you get have anything todo with your social skills or good teamwork, respectively.
- You do not necessarily get killed (=lose revenues), because you are a bad. Sometimes you are just unlucky.
- The amount of revenues you get does not necessarily match the level of your skills.
Those are - flaws in the game. Sharing is the way of getting around on this flaws. People who work with you, who are good, team-oriented players, you share to. Jerks, killwhores, uber-campers... won't never get nothing from me.
When I still played on those share-off servers, I used to camp a lot - because I was afraif of losing my credits. So I ended camping, hoping for lucky kills. When I got killed, I grunted, oh no! Not again! Now I have to start all over again - camping for 10 minutes, hoping for dretch kills... Senseless!
Now I avoid share-off-servers, and live happily ever since. On share-enabled servers I experienced much less camping, killwhoring, and morons in general.
Hey you share-off-guys: If you don't understand it, if you don't like it, then just don't do it! But don't get on my nerves complaining about it...
-
What share has definitely increased is people joining servers and almost immediately starting to ask for anywhere up to 5 evolve points, often without the capability to earn a single one using a dretch. What is worse, people often ask this regardless of whether share is enabled or disabled. One of the consolations of playing on share-enabled servers is the ability to make these people shut up. If they take it and die, I can ask them what happened to the last 5 I gave them.
I would wholeheartedly support a patch that made people only able to receive via share a maximum value equal to half as much as they have earned by shooting enemies.
-
Hey you share-off-guys: If you don't understand it, if you don't like it, then just don't do it! But don't get on my nerves complaining about it...
Then stop getting on my neves with your complaining...
Here... Have a complimentary cup of STFU.
-
The people who complain about Share ruining the game are the same people who have put the most time into creating and improving it in the first place. The argument that "if you don't like it, don't play there and it doesn't affect you" is not really valid, when people abuse the open source nature of the game to ruin the work that has been done by those who have contributed positive things. Yes, the complaining about what other people do and how other people play does not have a logical basis, but it is based on an emotional connection that those of us who have it are very justified in having. That argument also has a rather large flaw that you can't play on no-share servers if there are no no-share servers left. As we can see, the number of them is rather small, and more than half are managed by the same group of individuals.
-
Plague:
First of all, I do have a right to complain, however you all have a right to ignore me ;)
You cite the opinions of 'many of the top-tier players'... I'm not at all worried about the top-tier players. They can essentially ignore share as they generally don't need credits and can choose not to give any either. That's hardly the point. It's newbies that are hit hardest by the effects of credit sharing.
Also, lol at the notion of camping/complacency 'numbers'. Of course I can't statistically back up my argument, I have no idea how much less why you'd even begin gathering data for such an endeavour.
I'm also curious how you concluded that share is a 'minor game element'. Simple, sure, but the credit system is one of the most basic game mechanics in Tremulous and anything that changes the rewards and incentives for players could have a dramatic effect on the gameplay.
And, I'm not demanding that servers with share on turn it off. Simply reminding people that the option is there and that they should think about how it affects their game, and our game. Too many, I suspect, just accept share as part of Tremulous, when it isn't.
ThePyro: so your teammates have to work for their food. They become better players as a result and when it comes to rush time you're more likely to be able to rely on them to cover your arse when you're spending your frags on a kamikaze run. Also, your suggested idea almost discards any motivation for you to engage the enemy at all.
zybork: Your first bullet point is plain wrong, at least in the latter half. Teamwork = more kills = more credits. Share allows you to gain funds on the basis of nothing at all. Social skills = teamwork, too.
Your second is not a flaw. Aside from the fact that there are very few significant random elements in Tremulous, sometimes you are unlucky, and this allows for the kind of upsets and changes in fortune that make games interesting. Furthermore, even the most powerful classes in Tremulous will not leave you bankrupt after one unlucky run. You'll need to repeatedly fail to leave yourself penniless, and even then if you have any decent skill you'll be able to find some poor sucker to feed off.
The third is an attack on share, not a defence of it.
It's totally beyond me how you conclude that share combats killwhoring. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
And why are you not afraid of losing your credits when share is on? Because they're not yours? If you beg in teamchat every time your wallet runs dry, you're more a burden than a benefit to your team. Unless you're making a net profit, in which case you do not need share to give you your confidence.
edit: I realise I'm reaching the tl;dr threshold. Sorry about that.
-
When I still played on those share-off servers, I used to camp a lot - because I was afraif of losing my credits. So I ended camping, hoping for lucky kills. When I got killed, I grunted, oh no! Not again! Now I have to start all over again - camping for 10 minutes, hoping for dretch kills... Senseless!
Get up off your ass and go find the dretches yourself. Stop beign afraid of losing credits. You can always EARN more.
And just because share is on, doesn't mean people will have better teamwork. They will either follow/attack, or they wont. I myself never ask for creds/evos when I enter share servers even though it would probably help the team for me to be fully geared/evolved at the beginning. This is because I know I can earn creds/evos myself, especially if I don't camp. Also, people begging for creds/evos is annoying as hell, and I don't want to become just another annoyance.
-
Yeah I can't remember the last time I joined a game late and didn't have enough credits for resonably equipment in less than a couple minutes. S1 classes are *easy* even in S3. Encouraging people to learn to use them effectively is the most important thing you can do.
As the guy in first place, it takes more skill to stay alive and dance around an enemy while you let your teammate get a kill than to chomp him and run away. I enjoy the challenge, when the game situation is right that I think the other guy CAN get the kill/points and WILL before someone shoots him.
-
I play on both share on and off servers....and to tell the truth..i don't see much of a difference.
You have evo/credit beggars on all of them, and those beggars should not determine if share is good or bad.
You have to agree that share does add to the social aspect of the game. It's nice to share, especially to the right ones, and it's nice to receive. So in this sense it's a positive element.
To confuse social aspects with teamplay however is wrong, like some of the share-on friends do.
Since you the OP address sharing in conjunction with not so good players (good players do well regardless of share on or off), share may help to lessen the feed just by a little bit, in that you give the beginner and feeding dretch or rifler something to turn himself into something bigger (like a mara, goon or tyrant) or less vulnerable (helmet + armour), which could give you a little bit more time before the opposing team turns s3.
I often give a semi-newbie the evo for a tyrant when the opposing team has not turned s3 yet, it makes us both happy.
As the beginner takes a second or minute longer to die, he will also have more time to learn and play with his/her current configuration, instead of dieing always in one-pounce or one-shot encounters.
But all in all i don't think that share makes all the difference in teamplay, feeding, camping, or match result. So why not have servers with different settings in this regards as we have now?
If all you want to say however that maybe more servers should try share-off, as there hardly are any share-off server, then maybe yes..the server fields should be balanced a bit better in that regards.
Btw...i think satgu has or had donate enabled, so it's not completely free of share.
For scrims and such..the leagues and teams should decide..and i thought the verdict on that already was share off.
-
- Sharing off encourages feeding, because even a rifleman or a dretch will go out for kill, just to get revenues no matter the cost, therefore feeding the opponent team.
