Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dragon

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
46
Left 4 Dead 2 / Re: Let's talk about hittables
« on: April 28, 2014, 08:36:40 am »
The m2 arch is severely assbackwards, same as the tanks punch, jahze was tinkering with it in the past and uploaded some clips detailing the invisible fist as it was dubbed im notbsure how much or if it even can be modified but i imagine so if the weapons spread can be dabbled with.

Jahze discovered the tank arm auto-aim and laid down some groundwork for fixing it, I think Visor then completed it and it's in EQ at least, I don't know if promod has the fix though.

As for the m2 arc and its absurdity, it's one of those things where a single survivor can potentially disrupt half of an SI attack at once with little-to-no effort or skill required. If it were up to me, I'd narrow the arc down to 90 degrees at least, that way you actually have to point at the SI, especially Jockeys as they can still have a large say in what happens at chokepoints or survivors being majorly separated. But I would also remove hunter deadstops simply because a single hunter in L4D2 is nowhere near as threatening as 3 or 4 hunters in L4D1 and if L4D1 players can deal with that, then there's really no excuse for L4D2 players not to cut the mark up against a single hunter.

But to quote a former North American player who I once had a discussion with: "we need to keep hunter deadstops or otherwise the average/low players won't be able to play survivor." I'm sure a few people here can guess who would make a suggestion where "average/low players" should stay that way and not be encouraged to improve  :D

Removing the number of hittables in an area could negatively affect that tank some areas would make tank really stressful/redundant, for example parish 4 before the pool area... sure there is A LOT hittables, but I almost never see them get used unless the survivors derp out - I like these hittables, removing them would cause survivors a long corridor with free run back and chip with no danger.

But IMO Hard Rain 4 is a prime example of luck over skill... 3 hittables, survivors bunched up on the only "safe area" to take tank. I have always felt this tank is random and it purely comes down to where the cars land on the roof, if they land on roof and if it hits a survivor... to many questions to consider it skill.

Not sure I entirely agree with the notion that map layout conveys a luck:skill ratio in regards to hittables as your freedom of movement and positioning is severely constrained regardless of where you fight the tank. Hard Rain 4 has its rooftops, open spaces such as the back end of the street on Hard Rain 1 has a tree plus a pickup truck which the survivors will try to hide behind, with the house next to it where you can run underneath for shelter from bullshit hondas. A few teams will even occupy a small room L4D1-style if it ensured that a hittable would never come into play. Whether it's in a corridor or in an open space, whether the survivors were paying attention and watching the incoming car or not, there are too many factors in place to definitively state that one hittable was more about skill and another was more about luck.

Players will always occupy the most probable positions for survival, thus automatically making tank "really stressful/redundant" when their ability to land instant incaps is greatly lessened and that can apply in any section of any map, hittables or not. If it was in a more narrow and confined part of a map, one could argue that the amount of times a dumpster ricocheted along the walls was a matter of luck, but would that automatically be the case? Or did the tank player deliberately try to make the dumpster ricochet in that manner to land an incap? If a tank on Hard Rain 4 knew to punch the car at the right angle and with enough speed where the survivor on the roof cannot dodge it in time, is that more luck or more skill?

If anything, it adheres more to one of the golden rules of L4D physics: survivors always have the last say in everything. Just like a hunter has to commit a pounce or a charger has to press m1 before his charge will land, there's always a slight window for that hunter to be skeeted or that charger to be leveled/shut down. When a tank punches a hittable, that hittable still has to travel to the survivors, so the ball is in their court as to how they deal with it. With hittables, luck or skill, once they've been struck, the only thing that matters then is that it's up to the survivors to dodge.

But I do agree with limiting hittables in certain areas, purely because with some of the tanks I've seen lately, it would be nice to see tank players encouraged to think more and make better decisions rather than smacking their toys about aimlessly. I think there should be a range of 1-2 hittables in areas which already have them, meaning removing excess hittables in areas that have more than 2. This would be a more worthwhile change than tampering with the damage. The areas which already have just 1 hittable or 2 wouldn't be altered, but the areas which currently have some in excess, tanks would be required to be precise and smart with their usage of hittables instead of treating them like a shooting gallery with cheap bullets. In some areas, tank can impose the element of using both hittables for defence, or one for defence and another ready to punt for the push in.

