Let's get serious!

[Paradox]

I've been thinking... I really think the problem of huge skill differences is because of lack of players. I don't think it could be solved by making handicaps (and that hurts the good players, while making the worse players have to work less.)

For me nullpo is the obvious choice merely because it is constantly being worked on by its development team.

I've stated before that in order for nullpo to be popular it has to be appealing in a few different ways:

1. Easy to get started
2. Easy to navigate
3. Colorful or nice looking graphics
4. Award system (whether it be game currency or achievements or both)
5. Some sort of competitive ladder
6. A main gameplay mode.


With that said I think sc2 has a brilliant ladder system. When you play on the ladder you can only get matched and it gives you opponents that are close to your own match make rating. The goal of the ladder is to make sure you have a 50% win rate against the people in your league. All we would need is a good player base, but you can always make adjustments to points earned when the only available people are much better or worse than you. The number of leagues can also just be limited until the player base increases.

About the chat being moved to nullpo client, I agree that would bring many more users online.

[DAS44]

4. Award system (whether it be game currency or achievements or both)

Perhaps a level system? The idea would appeal to me.

[myndzi]

I've been thinking... I really think the problem of huge skill differences is because of lack of players. I don't think it could be solved by making handicaps (and that hurts the good players, while making the worse players have to work less.)

I agree - to an extent. Like I've been saying, the skill difference is one of many impediments to attracting a large playerbase. It's not the only one, but addressing it will help make the game more accessible. And I think that our first priority should be to draw players, not make the game "more hardcore" because a (comparatively) small number of people like it that way.

I also don't think that handicaps are making worse players have to "work less" - seeing as they are losing, they are already going to be working as hard as they are capable of. I also don't see how it "hurts" the good players by proving them a better workout, so to speak, as opposed to easy dominance.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
1. Easy to get started
2. Easy to navigate
3. Colorful or nice looking graphics
[/quote]

All important design goals of Nullpomino 8, as far as I'm aware.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
4. Award system (whether it be game currency or achievements or both)
5. Some sort of competitive ladder
6. A main gameplay mode.
[/quote]

I'm uncertain about number 4 having a significant effect on player draw, but I could possibly see it. Put another way, you're talking about getting players invested in the game, and that's probably a good thing.

Number 5, I'd vote against. Ladder efforts have markedly failed on this site, and while they'd be more useful when built in to the game, I also think that they would not be worthwhile until there is a large enough playerbase that it's worth trying to participate in.

Number 6 is the main thrust of this thread - and it doesn't have to remain static and never change, either. I would like to reach some consensus of an acceptable compromise so that the "main" gameplay mode for version 8 will be something more welcoming than what we've currently got. After we build the playerbase, then we can think about making it more hardcore - but until we have that playerbase, like you said, the lack of players is a detriment to having varied and adequate matches.


So: The idea of this thread is to propose solutions that we can test that will bring things closer to what we want. Enticements in the form of some sort of awards or points are certainly testable, so is ladder play (though I am against trying that out for some time).

Any other thoughts on obstacles to player draw that can be tackled from the current state of things? How can we bootstrap Nullpomino 8 to gain the kind of player base we need to start developing more interesting things?

Does anybody else strongly disagree with the concept of handicapping or otherwise slowing down/impeding the skill curve of the primary game type until such a time as we have enough users to support active play with more unforgiving circumstances?

[Paul676]

I do

Handicapping gives far less goals for improvement and makes newbies feel even worse about themselves.

It makes them feel worse about themselves because if they lose repeatedly, they feel down because even with a handicap, they still can't win.

If newbies do win, then why would they look up to the pros of the game?

In either circumstance, handicapping has a negative effect.

Slowing down the game to handicap is especially bad, because you cut out one portion of skill without handicapping any other portion of skill, skewing the successful player type, thus alienating a whole load of players (including me, I can't bear ARE when playing, and would do anything not to have it forced on me as the main rated game mode.)

Playing fast has its own thrill, and playing skilfully and fast is even more impressive. Other forms of handicap are not good, but this is a particularly insidious one. I encourage instead making attacks worth less, if you really want to make games longer.

[myndzi]

You are suggesting that losing in a game where your opponent has a handicap is MORE discouraging than losing the same matchup without? I don't see that in any way as being logical.

I wasn't suggesting ARE as a handicap; I was just sorta summarizing various potential game changes. To that extent, game delays was an alternate possibility to using handicaps.

