|
I am the author of PeepMode (or "1v1 Obs - Map of the Day"), a popular mod that aims to improve the spectator experience in SC2 melee play. I am considering a new project with a similar goal and am seeking feedback from the community during the design phase. It was suggested in the PeepMode thread (see http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226035) that a "Team League" version of PeepMode should be made.
-= TEAM LEAGUE PEEPMODE =-
The general idea is to follow the GSL Team League format (see http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/GOMTV_Global_Starcraft_II_Team_League). Following this format, all the players who join the game (between 6 and 10) would be split into two teams. Each team would vote on a player to represent them, and those two players would battle each other in a standard melee match. The observing teammates would be able to strategize and suggest actions to their player. The teammates would NOT be able to see through fog of war; their vision would be the same as that of the player (albeit with their own camera controls). After each match, the winning player would get first dibs on playing for his team and the other player would be eliminated from the selection pool. Matches continue until one team is fully eliminated.
Cash would be awarded to members of the winning team after each match, with more cash going to the actual player. Team members would receive a larger sum for eliminating the opposing team. Items like avatars, pets, and decals could be purchased as money was accrued over multiple games.
Before I spend serious time on this, I am seeking feedback on the following:
1. Does this sound fun? Would you play it?
2. Would players actually stick around or would they leave after not being selected once or twice?
3. Besides chatting, what sorts of things should observers be able to do during matches to keep them engaged?
4. Any other suggestions to improve on this idea?
|
1. Possibly, I guess it depends on how much you can encourage that team element and teamwork, because I'd enjoy that, but I don't know how much you can really add to the team aspect without corrupting the basic 1v1 format. My advice would make it as team oriented and impersonal as possible.
2. No idea. Make it engaging and team-oriented and I think it's more likely. If you could squeeze more than one melee map into the map, you could have two matches happening at once, which would help this.
3. Add an option for shared control of units. If voted for, teammates could help by microing army units.
4. I would suggest you save the cash payouts until the end. That would encourage players to stick around-- they don't make money unless they're there until the finish.
Also, I would suggest that, instead of a straight-up best-of format, you tweak it a little bit. It'd be "first to x points" and the rounds would be alternate between being worth 2 points and being worth 1 point. These teams would probably be random players joining a public game, so there would probably be some lesser-skilled players on the teams. These players would get the 1-point matches, and the higher leagues would be given the 2-point matches. So a gold can be put in a 1-point match where a loss won't hurt the team as much, and the diamonds can go in the 2-pointers where a loss is much more costly.
One more thing: the ability to vote in a player mid-round to take control might be useful, if someone has to leave or if the team thinks their player is trolling or whatever.
|
I would definitely play this, it would be an entertaining game to play with a group of friends all on the same team. I don't think you should add shared control, I'd prefer it if the gameplay remained identical to what you'd find in an actual competitive match.
|
Well im not sure about a "team" based style play as well already have things like macromicro where 2 players control 1 team, or in obs games you can already side or help the people in game; i think a mini tourney style game would be very interesting since we only have micro tournaments with players playing round robin. I just checked and xelcaverns is 140x124, while max size is 256x256 i believe, so you could definitely fit 2 maps into one game, or if your really careful fit 4 maps onto one. I think that would give players a really interesting and fun map of praticing in a tournment style map setting with mulitple games going on at the same time, rotating players, and the thinning out lossing players without the pressure of ladder. Even if hots comes out with unranked leagues, a tournament setting would still really put it further ahead.
As far as players staying or not, I think they would stay halfway as long as its fun and interesting. In games like obs most people will stay unless its really unbalanced skillwise; everyone is there to learn of one another and understand they may not play but they're still getting something usefull off of it. On the other hand games like macromicro, i had no clue why the lobbies are bigger than 4 and anyone extra after the first 4 are picked always leave right away as there's no real point since or not gonna play for another 20 mins especially if teams stick together and you can't learn anything.