- Sharing off makes you camp. Nobody with common sense will go out as a rifleman when tyrants are waiting in front of your base. So you are just there, waiting for a foe to near so that you can shoot him.
so it will make you camp and feed at the same time?
Share = bad for the game
-
Generally i think that share is bad but in some cases its annoying that it doesn't exist. I hate when i have 2000 creds or 9 evolves and can't share or donate. Maybe if you make over the limit of credits/evolves they should be automatically be donated. Another thing is when you are about to rush and you need 3 more credits to buy a chainsuit but your team can't give it to you. The most annoying thing about no share is that when you quit mid game you can't give your credits to your team. these three reasons are why i play on share enabled servers.
-
_Equilibrium_ and techhead nailed it. Anyone who gets in a game with _Equi_, and gets on his team, follow him! Watch his back, give him room to dance, try to keep up, if you can. He'll be killing the enemy, and raping their base. Whether anyone else on the team is capable or not. Nice cheap weapon, like a shotgun, killing goons, doing the dance, sweeping up the profits. That's how you play Tremulous. Not sitting in base whining for creds. :'(
[rant]And, since my pal techhead brought it up: One Major Rant. Never, ever, ask for evos. It is bad form. I personally cannot stand people clamoring for /share and /donate and used to kick people regularly for even suggesting that I did not know what settings I wanted on my own server. "Unnamed player has been kicked. Duration: Permanent. STFU, whiny n00b!" Also, two other things that really twist my shorts are asking for more than one evo (what the hell is wrong with you? take what you're given with good grace or shut up and go kill something you lazy couch-potato) and joining a server and immediately demanding multiple evos (I've been here the whole time earning my hard-earned creds and you come in and DEMAND MULTIPLE EVOS? Go play Counter-Strike, GTFO, u lame-ass non-knowing n00b.[/rant] :o ::)
If people want to play with /share and /donate on, that's up to the ops, the admins, and their constituency to decide. It is definitely raising a generation of whiny campers, make no mistake about that. I say that anecdotally, and can provide no evidence, but a quick scan through some chat logs would probably provide some representative quotes. ;)
@_Equi_: :) ;) 8)
(http://www.scoutshop.biz/funbadges/1563.jpg)
@zybork: :o ??? ::)
(http://www.scoutshop.biz/funbadges/S1934-volunteers-make-a-difference.jpg)
:P ;D :)
-
Metsjeesus: your logic seems incredibly specific. What about stages 1 and 2? What about lucis, shotguns, bigger teams, other tactics? You can't pretend that every skirmish ends the same way.
Point is, dretch can make 1-2 bites to human and die and if bigger alien kills that human, dretch gets evo anyway. Repeat it 3-5 times and you got 2 big aliens there. Ok, humans get some money, problem is, they often die at same place, difference is they got some arm and bigger gun in hand.
I got to admit, if human teams(4-6 guys), aliens have like no chance - no matter if sharing is on or off. If 3 humans are teaming(no matter what stage), on share on servers they mostly create more money as they use, on share off servers they tend to loose money, because teamleader cant make any significant damage before he is dead and it ends with lack of firepower(because teamleader has no money to get a bigger gun).
Difference is not big, but sometimes enough. Giving to every teammate 30 $ wont change much, giving 300 to a specific guy will change more. Its like a candy for teammates who act good and they will probably listen you or your teamleader. /donate is like button what you use time to time, but only positive effect is, if you need 10$ to get a item from arm, its faster to wait a little then go and kill some aliens.
-
the good thing with sharing is when you keep rushing the enemy base, take out lots of structures while you A) get killed by camping enemies, B) lose all your creds in a very short period of time while the morons camp for no good reason, you can ask for more from the campers to keep pressure on the other team. i have to agree with benmachine tho', for the most part it's just campers asking for 9 evos or 1000 creds and then feeding the other team, maybe even throwing in a reac decon just for good measure (see, i've linked sharing with deconners :P).
i think it can be argued in the same way that unlagged is killing gameplay so blaming most of the current problems on share or donate isn't a good thing.
all that being said i still enjoy the game, especially when some of the older players join and we have a good laugh (unlagged and/or share enabled or not ^^ ).
-
Share and Donate kill Tremulous simply because it takes away any motivation to go out and make money/evo's yourself.
-
Generally i think that share is bad but in some cases its annoying that it doesn't exist. I hate when i have 2000 creds or 9 evolves and can't share or donate.
That means it is time to either organize a rush, or go suicide luci/nade and take out some alien structures. I enjoy the latter, because a decent amount of the time you catch the aliens off guard and are able to destroy all the eggs while the rants and adv goons are camping outside you base. It's especially fun if you are a good luci jumper. As alien going rant to kill a couple turrets as a suicide is a noble cause, especially near SD.
-
Share and Donate kill Tremulous simply because it takes away any motivation to go out and make money/evo's yourself.
I'm afraid this might only be in your head. In these 10v10 public games, it's not possible to have a big enough single killwhore on the team to supply everybody with credits. At most, it would allow me to get a goon very quickly (possibly by pooling evos) and repay a couple other people so they can have goons too. The fact is, when people killwhore, they don't throw away their credits on the first white name person who asks. Consequently, that person, whether a whining retard or just somebody who doesn't have quite the best aim, gets to earn his credits the old fashioned way (the skilled player won't ask without reason to begin with).
I'd also say some of you might be confusing "more camping" with "less feeding." At a certain level, Trem becomes an extremely delicate and extremely fast game. If we are S1vS1 and I'm the only goon (and it's a relatively small game), I'm going to be bitching at my teammates not to be freekills (remember, your dying helps the enemy) while I get them some starting evos. There's no camping yet, the dretches are just holding back not making life harder for the whole alien team by equipping humans. Once we all get to be sizable aliens, the humans ideally have very little base and very little credits. They are going to be the ones camping like hell while we go for a quick victory. And if by chance one of the aliens dies during the base assault enough times to lose all their credits, another alien can resupply them.
Not to mention the fact that friendly players will always share pocket change. A great example that always happens is early in the game on the human team. I might take a dretch down to 15 while some other guy finishes off the dretch. This gives the dretch a basi, but neither human has enough for a shotgun and one human doesn't have enough for light armor. This almost always evokes teamwork. The donor will wait just outside the base screaming COME ON and waving his hands wildly while the recipient stands at the armory buying his crap. Then the two will go off and fight together.
Share is off. Humans with plenty of credits are tearing apart the alien team except for this damn goon who is laughing at them. They band together, kill the lone goon, and now all of the aliens are dretches.
Share is off. Goons with plenty of credits are tearing apart the alien team except for this damn shotgunner who is laughing at them. They band together, kill the lone shotgun, and now all the humans are naked freekills.
These victories are just as well deserved and fun to play out as with share. (Always, if you don't agree, share on is just one option).
