Only if you wanted everyone to hate you though
Why don't more people play this game?
Djole my friend, I am no lawyer though I could do some PR work.
Only if you wanted everyone to hate you though
Only if you wanted everyone to hate you though
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
Oh yay a rant about meBroodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Sep 11 2014, 12:53 AM) agreed
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=63469
JimmyNighthawk wrote:QUOTE (JimmyNighthawk @ Jun 30 2013, 11:32 PM) "Bavarian Sausage Anti-Ketchup Soap"[*]
-
Archangelus
- Posts: 2376
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:36 pm
- Location: Paradise City
-
Aeropagitica
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:11 am
- Location: Goldsboro, NC
Djole is pretty trigger happy with the boot when noobs are involved. That in itself does not foster a welcoming and understanding vibe from the communityDome wrote:QUOTE (Dome @ Sep 10 2014, 07:51 AM) I can vouch for Djole88 as a good person and as a great asset to Allegiance. I don't think anything he said in his response warrants labeling him as someone who would inhibit people playing this game. The ability to parse meaningful constructive criticism is essential in this game as it is in real life.
Djole is not a hostile person, he only mentioned that other games' communities include MUCH more vitriol than ours as a comparison. His comparison may be flawed by the fact that our current player base is comprised of a much higher ratio of empathetic-players-to-not as compared to those games with a much higher player-base.
What you said to him is worse than what he said to you in my book. Regardless I stand by what I said before and I hope you give this game another go!
We have engaged the enemy and they are ours!-Commodore Perry - Great Lakes Campaign
More people don't play this game cuz it sucks. People use the same strategies with the same flaws and make the same mistakes while complaining about the same things.
After a while it just becomes mundane and you move on to greener pastures.
Or you become ultra competitive and want to add a 3rd (well for some of my squadmates a 4th) championship title to your belt.
After a while it just becomes mundane and you move on to greener pastures.
Or you become ultra competitive and want to add a 3rd (well for some of my squadmates a 4th) championship title to your belt.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Oct 16 2010, 02:48 AM) Interceptors are fun because without one, Drizzo would be physically incapable of entering a sector.
I believe you don't even need an entire hand to count how many people I have booted... I'm sure I had a good reason too!Aeropagitica wrote:QUOTE (Aeropagitica @ Sep 11 2014, 06:01 PM) Djole is pretty trigger happy with the boot when noobs are involved. That in itself does not foster a welcoming and understanding vibe from the community
Also I never booted a true newb. Ever. I don't count booting someone that has played for like 6 months but failed to achieve (5).
I'm not a machine, I get frustrated too.
P.S. When I do boot anyone its because:
1) didn't read the chat
2) didn't TRY to obey my orders
3) didn't supply a valid argument as to why did you think disobeying my orders was better for OUR victory
I don't think I ever booted anyone because he failed to perform.
P.P.S.
lol. I have delivered +10 boots to interfering sf/gs in an already 1v1 dm, but those I don't count. Even after the warning they continue to do the same. What would you do?
-
Archangelus
- Posts: 2376
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:36 pm
- Location: Paradise City
Here's a thought:
Because the playerbase is small you have people who have played this game for over a decade mixed up with people playing for their first time. Sure the Newbie might one day catch up with Drizzo or whoever (like I know who actually plays any more) but for the first few weeks you could give the newb a heavy int and Drizz a regular fig and it's still only going to end one way. Sure the game being hard is not of itself a bad thing, but the skill gap between the vets and the newbs is massive and not easy to breach.
Back in the day we had enough new players that they could play small games amongst each other before joining the main game. That maybe helped build a bit of confidence (although it absolutely led to bad habits too) and got people hooked before they realised just how much they sucked compared to proper players.
Because the playerbase is small you have people who have played this game for over a decade mixed up with people playing for their first time. Sure the Newbie might one day catch up with Drizzo or whoever (like I know who actually plays any more) but for the first few weeks you could give the newb a heavy int and Drizz a regular fig and it's still only going to end one way. Sure the game being hard is not of itself a bad thing, but the skill gap between the vets and the newbs is massive and not easy to breach.
Back in the day we had enough new players that they could play small games amongst each other before joining the main game. That maybe helped build a bit of confidence (although it absolutely led to bad habits too) and got people hooked before they realised just how much they sucked compared to proper players.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
I think that's only true of people who join the game expecting to blow @#(! up rather than expecting to win. When I joined the game for example, my goal was to win games and while I didn't know how to do that (at first), over time I did things like take cadet, etc. and suddenly I knew that by probing (and how to probe) and nanning I'd win games, and the game became immensely more fun for me.
So basically it comes down to why someone enjoys playing this game. Yes, put drizzo in a hvy int and he'll massacre newbies left and right. Same with a regular fig. But once a newbie learns the controls and is told, "nan this bbr" or "nan this miner," how much more effective is Drizzo than that newbie?