47
Equilibrium Cup / Re: Equilibrium Cup #3
« on: April 25, 2014, 04:59:04 pm »
Bumping the thread, there are 9 days remaining until registration closes!

48
Left 4 Dead 2 / Re: Let's talk about hittables
« on: April 25, 2014, 04:54:18 pm »
I'm indifferent towards hittables, doesn't really bother me what does or doesn't happen to them. If I had to lean in one direction, I'd be open to lowering the damage of hittables, although I must admit that part of the reason why I'd welcome this sort of change is because way too many tanks these days choose the dumbed-down option of smashing hittables around until they're no longer within reach. Some tank players will even screw their SI support, still be under 1000 hp and try and go all-in with hittables and they're left wondering why the caveman tactic fails them. A few players in Europe (not naming names) are ridiculously notorious for this: they will abandon any other approach if given one or two hittables and either the support lands, the survivors make mistakes with their positioning, or the tank just flops.

Of course, those players will rage like mad over anything less than an instant incap from a hittable because they become almost entirely dependent on that approach whenever possible. But it would be an overall benefit if hittables were lessened as to not be a crutch but rather an extra alternative for dealing damage. Hittables can still be used but there'd be more of a requirement for support to keep the survivors in position if the tank wishes to maintain constant use of hittables. It would certainly enforce the need for more team work and tank play to be more controlled and calculated in general.

I'd be willing to try either what is in Jaegermod already (48 dmg per hittable) or maybe limit the amount of hittables to being 1 or 2 max in any given area. Any change which encourages players to not depend as much on a crutch to carry them is always a positive.




49
Equilibrium Cup / Re: Equilibrium Cup #3
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:35:33 am »
Is the HAN System enforced? What if both teams agree to do a Home and Away match, say Asia vs Europe in their respective servers. Is that allowed or must we follow the table?

No, it's not enforced. But it is recommended based on what we've learnt in previous international cups and the table can still be edited if we find better options for neutral servers in testing. I recall in the previous cup where you and two certain Russian teams had the chance to play a neutral game, and the Russians opted to play home/away matches with at least 400 ping both ways.  :D Besides, Shanti's Bitches are not going to be around for much longer, which is why Russia's home server is listed as Frankfurt (Hyper-V).

I'd also like to inform everyone that the deadline for registration ends at midnight GMT on Sunday May 4th with the cup itself going live 24 hours after that, so any teams wanting to play still have a little over 2 weeks left to sign up. We currently stand at 22 confirmed teams and there are certainly more to come! We also have the cup rules here: https://github.com/Attano/l4d2-tourney-rules/blob/master/rules_EQCup3.md

50
After having spoken to estoopi, I've learnt that he actually completed all the necessary edits on map 1 so that's fine. Map 2 only needs about 2 very noticeable edits, map 3 seems completely fine, and the finale only needs about 3 or 4 changes at most. I'm guessing that the vast majority of them are simple, with 1 maybe being slightly tricky but not critical to change if it can't be done.

51
Equilibrium Cup / Re: Equilibrium Cup #3
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:05:06 pm »
As you can see by the opening post, we're changing the EQ Nations World Cup into EQ Cup #3 due to a few reasons:

1. As best as we tried to give everyone a fair chance to play, there isn't really a reliable ruleset which can excuse a couple of teams that have attempted to sign up. A handful of teams that have already been confirmed did adhere to the 50% rule we included, but that in itself has drawn many complaints and way too much bitching. People who have been caught cheating in the recent past; I could understand objections in that department. But this is bitching about people who don't reside in populous nations with at least 3 other compatriots to team up with, meaning it's impossible for them to play for their own nations. At the end of the day, the cup is open to anyone of any nationality or skill level.

2. The last nations cup hosted by pwg wasn't even 100% a strict 'nations cup' but now it seems that the community just doesn't have the same options as it did 18 months ago. A few teams that were around then, contained players who are no longer active anymore which makes organising national teams a lot more difficult for smaller and/or less populous nations. This also is related to the first problem mentioned above.