You guys talk about camping and feeding and killwhoring, but your only reference is these massive public games (I personally don't like bigger than 6v6 because of map clutter and mass retardation). The fact is there is no feature or restriction that can force the morbidly unskilled community to play in the fashion of your visions. Trem is just a set of rules (physics, weapons, buildings, spawning, stages, victory conditions, hitboxes) which, like any other game, can never be mastered. Like any other game, the object is fun, and the fun is growing as a player by responding to and winning in all kinds of different situations (whether share on, share off, large game, small game, camping enemy, feeding team). It's fun with or without share - the people who talk about either config ruining the game just want to have an opinion for the sake of arguing over it. Who knows. It's remarkable how few opinions are ever changed in these damn topics.
-
I'm afraid this might only be in your head. In these 10v10 public games, it's not possible to have a big enough single killwhore on the team to supply everybody with credits.
I don't know where you play, but I see this impossibility happen multiple times every day.
-
How about a server option: after every map change, randomly set/unset share. Would make things interesting :D
-
I've pretty much made all my points already, so I'm just going to complain about one thing:
the first white name person
It's a well known fact that a fellow named Jeremy will colour his name in the following ways over the course of his trem career:
1) First time playing
Jeremy (what are colours?)
2) OMG that's hwo you do it
^tJ^@e^lr^5e^mm^ly colours are awesome!!1
3) I don't need that many colours, and black sucks
^1J^4eremy
4) I'm a real pro, I'm too cool for all this childish nonsense
Jeremy
(fwiw I'm at stage 3)
Some white-names of whom you may have heard: Norfenstein, tjw, Timbo.
So please, please don't equate no colours with noobery. Sometimes, you couldn't possibly be more wrong :P
-
Hey you share-off-guys: If you don't understand it, if you don't like it, then just don't do it! But don't get on my nerves complaining about it...
Then stop getting on my neves with your complaining...
Here... Have a complimentary cup of STFU.
I don't think it was I who started a "why share off is bad for gameplay"-thread, so what's up?
Share and Donate kill Tremulous simply because it takes away any motivation to go out and make money/evo's yourself.
If this is a joke, I didn't get it.
...or maybe you are just wrong. But let's end this, because, trara!, I just decided to play a few games (on share-enabled servers of course) and let experience judge. The sentence:
- Nobody donates to campers.
- Nobody donates to suckers in general.
+ People who got stuck and had to suicide or where otherwise unlucky, you donate to them.
+ People you can work together with, you donate to them when you realize they could use some revenues, like:
+ If someone has 4 evos and needs only one to go tyrant, you donate to him.
- People who just consume your donated revenues and waste them get no more.
+ If somebody you know enters in the middle of a game, you donate to him to give him a "shortcut" to a better level.
But most important: Sharing is rarely used. Only when necessary, you share. Most of the time, I keep playing.
So, what's so bad about all that?
-
<snip>
Yeah, you read too far into my words. It was just a less boring way of saying that people don't share credits to players who can't make good on the investment.
-
okay: this topic is useless. there is a command to disable and enable share. server owners/hosts might have realized that and said," hey i'll put share on." or on the contrary, some might have said," nah, share's dumb so lets turn it off." but the thing is: most servers have it on. no offence to benmachine cus his mod is pro w/e happened to it lol, but yea we should leave it to the server owners and hosts to deal with this "command"
-
but the thing is: most servers have it on.
of 225 servers queried
23 timed out
77 had g_allowshare in serverinfo: 13 disabled, 64 enabled
125 did not
If I make an assumption similar to yours with these statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics), I come up with:
64 servers have sharing enabled
138 servers have sharing disabled or unimplemented
Just as I'm not stupid enough to make that claim, I'm not insane enough to make yours.
-
Well, I decided to come back to post in this thread. Here's some things I figured should be said. (sorry if they were already said)
~If you have to leave, what happens to your money? AFAIK, they don't automatically distribute, so if you can give them away to someone who needs them before you leave, both of you win. He gets the money he needs, and you got rid of your money so you can leave. With share off, your credits just disappear.
~If you join a game 30 minutes in, how can you get anywhere? You have a rifle against tyrants and advanced dragoons, or a dretch against bsuit or helmet + armor with mass driver, shotgun, saw, basically any weapon. You're at a disadvantage because you joined a game while everyone who was here has their best equipment/morphs. If share's on, you can get money so that you can help make an effort to kill the other team, but with share off, you'll likely be just someone who does nothing useful the entire game, and be reduced to camp because you never have the necessary funds to do things right.
Just something to think about.
-
~If you have to leave, what happens to your money? AFAIK, they don't automatically distribute, so if you can give them away to someone who needs them before you leave, both of you win. He gets the money he needs, and you got rid of your money so you can leave. With share off, your credits just disappear.
When you disconnect, your credits and team are saved so if you reconnect later during that game, you can start from where you left off (this also ignores team balance).
~If you join a game 30 minutes in, how can you get anywhere? You have a rifle against tyrants and advanced dragoons, or a dretch against bsuit or helmet + armor with mass driver, shotgun, saw, basically any weapon. You're at a disadvantage because you joined a game while everyone who was here has their best equipment/morphs. If share's on, you can get money so that you can help make an effort to kill the other team, but with share off, you'll likely be just someone who does nothing useful the entire game, and be reduced to camp because you never have the necessary funds to do things right.
If you are a good player, you can still be pretty effective with a rifle or as a dretch. So what this argument refers to is the not-so-good players who are not effective with lower classes. But there is only one way for them to get effective as those classes, and that is not by their friends bailing them out whenever they need a little cash.
-
~If you join a game 30 minutes in, how can you get anywhere? You have a rifle against tyrants and advanced dragoons, or a dretch against bsuit or helmet + armor with mass driver, shotgun, saw, basically any weapon. You're at a disadvantage because you joined a game while everyone who was here has their best equipment/morphs. If share's on, you can get money so that you can help make an effort to kill the other team, but with share off, you'll likely be just someone who does nothing useful the entire game, and be reduced to camp because you never have the necessary funds to do things right.
If you are a good player, you can still be pretty effective with a rifle or as a dretch. So what this argument refers to is the not-so-good players who are not effective with lower classes. But there is only one way for them to get effective as those classes, and that is not by their friends bailing them out whenever they need a little cash.
Well said undeference. go out with your teammates. Go support your team and you will earn creds/evos guarenteed. A rifle or dretch can help a lot as a distraction/extra damage/cleanup crew against enemies.
-
4) I'm a real pro, I'm too cool for all this childish nonsense
Jeremy
(fwiw I'm at stage 3)
Hahahaha. I'm at stage 4. I've been at stage 4 since 6 or 7 years ago even. But removing the "I'm a real pro" part. I don't think it's about being pro, it's just about having made it too many times to care anymore :P
As for the topic. I don't think sharing is real bad. It has some bad side effects, but opposed to what you state, I think it makes humans less campish. At least that's my experience with it. I'd be in favor of limiting it so each player can only receive 200credits/1evo each death or something like that.
-
Well said undeference. go out with your teammates. Go support your team and you will earn creds/evos guarenteed. A rifle or dretch can help a lot as a distraction/extra damage/cleanup crew against enemies.