I appreciate that there are players such as yourself and Paradox who would rather play "no-limits Tetris" - but do you believe that makes Tetris more accessible? What argument can you put forth that logically suggests that no limits Tetris would be a more appealing default game for players we attempt to bring in?

Remember, the goal here is to broaden [Nullpomino's] appeal to newcomers in order to build the amount of people who play it regularly. Do you think those players will come back to a game that is populated only by players they lose resoundingly to?

Sure, they'll have each other - but in the beginning stages, how common will that be?

Obviously handicaps wouldn't be in place when you are playing a player of an equal skill level, and there could even be some sort of cutoff threshold where there is no risk of them coming into play, but do you really believe that an unhandicapped game is going to draw and keep new players with the current state of our playerbase?

Edit: We can, of course, test this too. See how many games a newbie is willing to play with you both unhandicapped and handicapped. Before that though, I'd like to try and decide on what game alterations might be most acceptable. Please also post if you find the idea of handicaps or other game-leveling mechanics to be acceptable!

[Paradox]

All important design goals of Nullpomino 8, as far as I'm aware.

Yeah that is why I think Nullpo should be the game we focus on.

------

Regarding handicaps, as a competitive player I like to win obviously. When I get beaten by people who aren't as good as me because they have a handicap it doesn't make me feel very nice. I'm sure most of the top players don't like to lose (or anyone for that matter) but if people who have not worked as hard can beat them how would they feel about that? Its unfair. I agree the number one goal should be to increase the player base and I think we will see the problem of varying skill levels disappear.

----

When I was talking about achievements or awards I was thinking this is one thing many people have a lot of hype over that I don't understand. Personally I don't care about things like achievements but I know many people who go to great lengths to earn all the achievements in a game. Awards are hooks that keep players coming on every day so they can progress.

---

When it comes to the ladder the way it would be done is totally different than anything that has been tried. The matching is only with other people that are online, but that idea would be put on hold anyway because we don't have a player base.

---

I don't think that the no-limits perspective has a negative effect on the player base but I think that having handicaps hurts the competitive players.

Lets say you divided all the players into divisions based on skill. If there are limits you basically just decrease the number of divisions. If you take away the limits the amount of divisions would increase, but if you have enough players then there should be many players who are around the same skill level in each division. So I think the game is fine without limits. Even if some players dominated they would be such a minority if we had more players ( which is fine).

TF is a good example of player base. If you look at TF, there are many players who are around the same skill level there. Watch some lower level games you will see that the games are pretty close. This happens until platinum. The only reason platinum is more unbalanced is because there is a cap at rank 20. If you were to take all those tf players and put them on nullpo you would see many players around the same skill level and you would see close matchups.

But i'd like to bring up an important point that Paul brought up about weakening attacks. I think that is a great idea. I think the garbage system can be modified so that its not so easy to knock out your opponent, but also won't make the games last forever.

[Anonymous]

Haven't had internet for the past week or so. Probably won't have it for another 2 weeks, so I won't be able to respond anything, but I would like to see the use of bots more in Nullpomino 8. In the current Nullpomino, bots are too hard to set up. I don't even know how to set them up.

You should just be able to set up a vs game, and then select an "add bot" button.

Bots are good because they have adjustable difficulties, players can play vs even when there is nobody else (or nobody else at their skill level), and players don't mind as much when they lose to a bot.

Whenever I play Starcraft 2, which I suck at, and I lose to another player, it makes me feel bad that the other player is better than me. If I play against a bot, then I don't feel so bad if I lose.

[myndzi]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Regarding handicaps, as a competitive player I like to win obviously. When I get beaten by people who aren't as good as me because they have a handicap it doesn't make me feel very nice. I'm sure most of the top players don't like to lose (or anyone for that matter) but if people who have not worked as hard can beat them how would they feel about that? Its unfair.[/quote]

It's unfair that you have to work to beat someone who can't play you on level ground? I can't agree with that sentiment, sorry. What you want is to Pwn Noobs, not to Have Good Matches. I believe that having good matches is more important at this stage than pwning noobs.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I agree the number one goal should be to increase the player base and I think we will see the problem of varying skill levels disappear.[/quote]

That problem won't disappear for a long, long time - particularly near the top of the curve.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I don't think that the no-limits perspective has a negative effect on the player base but I think that having handicaps hurts the competitive players.[/quote]