Small games actually HURTS this because when the games were 15 v 15 people didn't have to be "jack of all trades, master of them all" to be a good and useful pilot. Jaybird could spend his entire game probing and proxing alephs and be one of the more useful members of his team. Today that doesn't work because in a 5v5, you can't just fly a scout all game and expect to win. There are bomb runs that can't be stopped by 4 ints and a scout that could be stopped by 5 ints. There aren't bomb runs that can't be stopped by 14 ints and a scout that could be stopped by 15 ints.
Our question, then, is whether or not we can pull enough players who are more concerned with winning than blowing @#(! up to keep the game going.
Which, obviously, we can. The proof is in the pudding: League of Legends and DotA, two immensely popular games, have at least one role each where getting kills is actively frowned upon. In DotA, 2/5ths of the team doesn't try to get any kills at all, while in League of Legends 1/5th of the team doesn't try to get any kills at all. Current data shows that there are about a million active League players at any given time in the US alone. One fifth of them (at least) don't mind not getting kills so long as they win. That's about 200,000 people (at least) whose enjoyment of a game is based on win-loss records rather than KDA.
(For those of you who want the logic written out for you:
Of the million people in a game, approximately 20% are playing supports. If people weren't at least ok with playing support, they wouldn't play support and instead just choose to not play games in which they were playing support. By definition, support is a role in which you don't get any of the flashy credit or the killz, and your job is to make sure everyone else sees what's going on and keep your teammates alive.
Therefore, any given game, at least 20% of the people in that game (those playing support plus maybe some others) care more about winning the game than their own personal stats.)
The skill gap IS hard to breach, but the skill gap wouldn't be a problem if we had the ability to put 15 players to a side in every game. With three or four newbies to a team, they could comfortably get confident with the control using turrets and scouts, especially if vets were there to help them out.
What's the issue then? Why can't this game tap into that 200,000+ people who are willing to play support in a game of League in order to win? For that we've got to figure out why people play games.
Forget the whole "killing time" bull@#(!. Everyone gets something out of playing a game, and the question is therefore what do they get out of it? Dr. Bartle wrote an excellent article about it here. I'm going to give a brief synopsis:
People play a game in order to a) achieve something in the game (a win, a high KDA), b) explore the game (find out new ways of doing things, determine the optimal way of doing thigns), c) socialize with others (by chatting), or d) impose upon others (not like Metz. It's more like they enjoy podding someone for the visceral joy of podding them. These are the whorez who chase people all over the map.)
If the people who come here to play this game want to be rewarded in one of these four categories, the question is how well we provide that reward. What incentive do people have, for example, to win the game? What do they get for it? In League of Legends, they get a higher level, more IP to buy stupid @#(! with, and eventually a higher rank if they do ranked. In Allegiance, they get... a nearly invisible rank boost that everyone is quick to point out doesn't even mean anything. What incentive do people have in exploring a 15 year old game? Can they learn things we don't already know? Can the try out new strategies that might catch on or revive old strategies? For that we have to ask what our community's attitude towards this exploration is. Whoring in this game is obviously hard, but rewarding when you can do it.
In my mind, right now Allegiance only applies to new people who have a very strong compulsion towards being a diamond or a heart.
Part of the problem with being a spade is this effect and the other part is that the game hasn't really changed all that much in the past 10 or so years. Figs and SFs play the same as they did 10 years ago, ints play the same as they did 10 years ago, the base holes in IC are still there, everyone knows about the probe exploit, etc. Hell, in our basic Cadet we talk about holding forward-thrust to keep your front-side thrusters from firing. That's the kind of thing a spade loves finding out for themselves, either by experimenting or by digging into the game files.
The main problem with being a club is fairly obvious: if you're a club, you're going to get beaten down by the majority of the player base because aiming is just so damn hard.
(It's important to realize the distinction between clubs and diamonds with regards to this: a diamond will find that they can't pod Drizzo and instead find a different way to be useful to the team. A club will find they can't pod Drizzo and instead find a different game that allows them to kill the Drizzo-type there, like CoD.)
I can't claim I have the solution to this problem, but it's worth thinking about how games get started in the first place. How did anyone find League of Legends? Why did the first people start playing League of Legends? With regards to Allegiance, reviving it isn't a question of bringing in players to an existing game, but rather trying to market it as a "new" game.
It seems to me that so far our marketing plans have revolved around the idea that we have an existing and robust community and culture and pointing out that we've been around for so long. But if we just sort of step back and say, "well, we're actually pretty much just trying to create a new community" and all accepted that I think we'd have a much better chance. So my challenge to the marketing team is this: find out how League of Legends got started and copy that.
