Casual players like me

I think the best way to achieve it is:
1. Many players(!most important!)
2. Good game design; easy to learn, hard to master

There's also the appeal factor of huge armies crawling about shooting stuff. That's one that can be made accesible to new players.
There's also at least one giant robot they have in each game; the Commander.


Hell, you could add something as simple as the Commander Kill Counter to the game, that measures how many things your commander killed. Even if you lose it might be fun to see how many kills you can rack up before you go. It's not something that players will want to do later into the game, but for the first few games I can imagine it being fun if the game pops up with kill counters. "MONSTER KILLLLL" is always fun, even if you lose three seconds after because your commander was overwhelmed with T1.

At least you'll lose with a bang.

A big selling point for me is to have army's of k-bots clashing over the hills.

So I will be easily pleased if it looks and feels cool to do so.

Obviously, making newbies able to win matches against pros is unfair. But allowing them to get some unit kills, maybe destroy a couple expansion bases? That's definitely getting somewhere. The big lose is much less frustrating when you've had a few small wins along the way. If you can quantify those small wins, they act as encouragement, because the player will see more and more small wins as they get better. Maybe I can't win the match, but dang if I can't take out all your metal extractors before I lose!

That actually sounds incredibly awesome and silly and it would encourage newbies to use their commander as a combat unit. (the temptation is just to use it as an engineer)

While good in theory, using commanders on the front line is actually quite a tricky thing to master, and this might encourage wading into battle and dying even quicker. However, it's fairly safe to say all units will have their own "kill count", even if it doesn't lead to any serious veterancy style buffs.

Commander sec-ops.

Lead a invasion with 10 other commanders against a fortified enemy system, but have no ability to build any units.

Players will have to learn to work as a team and how to use their commanders ability's to succeed!

Honestly, I hope the modding abilities are flexible enough that exactly that is possible.

Go all Delta and obliterate them with missile swarms!

Dying quickly is good, because then you get to play another match and start over. It only takes one match to learn that your commander isn't invincible and it's far better for that match to last 5 minutes than 30.

It's inevitable now. If it doesn't come as a feature SOMEONE is going to mod it in.

Basically this entire discussion revolves around two points:

1. People want to be able win even if they aren't necessarily better than their opponent.

or

2. People want to be matched with people of even skill so that they have a chance to win.

I think the first option is dumb. If a player is a decent amount better than someone else, they SHOULD win. That's how EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET works. Take any sport, any activity, and the better person will win most times. That's the definition of better... There are always underdogs, but in general, better = winning...

But a good matchmaking system? I do support that. It should give you matches against people slightly below you, so that you're getting some wins, and matches against people slightly higher, so you're getting some practice.

But as long as it isn't a certainty then you will keep people interested in the game.

16+ respawn multiplayer games with fast economy and low unit cap, capture the flag or stuff

One reason FPS are so appealing is the fast respawn in the same game, you may die often but you still can wreck up some kills.

Also that would be a good training for building up. Because you have to do it often.

I thought we've already clarified that even though it sounds like this is what the OP wants it actually isn't?

So we talked about this on page 7 I think and since then I've pretty much just been lurking for the past few days because no one has really said anything new since then. The game modes people are describing sound like they would appeal to all sorts of people - not just casual players and I am sure they appear in due course as mods or what have you. There are lots of ways you could make the game more appealing to the casual player, but in the end all anyone can reasonably ask for is a fair fight.

The most interesting idea I've seen I think (which is not to say I haven't found the rest interesting) is the tutor game mode/match. 2v2 game where each team has a newer player and an older player, if we wanted to be really crazy, you could base it on rankings or number of games played. If support was baked into the official game listings and what not then new players, after they get crushed like the dogs they are, have an immediate place to go looking for advice, where preferably the vet tells them about all these resources they have like the forums and gives them some basics/key points as needed. These would of course not count for anyone's rankings or such.

I think this would be many times better than special game modes for new players, because the special game modes would segregate them from the competitive side of things and not do the one thing that really needs to happen and that is teach new/weak players how to play multiplayer. If anything, it tells them they're not good enough and shouldn't be playing the 'real game'.

I say this as one likely to be one of those weak players. During SupCom I had no idea about the forums, importance of replays or anything, all I knew was that I sucked at multiplayer and didn't know what I was supposed to about it, so I gave up and just played skirmish against AI's until I stopped playing in general.

I reached page 9 and then stopped. I did not really have the feeling new stuff was being added. .