The goal of a handicap isn't to make the better player lose. It's to make the competition even. An evenly matched contest is about 50% win rate, but that doesn't mean that we have to strive for that as a result of handicapping.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
Lets say you divided all the players into divisions based on skill. If there are limits you basically just decrease the number of divisions. If you take away the limits the amount of divisions would increase, but if you have enough players then there should be many players who are around the same skill level in each division. So I think the game is fine without limits. Even if some players dominated they would be such a minority if we had more players ( which is fine).
[/quote]

This discussion centers in large part around getting players, so stipulating that we have a robust playerbase as an argument for any one thing is both backwards and counterintuitive...


[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
TF is a good example of player base. If you look at TF, there are many players who are around the same skill level there. Watch some lower level games you will see that the games are pretty close. This happens until platinum. The only reason platinum is more unbalanced is because there is a cap at rank 20. If you were to take all those tf players and put them on nullpo you would see many players around the same skill level and you would see close matchups.
[/quote]

See above.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
But i'd like to bring up an important point that Paul brought up about weakening attacks. I think that is a great idea. I think the garbage system can be modified so that its not so easy to knock out your opponent, but also won't make the games last forever.
[/quote]

A player who can double another player's output will still double that output even if the attacks are halved. The goal isn't to make games last longer, it's to make them more competitive.

Yes, that means making it harder for a good player to beat an inferior player, but no, that doesn't mean making it impossible or even improbable. It just means narrowing the gap.

It seems the people arguing against this idea are arguing for personal reasons: "I like to win, don't make it hard for me to win!" - "I like to play fast, don't make it hard for me to play fast!" - but what I'm asking for is something different. I want to know if narrowing that gap is likely to increase the number of players that stick around after trying the game out. Paul was getting there, but it seems like this thread is on the ropes...

I don't care if the top players don't like it, we already have most of the top players. We need other players, and a lot of them. It's easy to have divisions or whatever like TF - when there are enough players to divide. Until then, we need to find a way to make it a game where the players who already want to play Nullpo can play with potentials and not drive them away.


Edit: I missed a point in my earlier response to Paul as well. Why would you look up to someone you can beat when they are handicapped? I thought this one was so obvious that it didn't warrant a response at all, really. If someone can beat you with half a screen, or garbage that's three times as messy, or sending half as much every attack, wouldn't you wish you were that good? Handicapping does not seem to me to have any of the effects you suggest it does. Maybe this is something that needs testing should we be unable to reach a consensus.

Edit: Forgot you, Anon. I think bots could help quite a bit, but in the end netplay is a social endeavor. I don't find it likely for players to come for the purpose of playing with bots, but I do find it likely that players who already want to play will play with bots to, say, hang around for people to show up.

[caffeine]

Whenever I play Starcraft 2, which I suck at, and I lose to another player, it makes me feel bad that the other player is better than me. If I play against a bot, then I don't feel so bad if I lose.

Are you saying you prefer to play against the AI in SC2 opposed to playing against human opponents? =I

[myndzi]

A better analogy might be: Would anybody prefer to download and install a SC2 clone to connect to an empty online community and play against bots?

[Paul676]

sorry, haven't seen your reply.

For me, it's like someone saying "hahaha I can beat you even soft dropping". Doesn't make you feel great. This time though they complain and say "ugh I hate this handicap". Then they go on to beat me, and I feel even worse about myself, that I can't even beat someone when they're disadvantaged.

It may be personal though, I don't know. If most people would rather lose to someone when they are handicapped than not handicapped, so be it.

[B1ink]

i think bots might be a good idea. I imagine bots that float around the channel and could join games when they were open for 20-30 seconds without anyone else joining. Maybe make it a game option whether bots can join or not and leave it on by default. obviously people who are harddrop regulars would know that they are bots but to the average tetris population, they probably would not know/care (like with fake tetris battle and other playing against replay games). Maybe the bots can auto adjust to a similar tpm to the other players after each game. This is basically just to simulate activity even though it might not be active at the particular time. also be sure to give the bots girly names like jessicaflower15.

[myndzi]

sorry, haven't seen your reply.

For me, it's like someone saying "hahaha I can beat you even soft dropping". Doesn't make you feel great. This time though they complain and say "ugh I hate this handicap". Then they go on to beat me, and I feel even worse about myself, that I can't even beat someone when they're disadvantaged.