Don't forget that even an extra clip of rifle will bring down a tyrant from 400 hp to 250 (goon?) which will make the bsuit that is fighting it pretty much invincible, and will guarantee you some funds for helarm + shotty.
-
~If you have to leave, what happens to your money? AFAIK, they don't automatically distribute, so if you can give them away to someone who needs them before you leave, both of you win. He gets the money he needs, and you got rid of your money so you can leave. With share off, your credits just disappear.
When you disconnect, your credits and team are saved so if you reconnect later during that game, you can start from where you left off (this also ignores team balance).
~If you join a game 30 minutes in, how can you get anywhere? You have a rifle against tyrants and advanced dragoons, or a dretch against bsuit or helmet + armor with mass driver, shotgun, saw, basically any weapon. You're at a disadvantage because you joined a game while everyone who was here has their best equipment/morphs. If share's on, you can get money so that you can help make an effort to kill the other team, but with share off, you'll likely be just someone who does nothing useful the entire game, and be reduced to camp because you never have the necessary funds to do things right.
If you are a good player, you can still be pretty effective with a rifle or as a dretch. So what this argument refers to is the not-so-good players who are not effective with lower classes. But there is only one way for them to get effective as those classes, and that is not by their friends bailing them out whenever they need a little cash.
Lol you win. :P Good points.
-
Should kick/bans redistribute the credits? Not like you want them coming back and reclaiming them...
-
I wouldn't mind trying a day of playing on no-share servers just to see how it would affect gameplay and how it would force oneself to diversify (<---- Word?) his/her strategies in order to play the game like they normally do.
On the note of camping, and it may have already been mentioned, but sharing alone does not always cause camping. It could just be the raw fact that a new player experiencing the game for the first time realizes the base is where all the commotion is, and decides to learn off of other people. I also think we should make an effort to actually teach newbies how to play, use chat, and later on strategize. Sure, you'll get a few known players to camp around, but we're generalizing the entire community when we say "camping is bad."
This isn't something that we can solve over night, so I think this discussion is valid and is bringing about some valid and iteresting points, however sly or subtle some posts may be. >.>
G'day and I welcome all opinions,
King
-
I'd say I agree most with Eeeew Spiders (naturally ;)).
Points of interest:
*A player who is killing many enemies (and recieving many points) when share is off will have greater incentive to suicide so as not to 'waste' evos after reaching the 9evo/2000cred cap.
*A player who is killing many enemies (and recieving many points) with share on will give give evos away so as not to waste them. If he then starts dying more than he kills, those 'noobs' he shared to might not want to/know how to/be able to share the evos back. Afterall, they are 'noobs'.
*It helps the good player to have teammates who aren't so easily killed, so he might keep them high class by sharing or not 'kill stealing'.
*It doesn't help the good player to have teammates who block and tk, so he might keep them low class by not sharing or 'kill stealing'.
*Tactics can be more interesting without share.
*Gameplay can be more friendly with share.
*What ever advantage/disadvantage you have when share is on, chances are either the other team has it too or the problem doesn't go away when share is off.
-
*A player who is killing many enemies (and recieving many points) with share on will give give evos away so as not to waste them. If he then starts dying more than he kills, those 'noobs' he shared to might not want to/know how to/be able to share the evos back. Afterall, they are 'noobs'.
Damn I hate that so much...
-
*What ever advantage/disadvantage you have when share is on, chances are either the other team has it too or the problem doesn't go away when share is off.
not true, aliens gain much more than human by making sure one player has 3/4/5 evos (depending on stage) at all times than humans do by keeping one player at 1000 credits. share doesn't really help to give the whole human team helmet+larmor+shotty (it tends to happen naturally, and it is much more effective than having one human armed to the teeth, assuming that both teams are moderately organized), but it does ensure that aliens will almost always have at least one goon/+goon/tyrant, giving them a considerable advantage.
-
A general note on why so many servers have sharing enabled. (imho of course)
Here "elite" simply refers to any player who commonly caps his evo/credit count.
[Fact 1] The people who control the settings on most servers are the "elite" players
[Fact 2] Sharing allows these "elite" players so have more of an impact on a particular game.
[Fact 3] "Elite" players enjoy this more, since it gives them a chance even with a more "noob" team.
{For my own case, this is because I don't like having to suicide (eg give them a stage kill)
in order to not be wasting evo points. I would prefer to never die and instead have s3 vs s1
with little or no chance of s2 for them. A true victory that doesn't take forever.}
[Conclusion 1] Because they enjoy it more, these "elite" players tend to turn on share.
Now comes the interesting part...
I put forward that depending on whether you like tremulous as more "elitist" game or not,
this may or may not be a bad thing. I hear arguments about there being more teamwork
and whatnot without share. Even this all that is taken for granted, that is not what
the server-owner player base wants. Not fancy teamwork... Just Pure Pwnage.
{Note that if I find a group to consistently do fancy teamwork with I would be far
more open to other possibilities... but frankly that hardly happens except in scrims and not always then.}
[Another Note]
There are three chief ways a tremulous match is won:
1. Money
One team runs out of money and strong base defenses while the other is still heavily armed.
2. Stage
a. One team techs up first and manages to push their advantage before they level their opponents by suiciding.
b. One team reaches stage 3 while the other is stage 1 and crushes them with stacked up resources and better weapons.
3. Ninja Raid
A player or group of players manages to sneak into the enemy base and destroys the spawns and
all means of making more spawns.
<Sharing has the following effects on these three victories>
1. Money
Sharing money around makes it take longer to completely wipe out another teams resources.
2. Stage
Sharing discourages suiciding by giving top players another outlet for evos and lower players (hopefully)
to not get people mad at them or wasting evos. =P
3. Ninja Raid
Sharing expedites ninja raids by allowing players to pool and get their best team members rushing gears.
Without share 1 & 2 are an aspect of huge frustration for players caught in these nets...
games are no fun if you are forced to suicide, your team feeds, or if you get unlucky
and fun out of money when you were the only one keeping your base alive and
you can't regain credits vs stage 3 enemies in time. I find share, although it might make games
longer, makes them more enjoyable for many reason especially to the better players.
The question then is... what kind of game are you trying to make?
One that people can study and practice at in order to attempt to become a legend?
Or one in which repeated playing only makes you not a noob?
I prefer the aura of progress and the dream of glory over
whatever tactics and frustrations accompany non-share games.
Clay[Born]
-
Didn't your mommas teach you to share !?
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128297893467970000share.jpg)
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/u-think-we-share-2-much-nah.jpg)
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-happy-kitten-with-mom.jpg)
-
I say whiners and beggars are ruining the otherwise good donating system. That's all.
-
@kevlarman: I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"
What you're highlighting is the problem that aliens don't have to rely so much on teamwork. Meaning a single alien can dominate more easily than a single human can.
This goes especially so at s1 vs s1 where goons can kill any human in one hit and run away fast whereas humans can only hope to kill dretches in a similar time. The human's attack range is supposed to balance this, but this seems only to be the case with the better aimers.
-
I support sharing ON. No need to argue with you, you can't make all servers turn it off ;D ::)
-
I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"
The problem doesn't go away, but there's no reason to use a system that aggrivates the problem to an even bigger detriment.