3. People arguing based on random assumptions that teams can be formed because they have inactive players who don't play the game anymore and that every player wants to play in the same tournament: obviously no tournament admin can force teams/players to enter a cup against their will, nor can they force/expect players who are no longer interested in the game to come back and play just because you magically wish for it to happen, so why the hell do people even bother arguing this? It's laughable.
 
4. Because I'm fed up of people adding/messaging me just to moan and bitch about something out of ignorance, especially those who have never hosted or helped admin a cup once and have no real understanding of how the process goes. Show enough ungratefulness to those who actually make the effort to create something and it won't be a surprise to see something happening like with what happened with the Russian community, something that Visor can explain better than me.

So it's now a cup for standard teams of 6 players each, with no limits based on nationalities. As much as we wanted to see a world nations cup, it's just not as feasible as it seems and is far too much hassle to even attempt. It's not that there can't be a world cup, it's just that if you want to see it '100%' it means that the admin has to be the harsh bastard who straight-up tells people they can or cannot enter an international cup based on which corner of the globe they're from, which would be absurd.

So what does this mean? What has changed and what remains the same?

1. There are no longer limits based on nationality; meaning that teams now have the liberty of fielding whoever they like, but the max limit of players per team remains at 6.

2. You may edit your rosters if you want to, but of course having a complete national team is also fine too and does not have to be changed. You can still represent your country if you wish to, it's just that for the sake of giving everyone an equal chance in this tournament, we've simply changed it in name.

3. No need to add me just to ask who can play for your team based on where they come from!  :D

4. It also means that I won't accept any more random invites for more bitching! This change was made to make it fair for everyone who wishes to compete and eliminate the issues caused. There doesn't need to be further discussions about it and even if there were, it's not going to change this outcome either. So enough is enough.


I apologise for any inconveniences this may cause to anyone, but this really is the best solution overall.

52
Left 4 Dead 2 / Looking for a volunteer who knows how to use Stripper
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:46:20 am »
There's a custom campaign called Fall in Death which looks interesting for versus and a few of us are very keen to see it in action. It's a 4-map campaign, the individual maps don't feel too long either and it seems to have a decent flow as you progress through the campaign. With an intriguing finale in addition, we're determined to see what it can do.

Originally, estoopi was helping us out with this campaign. But he withdrew from the process due to personal reasons, hence why this thread is up. We would really appreciate any volunteer willing to step up. There isn't really a huge amount left to do, as most of the hard work was in map 1, which estoopi was close to completing but how far exactly he got, we would need to find out. With map 1 almost finished and map 3 being completely fine already, only map 2 and the finale need a few changes each and it should be good to go.

53
Left 4 Dead 2 / Re: Competitive L4D2 Tournament History
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:24:10 am »
2011

1st Place - Router Pixies (maidu, xenon, oh yeah, paavian, ?)
(top of my head, there is missing players but not sure if nutty was on that lineup or not.)
2nd Place - Businessmen (kekkeri, costo, poni, red)
3rd Place - HS (I also agree with visor)

1st Place - Router Pixies (maidu, Xenon, nelly, jason, Matella, OhYeah)*

3rd place - High Skill (inc, Antares, Shad0w, Shinobi, Toxa, aim, O4KoPe3, W4ltagE)

paavian was meant to be in Pixies' roster, but for some strange reason which I still don't know to this day, he went AWOL before the fragpipe even began, and didn't reappear until at least several months after the tournament ended. So he never actually featured for Pixies in a single fragpipe match. I'm not 100% sure that OhYeah played a single match either as he was the chief organiser and admin of the tournament, so him listed in the roster is a loose mention. And Nutty I think stopped playing way back in early 2010; his departure was the reason why Pixies had to abandon their original all-Estonian philosophy.

54
Left 4 Dead 2 / Re: Broadening the scene
« on: April 03, 2014, 07:05:18 pm »
This happens to me all the time but in reverse.

It makes me twitch to not see the "u"

Neighbour, Favourite, Colours.

AND SPELL CHECK THINKS I'M WRONG.

/rant


On topic: Zen and I have thrown the idea around of an L2L or draft style tournament but we've wanted to wait until the big boy tournaments are over so that the 'expensive' players, as dragon put it, might be more focused on this tournament instead of it being viewed as a side project.

