Originally Posted by MooK
Why can't there be a third option? Both? That's what PlanetSide is all about.
|
Seriously. But to be pedantic we can break down his explanations and find they mean very little and the distinctions he listed are not black and white.
Originally Posted by VioletZero
FPS: People in the FPS camp believe that the enjoyment of individual players is paramount. The game wouldn't exist if players weren't having fun while playing. And the best way to accomplish that is to focus on the FPS aspects.
|
Summarized: If players by themselves are having fun then the game is fun for everyone. That is if we have player A and B and nothing bad that A does hurts player's B's experience and the converse is true then A and B both have fun.
Pretty basic, but this doesn't apply any constraints to A's fun. Do A and B have to be with a group to have this fun? Would being with a group require the system to be more fun than the solo experience?
The RTS explanation adds a constraint.
Originally Posted by VioletZero
RTS: People in the RTS camp believe that, while the game is indeed an FPS, it should expand on its MMO aspect to provide a wide variety of tact and depth on a mass scale.
|
Summarized: While A and B can have fun by themselves they can also have fun with others in a group. This statement implies however that tactics can only be performed while in a group with others and implies that A and B would have a higher enjoyment with a group than by themselves.
An explanation of what these tactics are is left to the reader, but is assumed to mean focused fire and healing. However, in the FPS model that already exists as a choice and is commonly referred to as "zerg" tactics. That is uncoordinated symbiotic tactics that happen independent of a forced tactics system as assumed in the RTS explanation.
So what would the RTS tactic choices be that would be drastically different than the zerg choices? As an explanation healing happens within the zerg through natural compassion. Not allowing a medic to heal themselves would force cooperative teamwork. However, in a zerg environment it is already assumed players will heal others anyway as was seen in PS1. So the opposite in order to assume a purely individualistic FPS gameplay would be to assume that players can only heal themselves and do so for their own gain. This follows the FPS constraint of A doing no harm to B. However, applying that constraint to remove tactical healing of friendlies is an odd game design choice and fairly arbitrary.
So what would fall under this as an example. The most obvious is changing the time to kill (TTK) and treating it as a slider between FPS and the RTS definitions. Starting with a low TTK.
1) FPS: Player A benefits by killing enemies faster. Player B benefits from killing enemies faster. Does A's ability to kill enemies faster harm player B? Objectively friendly fire could mean A could team kill player B faster, but that is an edge case.
2) RTS: Player A is in group with C and E. They fight B with 3 scenarios comparing group vs solo tactics.
Scenario 1) B kills C and E by getting the upper hand using a grenade and quick reflexes. A kills B. E kills no one. Objectively B didn't use any team tactics but used solo tactics and A, C, and E didn't.
Scenario 2) A, C, and E work together and kill B. Tactics were used. B didn't use any successful solo tactics.
Scenario 3) Both use tactics and B kills C and A kills B. A, C, and E are rewarded with experience even though C died and E did nothing.
Then you have group vs group with similar scenarios and outcomes.
The opposite to this TTK is a high TTK.
1) FPS: Player A has no benefit against killing single players faster. B likewise. A's ability to kill enemies slower does not harm player B if both are playing by themselves.
2) RTS: Player A, C, and E fight player B. B does minimal damage to C and A, C, and E focus fire to kill B and are rewarded with experience. B is harmed by this as solo play would be discouraged.
This is the extreme spectrum so in the RTS model a group vs solo is more powerful as one would see in an RTS game.
However, A's and B's fun hinge on if A enjoys solo play or group play. So in a way all the poll is asking is if you like FPS solo player or RTS group play. An FPS solo player would prefer things like one-hit sniper rifles and grenades that kill multiple players taken to the extreme. An RTS group player would prefer snipers doing lower damage allowing them to heal their teammate and react. They would expect grenades to not instagib but allow players to react as a group and win against a single force or uncoordinated force.
I'd have to say RTS with the above definitions in that groups are greater than the whole. There's a catch though since you said "Note that these are not just extremes." so you're imaging an overlap that you fail to explain. What is overlapped between the two choices? Are group tactics only slightly better than solo tactics? You have the extreme left where solo players are just as good as a group and can go on killstreaks and the right where a solo player can't do anything by themselves. (Normally I refer to this as forced teamwork). The middle ground is where players benefit from skill and can kill 1 player for every 1 death. The solo player would not be rezzed. The group player would be rezzed effectively negating the impact of the solo player utilizing group tactics. But as mentioned the zerg works in mysterious ways and while players might assume they are by themselves suddenly they are rezzed. To assume that the FPS play style is possible without artificially placing constraints. such as you can only rez your squad mates, then it's impossible to picture a game that goes for the pure FPS player.
The middle ground promotes the 1 to 1 kill death that is present in PS1. That is the zerg with the most units are at an advantage even though the middle ground concept should say they aren't since rezzing in a group would offset the kill/death.
I guess if I had to choose then I'd say RTS. However, I want to say FPS in that if a solo player is given 100 choices of utilities then they could conceivably help the local group. Engineering for instance might place turrets for the kill while effectively helping a sniper from getting swarmed by infiltrators. That is an action that is fun for A (the engineer) is beneficial for B (the sniper) and goes beyond the clause of not doing harm. That is playing by yourself is fun, but your actions are inherently filling in the weakness of another player's class so they have fun.
That was actually one of the core ideas behind my
fantasy implant thread to foster group relationships with FPS focused abilities. That is you have something you can use for yourself but can also use to help others. Same idea was present in my
squad remote artillery thread which focused on the FPS scenario of player A having fun while the group (squad in this case) could also benefit. It seems like the devs are already going for a nice middle ground. The tank is a prime example. FPS indicates that A (the driver) will have fun with the main cannon and the gunner will have fun with the secondary gun. In theory it's a good concept to put into a wide range of choices so that they don't all focus only on the FPS player but can be used for the group as well.
Linear Mode