-
@kevlarman: I believe that falls under number 2: "the problem doesn't go away when share is off"
What you're highlighting is the problem that aliens don't have to rely so much on teamwork. Meaning a single alien can dominate more easily than a single human can.
This goes especially so at s1 vs s1 where goons can kill any human in one hit and run away fast whereas humans can only hope to kill dretches in a similar time. The human's attack range is supposed to balance this, but this seems only to be the case with the better aimers.
the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage, not that aliens don't require the same kind of teamwork that humans do (if that is a problem it's unrelated to share)
-
the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage
Yes and I say that's a good thing, imho.
That's actually the way RTS games work.
You start with equal forces then as one player slowly does better
that advantage is expounded until he is finally relatively strong enough
to take down the enemy base.
The chance for turn-arounds comes when either the ahead player
makes a mistake or the underdog makes bold move and pulls it off.
That chance is what really makes these games interesting and
imho share doesn't make the advantage curve TOO exponential
since I see comebacks all the time. (Comebacks should not be too
commonplace however and with share they are not... just right!)
-
the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage
Yes and I say that's a good thing, imho.
That's actually the way RTS games work.
You start with equal forces then as one player slowly does better
that advantage is expounded until he is finally relatively strong enough
to take down the enemy base.
The chance for turn-arounds comes when either the ahead player
makes a mistake or the underdog makes bold move and pulls it off.
That chance is what really makes these games interesting and
imho share doesn't make the advantage curve TOO exponential
since I see comebacks all the time. (Comebacks should not be too
commonplace however and with share they are not... just right!)
i meant that share gave the advantage to aliens, not to the team that was ahead. regardless of which team happens to have the advantage at any point in time, share will always benefit aliens more than it will humans.
-
the problem is that share gives more of an advantage to the team that already has a considerable advantage, not that aliens don't require the same kind of teamwork that humans do (if that is a problem it's unrelated to share)
You dismiss the problem I stated as being unrelated. I suggested that problem as it fits nicely with the 'sharing to a single teammate' example that you gave. It makes sense with the idea that share only amplifies the problem and so I would agree, but you think it unrelated so I can only assume you're refering to some other problem.
Maybe you feel the aliens generally being higher class makes them harder to kill than human being generally higher class. As far as S1 goes (before helmets), I can see your point. I will mention though, that humans don't get much bigger (if at all) when they upgrade whereas aliens become large clumsy targets. I often find myself having more trouble with a group of little fast moving noobs than the bulky variety who have a tendency to block and slash each other while they try to hit me.
Just pointing out that an upgraded noob can just be a fatter noob.
-
i meant that share gave the advantage to aliens, not to the team that was ahead. regardless of which team happens to have the advantage at any point in time, share will always benefit aliens more than it will humans.
Ah I see so you claim that it imbalances the sides "worse than before."
The real trouble I see is that dragoons and tyrants have too much of
and advantage in open space and the human base defenses are too much of an obstacle.
I'm all for the teams being unique but I feel that that aspect has been overplayed.
Frankly though, for me, I find not being able to share so frustrating
that it makes the game rather un-enjoyable. With good evenly skilled
teams the aliens are screwed without at least one good goon (or mara) in stages 1-2.
Share gives aliens a fighting chance since in high skill levels rifles tend
to pwn drechs very badly. The trouble isn't share it's that humans need a better
chance in the open field vs bigger aliens.
-
The trouble is that, given you say they are evenly skilled, and up against high skill level rifles, aliens need to adjust the way they play from what they are used to. This does not become that apparent on a map like atcs but maps like karith or arachnid are perfect examples for ambush based evo-gathering in the first stages instead of head-on assaults on humans.
The same goes for humans, when those aliens get some higher evoes it's time to team up and ambush, but in a slightly different way than aliens do it. Humans should create a moving ambush taking care to cover corners and uneven ceilings well, while trying to lure any attacking alien into a kill zone. For hallways this is easy, a barrage, for open areas this becomes spreading out slightly. The only option for the aliens to drive a group like that away is a full on massacre on both sides where your pay-off might not equal your loss for either side, but if you don't put enough in you're certain to lose more than you gain.
-
Maybe you feel the aliens generally being higher class makes them harder to kill than human being generally higher class. As far as S1 goes (before helmets), I can see your point. I will mention though, that humans don't get much bigger (if at all) when they upgrade whereas aliens become large clumsy targets. I often find myself having more trouble with a group of little fast moving noobs than the bulky variety who have a tendency to block and slash each other while they try to hit me.
Just pointing out that an upgraded noob can just be a fatter noob.
Yes this is why the chaingun can turn the game in an as3/hs1 situation.
MUAHAHAHA a one liner!
oops it isnt one line now :'(
-
Played some days ago on share off server.
On alien side, there is like no difference, dretches feed until they are tyrs and after that they try to feed a litte from humans and after that they suicide into buildings and hope to come back before new buildings are build to make more havoc. Some guys just do 1 on 2 of those things. Basicly, every evo is used.
On human side, there is huge difference. Well, short matches are still short, but difference is, when it comes long s3 vs s3. I got a team of 3 guys. At some point we success so, that 2 of 3 are chaingunned battlesuits and we go tyrhunting. We succesfully kill tyr and we lose 1 chaingunner. Ok, refill at base, now we got 2 shotgunners with helm and arm and chaingunner with battlesuit. Next rush, we again kill tyr, but we loose both shotgunners(arm+helmet=2 tyr hits to kill, bs=3 tyr hits, its not so hard to make 4 hits to human team and die). Refill at base, 1 guy got no money, 1 got shotgun and arm-helm and ofcorse third one with, chaingunned-battlesuited and 2000$ cash. Next rush has high chance, that tyr survives and all 3 humans die. Result, 2-guys are naked, 1 guy got 800$ less from $2000. Repeat 2-3 times, and you got no money. Ok, you manage to kill sometimes tyr, highest damage done human (bs chaingunner) has 2000$ so most of the money that tyr gives goes to him, 200-300 is shared by killed teammates, that means 500-600$ is wasted. And on long matches, it will make the difference.
Well, i took some time to find a different approach, and surprise surpise, camping. Sprint if you see a goon, wait until tyr come to you and try to block it/trap it. Shoot dretches for free cash, do not even think to go outside and hunt if your team got no money.
ps.
I whose that chaingunner, most of times i got money and i lead the team -> get first 1-2 hits and then shooting from safe distance while other teammates dance with tyr and die.
-
to land 3 headshots on a bsuit, a tyrant needs at least 2.25 seconds (assuming you stand still and take all of them), in 2 seconds 3 chainguns will have already done 450 damage (this is ignoring that a few bullets could miss, but not 50 damage worth, and humans have the advantage of range, and if the tyrant misses a single headshot he's absolutely screwed). in 2 seconds one chaingun and two shotguns will do 374 damage, so if the tyrant switches targets at any time he's dead (since then he has to land 4 hits to get a single kill). i think your problem was that the tyrant had better aim than your chainsuits.