Well I can say there's no need to twitch over Battle's way of spelling 'elaborate' as I can only guess that the phantom 'u' is either down to his drug abuse, alcohol abuse or both. And I'm guessing you also meant Battle instead of me about the part of 'expensive' players XD

In my honest opinion, a draft-style tournament would function a lot better if it was aimed specifically at newer and lesser experienced players: a bunch of folk who are new to the scene and are very likely to not have a team of 3 other friends straight off the bat. Although it's not guaranteed to eliminate the possibility of it, it's still extremely unlikely that friendships and rivalries would play a major part in a competition aimed at the mentioned level of players and would therefore lessen the extent of teams being stacked. No one would really know for certain if any team at all could be stacked because they would all be playing with and against each other in competition for the first time.

You could even do it in one of two possible ways: either keep the teams static for the entire duration that they are in the  tournament, or do what I was once planning to do a long time ago, which was make it on the basis of the performance of players being what determines who advances into the next phase, a contest of natural selection would be a more fitting way of describing it. For example:

1. Team A faces and beats Team B

2. Team A has 2 players which ranked #1 and #2 in the overall MVP stats, but Team B had 2 players which were ranked #3 and #4.

3. Team A advances to the next part of the tournament and retains the #1 and #2 players, but it also absorbs the #3 and #4 players from Team B who they had just defeated in the previous round.

4. This process repeats over and over until the grand final.

What it would do (theoretically) is test players on their ability not just to play to their best and adapt, but to also realise that working together as a team is paramount and that the further they go in the tournament, the more they will begin to see that point for themselves when the 'weaker' players start to get knocked out of the competition (or even the stronger players who had a chance of advancing but the team they played for in that 'final moment' just didn't get it together).

In order for this to work though, you'd need a more advanced and relevantly-detailed MVP system (something myself and my team-mate Oni are devising and working on in the background). And also, you'd need enough 'new' players to sign up! Whether that's feasible in the US scene right now, I don't know. A tournament like this though if and when L4D3 comes about, would definitely benefit those fresh and eager enough to get their feet wet.




55
Equilibrium Cup / Re: EQ Nations World Cup 2014
« on: March 27, 2014, 04:38:14 pm »
Due to complications and quite a number of requests made towards the admins, we've decided to be a little more lenient and include the 50% rule: a team's roster may have players who don't live in/originate from the nation of their team, as long as at least 50% of the team's roster lives in/originates from the actual nation they're representing. We've had to do this in response to a fair number of individual players who hail from much smaller nations in the European and Russian communities which don't have enough players to make a team of 4.

So basically, if a USA team has at least 3 players, they could ask a Canadian/Mexican/anybody to be their 4th. It's not totally ideal for a 'Nations Cup' admittedly, but the last nations cup that was ever done had to go through a similar process. It would still be awesome if there was indeed at least one Team Canada throwing themselves in the mix! :)

Despite that, bumping the thread for 12 confirmed teams and word of more teams on the way!

56
Equilibrium Cup / Re: EQ Nations World Cup 2014
« on: March 22, 2014, 10:54:23 pm »
Bump for signups thread being officially open to any teams willing to be preemptive; I will list the signed up teams on the first page as they amass. Oh and if there are gonna be multiple teams, you might want to distinguish yourselves by choosing a city/state to play for :)

57
Equilibrium Cup / Re: EQ Nations World Cup 2014
« on: March 22, 2014, 09:54:44 pm »
Quick question, does that mean that Canadians are not allowed on US teams? :D

Well if there are at least 4 players to form Team Canada, then no :D

58
Equilibrium Cup / Equilibrium Cup #3
« on: March 22, 2014, 04:53:54 pm »
We are proud to announce that EQ Cup #3 is coming soon, an international competition pitting the very best teams around the globe against each other. Team Impossibru from Europe were the champions of the inaugural tournament back in 2012 and only a few months ago, Team nv- from Asia clinched a long and hard-fought victory to become the new reigning champions. Will they return to defend their title, or will there be new winners waiting to clinch their glory?