1. This subject is very important to the success of PA. The FA community seemed to be limited due to the fact that the game was (too) complex. Supcom2 was rejected by many (incuding myself) for being to simple. I am wondering what the thoughts of the developers are on this.

2. Which ever way you build a game, people who have more drive to win will develop better gameplay to win. Thus those people will always beat or destroy players who are not that good. This can only be fixed with good matchmaking.

3. My exprience is that the issue is not the way the UI displays warnings but explanation of the meaning of these warnings. A red flashing mass at -50 or -100 is obvious enough, however players need to be made aware of the impact of this. You can make a purple with gold lined pop up of a critical mass shortage, that will not make players understand the impact of the issue. In terms of UI a indicator point to how much percent production is slowed may help. I think a good tutorial or community driven training would be important. However this should also be evident from watching replays.

4. Good AI will help starting players to train basic builds and skills before going into the playing field. Is there a AI topic out there? I would like to know what the developers are planning in terms of AI.

Cheers,

Then you missed a bunch of stuff. I generally find that the last few pages are relevant to the current discussion, not the early ones.

I'm actually quite impressed at this thread. What seemed to be going the way of a "bash the noob for not being good at the game" thread seems to have moved past that, and is hopefully heading in the "How can a game be designed such that hardcore competitive players and more casual players both get something out of it." This was exactly the subject I wanted to tap into with the The Multi-player/Single-player gap thread.

I though I would add some of the suggestions from that thread here. The fundamental premise is that the game should be as fun as possible regardless of skill level (note, this says nothing about the number of victories a player can expect nor the time they have invested). Further to this, one of the ways to make the game more fun for more casual players is to provide them with the tools they need to help improve their game. With that in mind, here are some suggestions:

1. A good spectator system is a must. Many people will feel apprehensive about joining a game where they may get their asses handed to them, where watching such a game wouldn't be a problem. I would suggest that the home screen of the multiplayer lobby always has a list of games that a player can jump into to spectate.

2. A REALLY awesome feature would possibly allow the player to jump into a replay/spectated game as a local game, while assuming control of one of the players, and having the rest taken up by A.I.s. This may not be doable, and I am fully aware that this introduces issues about the player having seen the whole battle field, as well as not providing the same experience as playing against a real player. Never-the less this may be a really useful tool in allowing players to build on the techniques developed by more advanced players. It would also allow players some semblance of playing over a past defeat and finding out where they went wrong.

3. A "noob-only" room may be something to try. It's a lot more likely that a player will play a game online where they know that the other people are at a similar skill level to them. Once a player has played a certain number of games they can no longer play in the "noob-only" room.

4. A good matchmaking and ranking system is important, but i wouldn't make it central in the multiplayer lobby. Is should always be there of course, but not given pride of place, as initially it will intimidate many new players into thinking that competitive multiplayer is the only real game to be found online. One suggestion that has been mentioned here is having the matchmaking algorithm assume that new players are unskilled, and start them near the bottom of the table. If they are good, they will rise quickly, whereas if not, they will be playing against players nearer their skill level.

5. People have already mentioned how custom mods and maps with fun and cooperative modes are important to maintaining a healthy on-line community. Having lots of unique game-modes such as capture the flag, king of the hill, hold this capturable unit, build this superweapon first and the suchlike gives a broad array of situations for players to find what they like the most.

6. Dealing with abusive and unpleasant players is difficult, but should addressed as the enjoyment of new players depends hugely on how welcoming the community is. One possible option would be to some sort of "sportsmanship" score that players can +1 or -1 after they have played a game with them. Players with a sufficiently low score can be muted, barred from games, or banned on a temporary or permanent basis. I recognise this system may be open to abuse, so any other discussion would be welcome.

7. Obviously, a robust moderation and reporting system for abusive players is necessary.

8. Having unlockables which depend upon the number of games played or won would alienate newer players. It's certainly something I would advise against.

These may or may-not be worth looking at, but I think it always bears discussion.

Well one point is the matchmaking. Ladders or leagues dont really work for online games. Because a normal league is a mode where a given number of players play a given time against each other. Mostly synchronous.

While online you cant shedule the games. You have to match the current available guys. So you can end up with a league where guys that played many games may have less or equal points then some that didnt play any.

Such a league will only work for the top percentage of the players. Also are there smurf accounts...

What could work is a crossover comparison. But that is unpractical due to possible amount of data for it.
Edit: imagine it as a ranking net, that evolves around the player.