-
to land 3 headshots on a bsuit, a tyrant needs at least 2.25 seconds
You are right and wrong. In gameplay time to time i fight as a tyr with 3 bs chaingunners, if i dont miss, i usually take 1 down and even can make 1-2 hit to another human until i die. Difference is, tyrs charge from a corner and do 1 hit before humans can pull triggers in their guns. That is favor to tyr.
So, here are calculations when everything is perfect.
CHAINGUN
damage: 6
repeat: 80ms
dps: 75
claw damage: 100
claw range: 128
claw repeat: 750ms
1.Charge+2 hits
charge(0)+2xclaw(750) =>1500 msec
2.charge+1 hit to react +1 hit time full damage
charge(0)+1xclaw(0)+1claw(750) =>750 msec
3.three hit
3xclaw=2250 msec
Damage done
1500 msec
6*1500/80=112,5 damage
750 msec
6*750/80=56,25 damage
2250 msec
6*2250/80=168,75 damage
3 chaingunners do damage and after that how much time left to 2 chaingunners
1500 msec
3*112,5=337 damage until 1 chaingunner dead
64/(6*2)=5-6 shots needed=400-480 msec -> 1 claw
750 msec
3*56,25=168,75 damage until 1 chaingunner dead
231,25/(6*2)=19-20 shots needed=1500-1600 msec -> 2 claws
2250 msec
3*168,75=506,25 damage until 1 chaingunner dead
Chainguns bullets spread alot, so it takes a little more time, on other hand, charge takes a little time to come near to human. If tyr wont miss, he will kill 1 chaingunner and hit other one 1-2 times. my gameplay confirms it so its more like it should
-
Here's an example where sharing is good:
I was a noob player in my first match, trying to dretch. I see one player as a tyrant rushing base, and he comes back, not dead( I will refer to him as Bob). Then in the chat I hear that the humans have called a vote to kick Bob. They all vote yes, but before he got kicked, he shared his evos with the rest of the team. Therefore, the humans do not have a huge advantage. Without sharing, we would have been stuck with our main attacker lost, and a few dretches, maybe a basi.
Moral: Sharing is good for game play, and prevents abuse of power.
-
Here's a point of interest about your example:
What was he kicked for? He was the 'main attacker' with the all those evos after all.
If he was a botter then those evos weren't earned and so your team wouldn't deserve them.
-
A tyrant botter? I don't know, I'd just joined the server and I saw him running off to human base, than coming back.
If he was a botter, than why would he come back? Botters usually don't care they die, he would have suicided to take down defenses or at least have to respawn, but he came back to heal, which sounds wierd for a botter.
-
The other team was probably a bunch a noobs who just wanted to kick him to get an advantage.
-
That's a problem with noobs calling votekicks for no reason, and lack of adminship... not an issue of share or no share.
-
You shouldn't say "share fixed it" you should have said you did the right things and quit straight away, and reported them to the server admins.
Unless of course you think such actions are acceptable....
-
I usually play on share-enabled servers and rarely use the feature...except to help out a friendly player or something along those lines.
-
Sometimes as alien I'll just dretch and share away all my evos. 8)
-
Games were more challenging before share. Now I can sit around and feed off of my teammates if I'm in the mood.
People were less annoying before share. God, the credit begging, please make it stop. I used to hang around servers where there was a "hard line" on begging, which was crap. There was still begging. Get your own goddamn evos you little girl. (no offense ladies ;) ) Of course someone will say that there's no begging on their server, and I go and see begging, like always.
There was less bragging, and the bragging there was, was well placed. People who got evos/credits upgraded and got more kills as a result. People who didn,t didn't so they didn't as a result. :P Now everyone and their grandmother is a tyrant running around like they kick ass because of it. Bleh. I suck, most of you suck too, you're just liars relying on share/donate.
Tremulous does a much worse job of scaring off the whiny little kids with all this share going around. Before share, the whiny little kids quit whining when they got some skill, or their little ritalin addled minds got bored and went elsewhere. Now they just whine more and never get enough skill to last in a no share game, or to stop whining for that matter.
Sharing can be kinda fun, if you don't actually want to play, but just want to go kill some shit without being bothered with having to work at it. Course, %98 of all the other FPS' out there are like that, so its really not needed here.
-
I agree with everything Tuple said. However, on the no share servers I would love something to be done to minimize the impact of feeders. I played in a game the other day (I think on Pure Trem) where one guy on my team had around 20 feeds in the first 7 or 8 minutes. And zero kills. We tried reasoning with him, and I think a kick vote was made, although of course the other team loved him being there. Would anyone else like to see spawn time be a function of your feeds? (others jump ahead of you in the queue)
-
There's always a challenge in trying to differentiate the malicious feeders from the true newbs. There's not any real statistical way to do so. I see some servers that tell me I'm feeding when I blow 3 dretches in s3 after losing the tyrant I just stayed alive with ever since hitting goon in s1, and I laugh my ass off. It's real tricky to devise a system that would work. Changing queue position is better than kicking, but it would still screw over good players too.
You have the option of team kickvotes (which can actually pass, due to my mods to teamvotes), though admittedly feeding kickvotes may be cancelled if a present admin doesn't feel it's malicious, as puretrem is intended to be somewhat newb friendly.
-
I don't think it's necessary to differentiate between types of feeders (which, as you said, is likely impossible). However, some very straightforward mods could have the desired impact. I am only interested in reducing the ability of a single feeder to cause the other team to advance stages. When each player dies, the following is calculated. (pardon my pseudo code) BTW, this is off the top of my head. I'm more interested in the concept than the specific logic below.
constant
@Std = Standard Spawn Time (i.e., the amount of time it takes to spawn with one node/egg and no one in the queue)
variables
@feeds = how many feeds has the player had in the last 90 seconds or since the last kill, whichever is lower
@spawntime = if @feeds > 2 then [(@feeds - 1)^2 * @Std]/2 else @Std
- this all gets disabled when the opponent reaches S3
- it could also be disabled if the OM/reactor is attacked
Even moderately experienced players would rarely be affected by this. On your third consecutive feed in 90 seconds, your spawn time is doubled. If you manage to feed a fourth time in 90 seconds, you get 4.5x std spawn time. At this point a simple warning message would let newbies know that they are helping the other team advance stages, and they need to be more careful. If you feed as fast as you can, you can expect perpetual 4.5x spawns (I'm not sure it's possible to get to 8x, but it might be) after the third feed until the opponent reaches S3. That covers malicious feeders.
What do you think? Don't get too caught up in the logic, unless you can improve it.
-
Well, i took some time to find a different approach, and surprise surpise, camping. Sprint if you see a goon, wait until tyr come to you and try to block it/trap it. Shoot dretches for free cash, do not even think to go outside and hunt if your team got no money.
YOU GOT IT! full ack.
-
I would like to build in some game logic so that poor players on a team don't impact the likelihood that the better team will win. Perhaps we can make it an all bot game, and I can just join and watch a bot play for me, one who is no better, and no worse than the players on the opposite team. That way it is fair and I don't have to deal with people doing dumbshit things, like feeding like I used to just cause they aren't that good yet.