The deadline for signups will be announced as soon as EQ 2.1 is 100% ready, which will be happening very soon. Teams can have a maximum of 6 players and there is no limit to how many teams sign up. The teams that are officially registered and confirmed by the admins, will be listed at the bottom of this opening page.

We will be unveiling a ruleset and map rotation very soon, and as for signups, this discussion thread right here is the place to go to enter your teams: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/eqcup2/discussions/0/540736965908236393/

It's an international competition which is open to teams of any skill level: you can be top tier or new and fresh on the scene, it doesn't matter to us. So get together with your friends, get in shape, have some fun and we'll see you very soon! ;)

Registered teams:

01. Vintage Germany (Germany)
02. Team Clarity (Russia)
03. Agent's Team (Russia)
04. PlatinuM Clan (Russia)
05. A`Q (Russia)
06. Crazy Frenchies (France)
07. N0n`Stop< (EU)
08. Team France (France)
09. Team Dat Italy (Italy)
10. The VooDoo BoyZ (USA)
11. Team USA (USA)
12. Team Africa (EU)
13. His Infernal Majesty (Peru)
14. Team Combat Care Bears (USA)
15. Team Singapore (Singapore)
16. Dynasty (EU)
17. Impossible Gods (Russia)
18. Pink Panther Gang (UK)
19. Team something... (USA)
20. NV- (Japan)
21. Team Axis (USA)
22. Team - aZ (Taiwan)
23. Team dno skill (Russia)
24. Sweet Venom (USA)
25. Knockout n' Walkout (USA)
26. Wubbalubbadubdub! (USA)
27. l4m (Japan)
28. Team Of Four Ubermensch (South Korea)
29. Team EXtra (USA)

59
If you're going to create a scoring system that people can get behind, then you need to follow these simple rules:

1. Acknowledge the fact that there's simply no avoiding distance points: it's the only scoring measure that the game has in the event that both teams wipe on the same map(s). Distance points are there to stay whether you like it or not, so rather than trying to skip over it, make the most of it by measuring how the maps really are in terms of their true distance and survivor difficulty.

For example, not including whatever happens at the tank, Parish 1 at best is worth 3 SI attacks, maybe even 2 SI attacks if the survivors are good and fast enough, yet it's deemed to be 75% of the distance value of Dark Carnival 1 (300 compared to 400 distance) which can have about twice or three times as many attacks outside of the tank. This is also another reason why making maps the same value as each other in distance is ill-advised because then you create Parish 1 syndrome: the shortest maps are actually the most valuable and decisive ones and its effect becomes more prominent depending on how wipe-heavy the config is.

2. Be certain about the main philosophy of your scoring system and make it logical and appealing: correct me if I'm wrong, hib, but I guess by your ideas that you're aiming for your system to be based mostly on incap and death count for survivors? Also with normal healthbonus scoring to determine how the score is in the event of 0 incaps?

With healthbonus, it's pretty much what the health bars say when you hold down TAB whilst figuring number of incaps, current amount of temp health and pills into the equation. Damage scoring is 1 bonus deducted per 1 hp lost no matter which map it is, and hybrid bonus combines a bit of both where damage scoring is the main form of calculation, but the scoring per bonus point scales according to the map in question and still emphasises the value of playing efficiently enough to preserve your solid health.

These are the general philosophies that constitute the backbone of each config's respective scoring system. Can your philosophy of incap and death count be successful, hib? Remains to be seen, but by all means, experiment with it!

3. Reconcile with the fact that there is no such thing as a flawless scoring system, but do aim to cut out as many flaws as you can: due to the structure and inherent design of the game, there's simply not enough options to conceive the fantasy of a flawless scoring system. All scoring systems have their flaws.

But for this example, I will only cite the classic healthbonus system because it's the one that everyone's familiar with: once temp health is on the menu and/or pills are chugged, the automatic decline of bonus begins. Bleeding is a very common and easy state to inflict upon the survivors, but because HB measures the current collective health, it will drop down. This creates the flaw where SI don't even have to do anything, even when they're dead and waiting for their spawn timers to tick down to 0, a bleeding survivor will uncontrollably lose bonus. It's the same flaw that's the root cause of when survivors are 1 hp, then get incapped and have an extra brand new 30 temp health to enjoy: why is getting an incap and then being picked up worth more bonus to the survivors than not being incapped with low health? And pills too, holding onto them with 50+ hp is not as valuable in points as passing them to someone with less than 50 hp on them. This isn't even anything relevant to do with gameplay, but somehow the act of passing pills is merited by the scoring system. It's flaws like those that you need to think around.