I don't know how well obs suggesting things to their player would work, most players will be higher league and already know a lot. As i see it if they're high level player they won't want to pay attention to chat while concentrating on the game or most people won't know they're own strategy as well as they do. They can also talk after about the plus and mins of the game afterwards. If its low players, they again don't need more distracts let alone probably won't understand what your telling them unless they're actually taught it and won't make an interesting game to watch for higher level players.
|
well, we usually played peepmode when we are too many in the teamspeak to play a 4v4, that means we are 5 or 6 at least.
i figure there are others in this situation, too.
would be nice to be able to choose between peepmode and team league mod.
you would certainly make people addicted to it if you pimp it with a league ranking or things like that, that will people make coming back.
|
United Kingdom1381 Posts
I'd prefer a team hotseat game, where every x minutes the next player on the team gets to take over.
This would be relatively simple to implement, encourage people to hang around in long games, allow strategy to be discussed while they are waiting and it would be interesting to see how different people play in the same game.
The problem with trying to help people in game is that it can get distracting and people can take advice negatively.
|
1. Does this sound fun? Would you play it?
-Hell yeah, Team league format games would be amazing!
2. Would players actually stick around or would they leave after not being selected once or twice?
-I guess the main issue are people who are pubbing the team league format, the lone people would most likely leave if not picked, but I dont speak for the majority. If the player is playing with friends/clan then I feel like they have more going for them to stay.
3. Besides chatting, what sorts of things should observers be able to do during matches to keep them engaged?
-I honestly dont really think obs should be doing more, but I dont people would have plenty of amusing ideas, I guess If you could give team1 and team 2 seperate chats (obvious).
4. Any other suggestions to improve on this idea?
-Take your time with the project, rushing something and making it feel clunky/unnatural could be terrible for you. I have waited awhile for something like this to come out so waiting a bit longer is no big deal.
|
1. OH YES! This would be something that would get my buddies that left the game to give it another shot I bet.
2. Since you'll be hanging out with your buddies and not a bunch of random people it should be no problem 
3. The idea above with separate chats is a must. Other than that, nothing really needed on top of what's in the other peep mode maps.
4. Allow a way to save / resume the match at a later point - if it's possible at all to do this? Since I bet a team vs team match can take a bit too long for a single night
|
Pretty awesome idea, it would really emphasize which TEAM has better ideas about the game, how well each team member can listen to their fellow members' ideas while playing, and it would probably be more fun for the players who aren't playing (rather than being helpless while they watch).
Obviously if there's a stream going or something, there needs to be a serious delay on it (at least 10 min) so that people on other computers can't be checking streams or w/e to see what the opp is doing. But this is easy enough to handle I think.
|
Would this end up being 9 games in a row on the same map?
The map pool plays a huge role in GSTL. For example, when a terran wins, the losing team picks metropolis and sends out a zerg. A zerg wins - terran picks antiga or protoss picks entombed, etc.
Can bank files be used across multiple maps that use the same mod? If you save the status** of a match while on PMTL Antiga Shipyard, could you load that bank file on PMTL Cloud Kingdom?
**bank file that contains match data such as current score, points/bets/items, records, etc
|
Great ideas; keep them coming. I like the concept of "hotseat" (cycling who controls the units) as a way to keep players involved.
As for saving/resuming: While it's possible to save the state of a game to individual players' banks, there's no way to enforce team-based banks. Since I can't check names/IDs of players, there's no way I can enforce that the state of the game from a local bank applies to the current game correctly. So I don't think saving/resuming across multiple sessions will be possible. I'm still waiting for Blizzard to allow cross-map linking on battle.net so that players can be transferred from map to map...that may never be possible, however.
|
On September 24 2012 05:36 IcculusLizard wrote:
Great ideas; keep them coming. I like the concept of "hotseat" (cycling who controls the units) as a way to keep players involved.
As for saving/resuming: While it's possible to save the state of a game to individual players' banks, there's no way to enforce team-based banks. Since I can't check names/IDs of players, there's no way I can enforce that the state of the game from a local bank applies to the current game correctly. So I don't think saving/resuming across multiple sessions will be possible. I'm still waiting for Blizzard to allow cross-map linking on battle.net so that players can be transferred from map to map...that may never be possible, however.