Anyone who doesn't differentiate between types of feeders has only dealt with newb players, not noobs who will feed maliciously specifically to see how fast they can ruin a match without deconning. Feeding is usually what happens when you try a new tactic for a few games, one you see really really good players trying, and it doesn't work out at all. Or you're 1-2 months into the game.
A really good player takes the hits as they come, and they will come, and adjusts their strategy as needed to account for the varying capabilities of their teammates. I've sat back and let my team feed an overall weaker human team, and as the human team attacked I racked up the kills, staged up, and pushed the humans back.
Not to be a complete asshole, although I can be at times, ;) but feeding isn't the problem. Your inability to deal with it is. :)
-
Anyone who doesn't differentiate between types of feeders has only dealt with newb players, not noobs who will feed maliciously specifically to see how fast they can ruin a match without deconning. Feeding is usually what happens when you try a new tactic for a few games, one you see really really good players trying, and it doesn't work out at all. Or you're 1-2 months into the game.
Try to stay practical. My proposed mod allows players to experiment and only gives them a nudge when the feeding becomes preposterous. Also, newer players often don't understand staging. My suggestion (or something akin) is far better than have their team cursing at them and trying to kick them.
A really good player takes the hits as they come, and they will come, and adjusts their strategy as needed to account for the varying capabilities of their teammates. I've sat back and let my team feed an overall weaker human team, and as the human team attacked I racked up the kills, staged up, and pushed the humans back.
Thanks for helping my argument. You managed to push back an overall weaker opponent. Good thing you weren't evenly matched (or worse), or their base attack probably would've ended the game. A really good player recognizes feeding on the opposition and translates it into a sub 10 minute win.
Not to be a complete asshole, although I can be at times, ;) but feeding isn't the problem. Your inability to deal with it is. :)
I think you missed asshole and wound up somewhere near douchebag territory.
-
constant
@Std = Standard Spawn Time (i.e., the amount of time it takes to spawn with one node/egg and no one in the queue)
variables
@feeds = how many feeds has the player had in the last 90 seconds or since the last kill, whichever is lower
@spawntime = if @feeds > 2 then [(@feeds - 1)^2 * @Std]/2 else @Std
When you say 'the last 90 seconds' do you mean the last 90 seconds of play? Otherwise their spawn times will fluctuate as the added time affects the rate at which they can feed. Consider the case of when their spawn time is equal to their 'judgement time' (10 feeds aprrox. taking standard to be 1 second approx. though spawning is instant when nobody is in queue). They wouldn't be punished for dying instantly for the next two times. Each time their spawn time grows too large it would 'renew' and have to build up again. Maybe this is good for those who want to change thier habits but it hardily seems rigorous.
Also, I hope you realise that this would no longer be a FIFO system which makes it a lot more ugly to handle.
-
When you say 'the last 90 seconds' do you mean the last 90 seconds of play?
Yes, that is exactly what I mean Nux. I could've been more clear.
Also, I hope you realise that this would no longer be a FIFO system which makes it a lot more ugly to handle.
I agree this adds unnecessary complication. To simplify things instead of calculating spawn time it could calculate time to enter the queue. That's probably much cleaner and it retains the FIFO logic already in place.
-
I think it would worth a test to see what happens if the 'kills needed counter' would be visible for both teams.
it's so simple yet so obvious, that it may change some (feeder) game habits almost instantly.
however, the suprise of the stage changes would lost (what also happens on maps that are using stage counting as a trigger method, like Uncreation or UTCS)... what I would miss.
-
when the feeding becomes preposterous. Also, newer players often don't understand staging.
feeding that is "preposterous" changes based on the team situation. Sometimes ya gotta feed, sometimes its bad. Perhaps we should just require half the people on the server to watch the other half and critique them so noone does anything stupid?
edit: forgot to mention, I've seen "old" players that don't understand staging, and think the only goal is stage 3, so, whatever.
Thanks for helping my argument. You managed to push back an overall weaker opponent. Good thing you weren't evenly matched (or worse), or their base attack probably would've ended the game.
Uh, the weaker team in terms of skill and strategy lost. The stronger team in terms of skill and strategy won, DESPITE the feeding of new players. How exactly does that help your argument? If the other team was better, they would have won with one of their base runs. They would then be a better team. My team won because we were an overall better team even with feeders, the better players knew how to counter it. If you can't counter it, YOU are not a better player.
I think you missed asshole and wound up somewhere near douchebag territory.
wow, you're a prick and you're stupid, DOUBLE WIN! Maybe you should learn to not suck, then I might care about your feeding complaints.
-
You're a prick and you're stupid, DOUBLE WIN! Maybe you should learn to not suck, then I might care about your feeding complaints.
Try re-reading the last several messages you've sent my direction and notice your attacking, mean-spirited tone and insults, none of which are lessened by the inclusion of a smiley face at the end. I've been nothing but polite, and I certainly haven't gotten that back from you in response. As far as learning not to suck goes... if you want to compare skills in-game, let me know where you usually play. We can settle who sucks more quite easily.
-
I've been nothing but polite
I think you missed asshole and wound up somewhere near douchebag territory.
-
Until that point, obviously. One can only take so much drama and attitude before getting tired of it.
Tuple and I can use private messages if we really want to discuss this further. Let's not ruin the topic.
-
"attacking, mean-spirited tone"
If you can successfully read tone from printed text, congratulations, you are the only person on this planet who never sends an email that is misinterpreted because the douchebag on the other end THINKS he can read tone from printed text. Authors spend a lot of time perfecting it, so you should start teaching classes on it.
As far as your little pissing contest goes, I have clean pants so I don't take part in such things. I'm sure you'll find some other way to expend your excess testosterone.
This is aside from the fact that I haven't stated that I'm all that good. I only stated an example that demonstrates that your theory is at the very least incomplete, and very potentially flawed. Incidentally, my example is generic, representing many, many, many such matches I've played across many servers using many different names, covering many years. Thats 5 many too many for me to discount the many's.
You see, I am not a twitch gamer, I like the strategy. I can clearly see how feeding can have a strategic advantage in many situations. I can see how an opponent feeding on your teammate will become overconfident and leave their base less defended, and will devote less resources to building a secure base, or will not be so critical of the newb builder since they are convinced that they will win. I particularly enjoy watching the opponent go in for that last base run to take out the aliens while I mara hop their RC and leave them little to come back to. They'll get a lot more kills than me. I don't care, I will win.
Feeding isn't the problem, players who think everyone else ruins the match for them is.
How can you marshal your other teammates into a strategy that takes the feeder into account? How can you give a suggestion that helps the feeder actually get kills? I've PMd feeders and given suggestions that they take, and then thank me for. Do it in public, and they may feel embarrassed and ignore you, or feel like you are being haughty. Maybe your problem is that you know how to benefit your team, but don't really know how to work with them.
In any event, people spend far too much time complaining about, and trying to fix team problems by modifying the server.