It may be personal though, I don't know. If most people would rather lose to someone when they are handicapped than not handicapped, so be it.

Sounds like a sportsmanship issue, but it's worth keeping in mind. Hopefully in a community building push we wouldn't have players pulling that sh**

Of course, I'd rather play without a handicap than with one as well, even on the losing end - but if the choice is between playing a game where I have no chance at all and playing a game where my opponent has a handicap, I'll take the latter. I won't like it, but at least it gives me a game I can play.

[Paradox]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]What you want is to Pwn Noobs, not to Have Good Matches.  [/quote]

That is a totally uncalled for assumption, lets try to have a deep discussion here I'm voicing my serious thoughts.
Plus I'm obviously not the best player so I would benefit too when I play someone better than me. I wouldn't feel good about myself if I beat Blink with a handicap. I would feel like tetris is a joke. If I lost I would feel even worse than I would with no handicap.

I think it is obvious that better players should beat worse players, close players should have close matches. When you handicap one player you punish the other player. I find that very counterintuitive. To put it simply handicapping is unfair. I don't agree that we should make the game unfair just  so a certain group of people doesn't feel bad.

For the record, I don't mind if there is a handicapped mode just as long is its not the main mode of play.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]That problem won't disappear for a long, long time - particularly near the top of the curve.[/quote]

If you look at tetris as a whole, the ones near the top of the curve are a very small minority. The minority of tetris players that are among the elite happen to play a lot and find out about games like nullpo. That is why new players get crushed when they play. This doesn't happen on Tetris Friends in any rank except for 18-20 unless they are making serious improvements to their game or are misplaced (which is good because they will move up the ranks).


[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]stipulating that we have a robust playerbase as an argument for any one thing is both backwards and counterintuitive...[/quote]

We DO have a robust playerbase to use as an example. TF has plenty of players. I was using the example of their skill levels to show that once we have a large player base there won't be such a disparity in skill.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--] I don't care if the top players don't like it, we already have most of the top players. We need other players, and a lot of them.  [/quote]

If that is your thought then TF is already the closest game for you. It does not cater to the top players and has all the casual players. It handicaps players who are better by giving them messier garbage. It has enough delay to flatten out the speed curve of players as a whole. To me it just seems like you want Nullpo to be the next TF minus lag and poor coding. I mean no offense by that and you are entitled to your opinion, but it is definitely not what I want for tetris personally. Tetris should cater to all players. Its a competitive multiplayer game and I think that would become distorted if we changed tetris in accordance to the ideals you have presented.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Sounds like a sportsmanship issue[/quote]

         Michael dribbled the ball down the court quickly evading the players on the other team. As the time passed he scored more and more points. It looked as if the rival team had not a chance. Then suddenly, as he went for his next basket he was stopped by the referee.

"WOAH WOAH WOAH there Michael! You are doing WAY too well" said the referee.

"Well sir, I have been practicing since I was 7 and I have been working really hard this season. Plus the other team is full of rookies!" Michael replied.

"Well that's not very interesting! We need an upset in this game! How do you think incoming players will feel about you beating everyone so easily? They might get discouraged!" the referee rebuked.

He then continued, "Lets just hand over that ball to the other team and put them by the basket so they can score some points. You need to run a bit slower so we can all be around the same speed, its just not cool for you to run past them so quickly. "

Michael gave a sorry look to the referee, but the referee told him assuringly:

"You know you are better so you shouldn't feel bad if they get an advantage."

"Thats not fair at all!" Michael replied

"Sounds like bad sportsmanship to me" said the referee.

THE END      (of tetris)

[myndzi]

That is a totally uncalled for assumption, lets try to have a deep discussion here I'm voicing my serious thoughts.

Don't take it the wrong way. I'm doing my best to explain...

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
Plus I'm obviously not the best player so I would benefit too when I play someone better than me. I wouldn't feel good about myself if I beat Blink with a handicap. I would feel like tetris is a joke. If I lost I would feel even worse than I would with no handicap.
[/quote]

This is a statement that could as easily address the degree or conditions for a handicap as the existence of handicaps themselves. Noting here that handicaps aren't the only possibility, of course. There are many ways that the situation could be addressed while allowing for the possibility of You vs Blink, say, with no handicap. For example, you could base the handicap on rating difference and the lowest rating in such a fashion that the experienced players with high-ish ratings wouldn't be dealing with such things when playing other high rating players, and gradually fade it in towards the bottom.