Sorry but i think your mistaken on a few of these points or maybe im just not getting what yoru after. It actually is possible to check names/ID via player handles which are unique identifiers specific to every player on bnet. Banks too can be transferred between maps as long as they all use the correct name. While yes it would be nice to just transfer to other maps, most of the mulit map version games like macromicro and iccup have gotten around this already without much issue. I think your biggest problem is deciding just how specific you'll want to be ie if 1 player leaves from the party between maps would it still startup again as a whole/part team or reset. I wouldn't really say anything isn't workable from what you've mentioned.
|
hobbidude: Are you a developer? How is it possible to access player names/IDs within the API? You can access the Text version of each players' name, but you cannot access the String value. Text values cannot be compared in the modding environment, only strings can. So it's impossible to check to see if a player's handle matches another value. Thus, the functionality you're suggesting is simply not possible. If you know something the mapmaking community is not aware of, please enlighten us.
|
On September 24 2012 23:09 IcculusLizard wrote:
hobbidude: Are you a developer? How is it possible to access player names/IDs within the API? You can access the Text version of each players' name, but you cannot access the String value. Text values cannot be compared in the modding environment, only strings can. So it's impossible to check to see if a player's handle matches another value. Thus, the functionality you're suggesting is simply not possible. If you know something the mapmaking community is not aware of, please enlighten us.
Yes, I hail from mapster as a advanced triggerer. The "handle" is the string value similar to the follow format
(1-S2-1-123456). This is the unque identifier specific to every player. Even if player change their name, through the bnet system the handle IS them. Many banned systems work off this as players cannot get around it without an entirely new game. I know for a fact it works, so yes you could have a system that saves what players are in game and that they are are on a number of teams and who is in each team, and then in a new map retrieve all the information and recreate teams.
|
|
|
hobbidude: wow that's cool, I was not aware. I sent you a PM.
|
4. Any other suggestions to improve on this idea
I think the biggest challenge would be to find a balance between the players waiting too much and finding enough players in a team to get a candidate. At least in the 1on1 obs a lot of ppl just come to watch the game. It's very situational.
Me personally i come mostly to play, i wouldn't want to observe more than one game between my games.
I think teams of 2-3 playing person would be good.
Maybe make an option before the start where you can choose to be an observer only (to one of the teams or global).
|
I will say that if you plan on making it so players swap out every couple of minutes, it would be both wise and smooth to have a countdown for the player coming in, but more importantly let players setup/update their hotkeys/control groups ahead of time; nothing worse then been swapped in during a battle and taking you 30 secs setup the keys on comfortable with and losing.
|
I have a different suggestion alltogether:
How about letting the other teammates get a chance to add a small elite force to their representative player that costs time (more litterally causes a cooldown on adding another elite force).
The other players would then be able to actually give a tactical advantage to their representative player.
Example:
You see that the enemy is attacking with a pretty badass rush and your representative teammate is never going to survive it.
Then you can decide to give your representative player 3 hunter killer hydralisks (or any other hireling).
The 'costs' of giving your representative this is a 2 minute cooldown before you are able to give them anything else.
Other units cost less or more time in cooldown, depending on how powerful the units given are.
Think of it as mercenary reinforcements. An elite battlecruiser (Jackson's Revenge) would cost a 5 minute cooldown, while 3 elite marines only a 1 minute cooldown.
Because of possible uneven team sizes and the fact that things get chaotic when every observer is able to give their team player units, I suggest that units are given based on a vote.
Player 1 votes to give your representative (1) Jackson's Revenge (costs: 300 seconds)
Player 3 votes to give your representative (1) Jackson's Revenge (costs: 300 seconds)
Player 4 votes to give your representative (3) Hunter Killers (costs: 120 seconds)
Team 1 has given their representative (1) Jackson's Revenge (costs: 300 seconds)
Next vote in 300 seconds.
Player 5 votes to give your representative (2) Hel's Angels (costs: 180 seconds)
Player 7 votes to give your representative (1) Jackson's Revenge (costs: 300 seconds)
Player 8 votes to give your representative (2) Hel's Angels (costs: 180 seconds)
Team 2 has given their representative (2) Hel's Angels (costs: 180 seconds)
Next vote in 180 seconds.
Please add this, then observers have an interactive component. The units would be placed at the oldest expansion (so main, natural or third, depending if these are still alive).
|
Sounds pretty sweeet imo. I wouldn't really play this alone, but if i got a couple friends together I'd totally play this over 1v1 obs
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