-
[quote author=tuple lI can clearly see how feeding can have a strategic advantage in many situations. I can see how an opponent feeding on your teammate will become overconfident and leave their base less defended, and will devote less resources to building a secure base, or will not be so critical of the newb builder since they are convinced that they will win. I particularly enjoy watching the opponent go in for that last base run to take out the aliens while I mara hop their RC and leave them little to come back to. They'll get a lot more kills than me. I don't care, I will win.
Feeding isn't the problem, players who think everyone else ruins the match for them is.
[/quote]
wow-wow-wow, please necro my oooold "the way of the feeder" topic :-) i maximally agree.
-
Note: If 3 people on aliens camp, they can have an Dragoon in just over 2 minutes, with no work at all.
Same goes for MD, batt-pack, and l-armour.
-
Note: If 3 people on aliens camp, they can have an Dragoon in just over 2 minutes, with no work at all.
Same goes for MD, batt-pack, and l-armour.
srsly, who the heck is gonna ask all of his team members to send all their evos/credits to him with success in a regular game???
people are just greedy enough to not to share their stuff away so easy.
the guys who are sharing are having overflow of rewards or wants to be specialised in lower classes or equipments. or the team really badly needs some special class, or some buddy is in the group.
on share/donate servers, sharing is not that common as it's theoretically suspected here. most of the dudes doesn'T even know how to do that, or cannot afford it.
and does who does, are not mindlessly giving away the points.
such as most of us doesn'T pay a tyrant to an übernoob just to add +hundreds of credits to the enemy.
the typical tremulous player is not running with an average 5 evos / 1000 credits while still evolved/equipped.
-
Two words: Clan matches
Seriously breaks clan matches, share does. Many clan servers with share on forget to turn it off for scrims.
-
Sharing/donations mode would be disabled by default.
so easy then :-)))
-
Feeding isn't the problem, players who think everyone else ruins the match for them is.
How does that old saying go? ah yes!, Every cloud has a silver lining.
We should change it to: Every flame war has a correct view.
-
Note: If 3 people on aliens camp, they can have an Dragoon in just over 2 minutes, with no work at all.
Same goes for MD, batt-pack, and l-armour.
on share/donate servers, sharing is not that common as it's theoretically suspected here. most of the dudes doesn'T even know how to do that, or cannot afford it.
and does who does, are not mindlessly giving away the points.
such as most of us doesn'T pay a tyrant to an übernoob just to add +hundreds of credits to the enemy.
the typical tremulous player is not running with an average 5 evos / 1000 credits while still evolved/equipped.
um, yes it is. i was (as far as i know) the first one to put /share on a US server. i was there to see how cool it is, and to see it broken before many players had even heard of it.
-
Sharing is great when you play with experienced players, and players who respect eachother. It's a good way for experienced players to, together, finish a game when their team is not adequate.
Also, the 'tone' of share-enabled games seems to be more friendly (and social), too (apart from the beggars, ofcourse), perhaps because newbies aren't being badmouthed by "experienced" players who don't understand what politeness is about (in my opinion, you can't call yourself an experienced Tremulous player if you're badmouthing your teammates).
I fully agree, though, with the motion that neither share-enabled or share-disabled is 'perfect'. We'll need to find a compromise somewhere. Perhaps something like giving human players X ammount of credits every second, and giving aliens something like that, too (say, X evo points per second, where a Tyrant would cost 1000 evo points, or something), and temporarily increase X when a kill is made.
-
Experienced players, together, team not adequate. Contradiction.
Share-enabled affects the 'tone' of games? Compared to what? Experienced players will badmouth newbies if they lack politeness no matter if share is on or not. And you can call yourself an experienced player even when you're badmouthing teammates, you just can't call yourself nice.
Dumbing down a game for the lowest common denominator will just result in a bad experience for everyone. People need to learn, and that includes feeding and living with other people feed on your team.
-
Always look on the briiiight side of share, tadam, tadmtadam-tadam...
Now let's all whistle! ;D
-
My two euro cents
I stopped playing on share on servers because the effect it had on games when both teams were full of veteran gamers. *insert pro goon* was almost always able to goon up the rest of the team. It became very frustrating to 24/7 be chasing goons. That said I now play the role of the retarded and abusive admin on satgnu.
Off topic: my nicks are usually white ;D
-
credit sharing is not bad for gameplay! I bet you credit share all the time
-
I hate share because you can dominate a team, especially campers, but it seems like there is no consequence.
Someone somewhere will feed them more credits, usually from feeders on your team, and it is a big cycle. At some point, the weaker players should end up broke and the stronger players should have more resources. That leads to a close of the game. But since players can respawn indefinitely, as long as there are feeders rushing their base, there are credits, and as long as there is share, everyone can be equally armed.
Share is good because it rewards the whole team but at some point, the individual units of a team should earn their reward.
~If you join a game 30 minutes in, how can you get anywhere? You have a rifle against tyrants and advanced dragoons, or a dretch against bsuit or helmet + armor with mass driver, shotgun, saw, basically any weapon. You're at a disadvantage because you joined a game ...
You can still contribute. But with share, you don't have to learn to. You can just beg until someone with skills does the work for you.
If a team is down or broke, the match needs to end. I think people try to extend games far beyond what they should last. Camping mentality.
I'm afraid this might only be in your head. In these 10v10 public games, it's not possible to have a big enough single killwhore on the team to supply everybody with credits.
Yes it is very possible to have someone to kill whore and share with his team until everyone is at least armed. But that is because a player worth being called 'good' is able to exploit the enemy. Unless teams are evenly matched, the best player can usually pick apart the other team. This happens all the time when it comes to stage progression. Credits are no different.
to land 3 headshots on a bsuit, a tyrant needs at least 2.25 seconds (assuming you stand still and take all of them), in 2 seconds 3 chainguns will have already done 450 damage.
Purely depends on the situation. If the chaingunners are in the open and the tyrants rushes them, then it is possible for them to DPS the tyrant down in 2-3 seconds. Most of the game is in hallways with cover and no, it is hard to get 3 guns on 1 rant while he is moving around. Hell, a decent tyrant will force you shoot your teammate by placing his target between himself and any assisting enemies. Any tyrant worth his salt can ambush (note ambush or surprise) and kill 2 battlesuits consistently.
Ultimately, with share, it breaks the stage 3 game down. The more upgrades you get, more effective you are at getting credits. So, a good player can feed his team credits or evos and then you have a map of tyrants or battlesuits. Without share, in order for a team to get that much firepower, each player has to earn it. A map full tyrants or battlesuits means that a smart player would camp in that case as to not feed due to not having enough credits. You can say that both teams have access to share and that keeps the 'arms race' balanced but as we all know, a team full of tyrants is a lot more powerful than credit rich team of humans. The game isn't balanced around share.
-
To temple:
That's why I hate tyrants.
Too powerful by far.
I'm neutral on credit sharing. I haven't played any share off games, all the servers which aren't super high (100+) ping for me have sharing enabled.
As little as sharing tends to come my way unless I ask (which I only do if the team really needs me, a decent marauder, to help an attack going bad), I don't think it would effect me much.