4. Make sure your overall formula is logical, reliable and can scale well according to any map: again, this is to avoid flaws like Parish 1 syndrome. But you also want to make sure it's reliable across all maps for the simple reason that you don't want to overvalue or undervalue any maps too greatly. You could for example create a formula that works superbly on shorter maps, maybe even maps of average distance, but then scales horribly on longer distance maps, or vice versa. You want to avoid this at all costs as it risks making your scoring system seem inaccurate!

5. Don't bother making a system where Infected can score points: it was an idea we tried initially for EQ 2.0 to jazz things up a bit and experiment, and it seemed fine at first, but it comes with its own set of flaws. Two biggest examples were: when survivors wipe on both sides, Team A could score less distance than Team B, but if Team A scored more temp health damage as SI (like it was set in our testing) then Team A could score enough IB (Infected Bonus) to leapfrog Team B's superior distance score. There were a lot of factors in this, Team B even survived longer during the early tank and then made a push, but got less points for map 1 overall. Team A got more points but were certainly not the better team in this regard.

So for that, we then tried only awarding IB if they made the safe room but that created another hilarious flaw: if you had no bonus left, it would be more beneficial to the survivors if they shot each other to death to get max distance but also prevent SI from claiming their bonus. So yeah, any form of scoring with SI is a no-go. So when scoring is completely in favour of the survivors, it leads to the next rule:

6. Don't be afraid to structure your scoring system to challenge the survivors: by this, I mean you don't have to be too lenient with the scoring if they play badly, despite what other people might say on that subject. After all, the laws of this game dictate that survivors always have the final say over almost everything. A hunter, jockey or a charger can commit their actions but there is always the possibility that the survivor(s) can land that skeet/level etc. When playing at full potential, they are by far the more powerful side, so go ahead and challenge them.

Although it's unlikely that any scoring system will dramatically change the way people play atm to avoid taking damage (unless you completely fucked with the meta), there is still a slight chance that a more demanding scoring system might make players more conscious of their performance where it matters most. And if you can achieve this without hyper-inflating the scoring difference between teams, you've got something good going on!

7. Beware of the community and the very best it has to offer: any config developer will know that if there's one obstacle that humanity likes to spam in your face, it's resistance to change. And the stupid part is, that even if you conceived the smartest scoring system anyone's ever seen, it still likely won't be enough to convince the mindset of those who believe 'Habit and what I've played with for years > logic and reason'. If you're looking for approval from other people, even just a few people who are smart enough to accurately weigh the pros and cons of your system with full comprehension of its formula and how it applies itself in games, and determine on their own that it's a superior system (which ofc you should know that by yourself and whoever assists you after enough testing) and without letting habit or lack of understanding influence their evaluation of it, then gaining the favour of those few alone should be enough. Truthfully, if people are forming opinions with anything less than full comprehension of a scoring system, then they should refrain from casting judgement (which unfortunately is very common - "This scoring system is bad, I don't know how it works though" *facepalm x 1000*).

8. And finally, never deviate from your original vision: not even for the sake of popularity! As unconventional as this may seem, the competitive state of L4D2 has developed far beyond any semblance of its vanilla form, where tons of changes and updates have been implemented throughout the years. It's only expected that its 'evolution' is widely debated with many varying opinions between community members. Even stuff today that seems beyond debate, others try to debate it still. It just proves that you can never please everybody so there's no point in even basing your config/scoring system on an unrealistic pursuit. Even people with lack of experience and/or understanding of the game attempt to weigh in with their opinions and sometimes it reaches a point where with each shift in generation, things are either thrown in, or are tossed out and discarded, even a few old values which may have been arguably worth keeping.