So basically it comes down to why someone enjoys playing this game. Yes, put drizzo in a hvy int and he'll massacre newbies left and right. Same with a regular fig. But once a newbie learns the controls and is told, "nan this bbr" or "nan this miner," how much more effective is Drizzo than that newbie?
Small games actually HURTS this because when the games were 15 v 15 people didn't have to be "jack of all trades, master of them all" to be a good and useful pilot. Jaybird could spend his entire game probing and proxing alephs and be one of the more useful members of his team. Today that doesn't work because in a 5v5, you can't just fly a scout all game and expect to win. There are bomb runs that can't be stopped by 4 ints and a scout that could be stopped by 5 ints. There aren't bomb runs that can't be stopped by 14 ints and a scout that could be stopped by 15 ints.
Our question, then, is whether or not we can pull enough players who are more concerned with winning than blowing @#(! up to keep the game going.
Which, obviously, we can. The proof is in the pudding: League of Legends and DotA, two immensely popular games, have at least one role each where getting kills is actively frowned upon. In DotA, 2/5ths of the team doesn't try to get any kills at all, while in League of Legends 1/5th of the team doesn't try to get any kills at all. Current data shows that there are about a million active League players at any given time in the US alone. One fifth of them (at least) don't mind not getting kills so long as they win. That's about 200,000 people (at least) whose enjoyment of a game is based on win-loss records rather than KDA.
(For those of you who want the logic written out for you:
Of the million people in a game, approximately 20% are playing supports. If people weren't at least ok with playing support, they wouldn't play support and instead just choose to not play games in which they were playing support. By definition, support is a role in which you don't get any of the flashy credit or the killz, and your job is to make sure everyone else sees what's going on and keep your teammates alive.
Therefore, any given game, at least 20% of the people in that game (those playing support plus maybe some others) care more about winning the game than their own personal stats.)
The skill gap IS hard to breach, but the skill gap wouldn't be a problem if we had the ability to put 15 players to a side in every game. With three or four newbies to a team, they could comfortably get confident with the control using turrets and scouts, especially if vets were there to help them out.
What's the issue then? Why can't this game tap into that 200,000+ people who are willing to play support in a game of League in order to win? For that we've got to figure out why people play games.
Forget the whole "killing time" bull@#(!. Everyone gets something out of playing a game, and the question is therefore what do they get out of it? Dr. Bartle wrote an excellent article about it here. I'm going to give a brief synopsis:
People play a game in order to a) achieve something in the game (a win, a high KDA), b) explore the game (find out new ways of doing things, determine the optimal way of doing thigns), c) socialize with others (by chatting), or d) impose upon others (not like Metz. It's more like they enjoy podding someone for the visceral joy of podding them. These are the whorez who chase people all over the map.)
If the people who come here to play this game want to be rewarded in one of these four categories, the question is how well we provide that reward. What incentive do people have, for example, to win the game? What do they get for it? In League of Legends, they get a higher level, more IP to buy stupid @#(! with, and eventually a higher rank if they do ranked. In Allegiance, they get... a nearly invisible rank boost that everyone is quick to point out doesn't even mean anything. What incentive do people have in exploring a 15 year old game? Can they learn things we don't already know? Can the try out new strategies that might catch on or revive old strategies? For that we have to ask what our community's attitude towards this exploration is. Whoring in this game is obviously hard, but rewarding when you can do it.
In my mind, right now Allegiance only applies to new people who have a very strong compulsion towards being a diamond or a heart.
Part of the problem with being a spade is this effect and the other part is that the game hasn't really changed all that much in the past 10 or so years. Figs and SFs play the same as they did 10 years ago, ints play the same as they did 10 years ago, the base holes in IC are still there, everyone knows about the probe exploit, etc. Hell, in our basic Cadet we talk about holding forward-thrust to keep your front-side thrusters from firing. That's the kind of thing a spade loves finding out for themselves, either by experimenting or by digging into the game files.
The main problem with being a club is fairly obvious: if you're a club, you're going to get beaten down by the majority of the player base because aiming is just so damn hard.
(It's important to realize the distinction between clubs and diamonds with regards to this: a diamond will find that they can't pod Drizzo and instead find a different way to be useful to the team. A club will find they can't pod Drizzo and instead find a different game that allows them to kill the Drizzo-type there, like CoD.)
I can't claim I have the solution to this problem, but it's worth thinking about how games get started in the first place. How did anyone find League of Legends? Why did the first people start playing League of Legends? With regards to Allegiance, reviving it isn't a question of bringing in players to an existing game, but rather trying to market it as a "new" game.
It seems to me that so far our marketing plans have revolved around the idea that we have an existing and robust community and culture and pointing out that we've been around for so long. But if we just sort of step back and say, "well, we're actually pretty much just trying to create a new community" and all accepted that I think we'd have a much better chance. So my challenge to the marketing team is this: find out how League of Legends got started and copy that.
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.