[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I think it is obvious that better players should beat worse players, close players should have close matches. When you handicap one player you punish the other player. I find that very counterintuitive. To put it simply handicapping is unfair. I don't agree that we should make the game unfair just  so a certain group of people doesn't feel bad.[/quote]
I don't know how much clearer I can say it - it's not about making people feel better or worse, it's about building a sustainable player base.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
For the record, I don't mind if there is a handicapped mode just as long is its not the main mode of play.
[/quote]

If it isn't, none of the players will take advantage of it. They'll make and idle in non-handicapped rooms, and the barrier to the more casual players will still exist.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]If you look at tetris as a whole, the ones near the top of the curve are a very small minority. The minority of tetris players that are among the elite happen to play a lot and find out about games like nullpo. That is why new players get crushed when they play. [/quote]

Yes, and that's a barrier to building a large population on Nullpo - it must consist of a large number of players who aren't up to the average skill level of the current Nullpo player.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]We DO have a robust playerbase to use as an example. TF has plenty of players. I was using the example of their skill levels to show that once we have a large player base there won't be such a disparity in skill.[/quote]

And I am using the fact that we don't have such a playerbase (on Nullpomino) to illustrate that they don't want to come there. Our job is to make them want to come there, if we want things to be less sparse.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]To me it just seems like you want Nullpo to be the next TF minus lag and poor coding.[/quote]

I want Nullpo to be Nullpo with TF's playerbase. With enough players, the question of handicapping and all that stuff can go out the window - but how are we going to get those players without compromising a little? Give me some other suggestions that aren't based on "I want everything I want and damn the consequences"

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I mean no offense by that and you are entitled to your opinion, but it is definitely not what I want for tetris personally. Tetris should cater to all players. Its a competitive multiplayer game and I think that would become distorted if we changed tetris in accordance to the ideals you have presented.[/quote]
Please understand that the purpose of this discussion, though it doesn't seem to be meeting that purpose, was to come up with things we could do to meet the stated goals in the OP, the current focus of which is "build a large, active playerbase". I am not suggesting that we take the results of this discussion and forever and permanently force them upon everybody. I am suggesting that we lower the barrier of entry and (though we haven't got to this part) find ways to bring people in and try to keep them. I am proposing that those of us who are on the top end of the scale accept some compromises in the default gameplay in order to do that. And I am by no means forcing any of those players to "never play fast again" or anything like that.

You've got to think about this not as a permanent change but as a marketing ploy, so to speak. Are you really so damned rigid that you won't give anything up to see Nullpo succeed? Do you, conversely, think that we can create a large enough draw to Nullpo without anything already there? We have players who are dedicated and willing to play, which is a lot better than having no players at all - but those players are almost worse for our cause since playing and getting dominated is even worse than not finding anyone to play with at all...



[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Michael dribbled the ball down the court quickly evading the players on the other team. As the time passed he scored more and more points. It looked as if the rival team had not a chance. Then suddenly, as he went for his next basket he was stopped by the referee.

"WOAH WOAH WOAH there Michael! You are doing WAY too well" said the referee.

"Well sir, I have been practicing since I was 7 and I have been working really hard this season. Plus the other team is full of rookies!" Michael replied.

"Well that's not very interesting! We need an upset in this game! How do you think incoming players will feel about you beating everyone so easily? They might get discouraged!" the referee rebuked.

He then continued, "Lets just hand over that ball to the other team and put them by the basket so they can score some points. You need to run a bit slower so we can all be around the same speed, its just not cool for you to run past them so quickly. "

Michael gave a sorry look to the referee, but the referee told him assuringly:

"You know you are better so you shouldn't feel bad if they get an advantage."

"Thats not fair at all!" Michael replied

"Sounds like bad sportsmanship to me" said the referee. [/i]

THE END
[/quote]

Cute, but not helpful. If we want to take the analogy further, why don't we put it like this:

John was bleeding.

He had tried to block his dad's shot, but what can a 12-year-old do against a 180-lb adult? Still, he wanted to play ball, and all of his friends were into soccer. John watched from his vantage on the driveway as his dad dunked the ball. His dad turned to him and shrugged, saying, "Well, John, when you've played basketball for 30 years like me, then you might get this good."

John's dad passed him the ball.

See? I can do it too.