Approaches To Teamwork In Online Games Surveyed
Thanks to GamersWithJobs for their piece discussing a new study about teamwork in online games. The study homepage has a PDF download of the student-authored paper, which is based on a survey interviewing "a total of 4,712 people" about their team-based gaming experiences online. In terms of improving and evolving teamwork, a variety of options are discussed: "A central commander role like in [Half-Life mod] Natural Selection supports the team aspect... and received positive feedback. However, an unskilled commander might destroy the team experience, as indicated by the votes for S2's Savage."
"A central commander role supports the team aspect... and received positive feedback. However, an unskilled commander might destroy the team experience" That last bit makes me think of the PHB in Dilbert, which suggests teamwork in online games is just a mirror of teamwork in everything else - makes sense really.
..is indeed a problem in Savage. It's a problem that's solveable (there's a vote to impeach command), but players often won't bother to vote - kind of like reality.
A smaller threshold (30% or so, with longer vote time) to impeach would largely solve the problem on public servers. Alternatively, command could be restricted to those who scored well in the previous round (or they could be allowed to choose commander). These players will not be horrible commanders, or will at least be able to choose a non-newbie to command. The game also needs to handle "command vacuum" better. For example, requests for funds should be auto-approved.
I guess what I'm saying is that the problems are not so much in concept but in implementation. Like other game features in the past, "team with commander" is something that needs to be ironed out. On the whole, though, it makes for a rewarding gameplay experience - it's a good way for allowing individuals to play together cohesively without being game experts.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
"A game like Tribes 2 'scored' in both 'worst support for teamwork' and consequently 'worst teamwork experience'."
Shouldnt this be Tribes *1*. In Tribes 2, classes and roles actually mean something. Tribes 1 on the other hand.....
I like Battlefield 1942 for the most part.. however, most of the time it feels like I'm playing by myself.
:)
Rarely when I get on a team with some people who actually have some teamwork skills, it's great -- like all of the tanks actually working together to take over bases, or having the chopper hover over a group of tanks protecting them.
I think a neat idea for games like this would be to have a single "commander" play the game in more of an RTS overhead fashion. He can tell the units playing in the 3D environment where they should go and who they should group with. At the very least, this mechanism would just give each unit a way point. This alone would make the game have much more of a feeling of teamwork.
Maybe I should look for a clan or something.. I'm just too used to the crappy public servers
My sig can beat up your sig.
I play online games, almost solely for the teamwork. I don't like Deathmatches, I like feeling as part of a team.
My favs:
Subspace/Continuum:Highlevel play, especially when flagging. The attaching dynamic (You can warp to any spot where one of your teammates are), encourage team play.
Day of Defeat/Counter-Strike:Both, I feel offer impeccable team play, in a bit different style. I prefer Day of Defeat, as there is nothing better than hopping around ruins, laying down covering fire and slowly moving forward. As well, I think that one-kill rounds kinda suck for teamplay. It encourages conservatism which ruins it.
Diablo/Diablo II:Made for co-op.
I'm looking forward to playing FFXI, for some good team play as well.
But mostly, I play Day of Defeat now.
http://www.soldat.pl
Play capture the flag. Be a true leader, or a true follower, or just a stupid sniper camper. Someone's gotta defend the flag, after all.
SAILING MISHAP