What I'm saying basically is: don't be swayed by what 'the majority' say, especially if it completely screws with how you want to see your final product be. Whilst opinions might vary wildly between people, pat yourself on the back for being one of the few that actually stood up and took action rather than sat back and favoured inaction. At the end of the day, it is your config, your scoring system, and you took action to make it happen. The people who still argue that they want something their way but aren't prepared to put in the effort themselves, they're the ones losing out. They always have the option of either learning to do it themselves, or finding an equally-willing coder who shares their vision.

In my honest opinion, as an example of what I've just described, I think the developers of Pro Mod 4.0 should release damage scoring as they intend it to be (perhaps even in the next version of the 3.5 series, if there is to be an extension), regardless of public opinion or how well it's received or not. They make the config, they pour over it with their hours of labour, it should always follow their vision first, without any hesitance or worrying about what the people might say. The community is simply too vast in opinion and more indecisive than a typical on/off couple in a tenth-rate tv soap; you know how it's going to go and you want it over with asap to spare your mind the predictable insanity of watching the same crap over and over again!

So good luck with your scoring system, hib. It will be interesting to see in action! :)

60
General / Academy 4 Dead
« on: January 29, 2014, 05:20:40 pm »
This is a new group aimed at providing long-term mentoring to newer and lesser experienced players who are most eager to learn and grow. It's a public group so anyone can join and send invites to whoever, and you can check out the group page here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/l4dacademy

We are open to recruiting willing mentors to help share the load should there be more eager members wanting to learn, but that does not automatically mean we will just hand out the role of mentor to anyone who simply asks. Long-term mentoring has slightly different requirements compared to mentoring on the fly under situational circumstances, and we must be sure that those wishing to volunteer are up to the task. Also, for a more detailed explanation (which was on the steam group before I had to trim it in size) about the group, I give you this copy-paste:

What is the Academy? It's the place where new and inexperienced players wish to broaden their understanding of the game beyond simple tips and tricks, where players wish to truly evolve and know what it is like to play and function like a vital cog in the well-oiled machine that is a team brimming with chemistry.

Although A4D can apply to L4D2, it is mostly aimed in anticipation of L4D3. Most of what is taught in this group can be applied to the structure of the series, so it stands to reason that whatever inexperienced or new players learn in this group, will be something they can employ in the future.

We here at the Academy can host games for inexperienced players to mix with each other, but our main speciality is in long-term mentoring, specifically consultations with an allocated mentor who can also host practice sessions for mutiple students at once, which we believe is the real way to accelerate a player's learning phase.

Of course, one mentor alone cannot do all of this. So there will be other mentors as well as open vacancies for willing mentors, specially
handpicked to instruct new students in each major aspect of the game. It is vital that students listen to their mentors at all times. Whilst it is expected of all mentors to perform their duties with a certain degree of maturity and responsibility, all students will also be required to show some respect and neither behave nor react inappropriately to anything that transpires which they disagree with.

We will also be collaborating with members from the Left 2 Learn group (L2L) to provide an enriching experience to members developing through their channel in the North American scene. Although this group is primarily based in Europe, it would be inaccurate to say it's only for the European community. If anything, we here at the Academy believe that a more unified link of communications between every competitive L4D community serves as a bonus to all, and prevents cases of isolation and disconnection from the outside world. So even on a global scale, we will also keep an eye out for mentoring possibilities for willing students in each community if at all possible.

Anyone can help A4D grow simply by pointing curious folk or potential students in the direction of this steam group. You can invite friends or even random players you meet in public vanilla games. Everyone is welcome, but antagonists will be suspended, and anyone caught using hacks will be expelled indefinitely from the Academy.

Players who learn and adapt sufficiently in the eyes of their mentor(s) will 'graduate' from the Academy and be deemed ready for higher levels of competition beyond A4D. In the future, Academy 4 Dead will also host tournaments aimed at new and inexperienced players in the comp scene, where success in any of these tournaments will automatically guarantee 'graduation' for the eventual victors.

Remember, the two most important things in A4D, are to learn and to have fun. So elevate and enjoy yourselves at the same time! :)


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
A dedicated community website to competitive L4D and L4D2, ran by the community, for the community. L4DNation supports all continents of play and focuses on bringing together the community as a whole to a central hub of information.