Official Servers

[blondie]

I did not make that comment with any value judgments. I just want to make sure the automatic assumption of Armagoshdarn-ish settings is happening for good reasons, and not because those involved have fond memories of good times.

As someone who never played in Armagoshdarn, I've never seen a good explanation of why the settings are so good. As whenever I've played in a clone, including this one, I've been underwhelmed by the settings, I would welcome an explanation to help me see whatever it is I'm missing.

[Lucifer]

I did not make that comment with any value judgments. I just want to make sure the automatic assumption of Armagoshdarn-ish settings is happening for good reasons, and not because those involved have fond memories of good times.

As someone who never played in Armagoshdarn, I've never seen a good explanation of why the settings are so good. As whenever I've played in a clone, including this one, I've been underwhelmed by the settings, I would welcome an explanation to help me see whatever it is I'm missing.

To tie this in with what Phytotron's saying (or at least how I read it) and also with what I mean:

There are no physical constraints to an official server. There's a lot of collected experience in the community right now about what attracts and keeps new players, and we want to tap that experience. It so happens that the servers (both old and new) that have always gotten mentions over the years have generally derived from Goshdarn. But that's still only part of the story (I'll get to the rest in a bit, after Kanye finishes).

The settings on Goshdarn in particular limited speed and encouraged competition. To win, you had to take risks. The scoring was setup so that in order to score points, you had to take down your opponents. When you put that together, if you wanted to win, you had to take risks to take down your opponents.

If there's a core concept of this game, that is it. Official servers need to be built around that concept, period. None of this "Looky, it's a racing server!" If you can build a racing server that requires you to take risks in order to win, rather than just finish the course faster than the others, then we'll look at it. Likewise, Phytotron's ongoing exceptions with zone-based game modes comes into play here. I'm sure in the hell not saying we won't have zone-based game modes. What I'm saying is that whatever zone-based game modes we have will adhere to the standard: if you want to win, you have to take risks to take down your opponent. Fortress meets that standard (and I expect Phytotron to disagree with this, but it wouldn't surprise me if he agrees), but it seems to be inherent to the game that new players get a mixed bag when they play a fortress server for the first time. Again, more on that in a bit (after Kanye finishes).

In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many players (no, this isn't weasel words), High Rubber eliminates the risk. Since that is a crucial part of the game concept here, we cannot use a High Rubber server as an official server. Also, new players are expecting to crash when they hit a wall, and High Rubber definitely doesn't provide that experience.

Physics plays a part in it, but it's not a complete part. The Breakfast servers, notably, were a place where you could take steps to virtually guarantee taking down your opponent with minimal risk, due to the speed involved on the servers. If I were going to teach a class on how to play armagetron, the freshman year would be focused on Goshdarn settings, the sophomore year on Breakfast of Champions settings, and the junior year on Breakfast in Hell settings (smaller grid, faster cycles, same wall length). I always viewed Breakfast in Hell as re-introducing the risk that was lost with Breakfast of Champions (not that there wasn't a lot of risk still left, mind you).

But at a certain point, physics is just physics.

The other thing that Goshdarn offered (or so I hear, remember I only played the subsequent clones as well) was a sense of belonging. Everybody was welcome. There were no arbitrary bullshit rules about closing, or only attacking certain people, or anything like that. It was a free-for-all-fun-for-all place. I feel like I can say that even though I never played there because the servers that came after it were comprised of the same players. There wasn't a lot of turnover at the time.

So everybody was welcome, and nobody went away unhappy. There was a growth because of Goshdarn, and then afterwards (the second wave Tank talks about) there was a huge growth which included the prophet coming back (Z-man ), a new version, and so forth. That growth turned into momentum, and fed directly into the creation of fortress, multi-axis play, maps, and so forth. It was an exciting time to be here!

And it's over now. But we're taking those lessons and moving on.

The problem with fortress is that no matter how much we mull it over, discuss it, or whatever, there's always going to be people who kick-poll others at the first sign of not-grinding-center. Period. Those people can't be eliminated. And, to be honest, we don't want to eliminate them.

We want new players to have a place where they can play and be welcome and learn how to play the game, and if they really enjoy it, the public servers are always there waiting for them to explore. Sooner or later they'll encounter fortress.

When they do, they'll hopefully already know A) how to read chat other players give, B) how to maneuver a light cycle, and C) what grinding means.

So the average experience of a new player in a mixed-bag environment like fortress should be improved dramatically, and the fortress community will stop feeling the pressure to make new players welcome and can continue the competitive thing they've got going. They still have to try harder not to be smegheads, but let's be honest, that's true on every single server, some more than others.

To sum up: The sense of community, the welcoming environment, and the overall good sportsmanship that existed going back to Goshdarn and prevailed for many years after that: yep, that's what we want.

Physics that support the idea that this game should require players to take risks to take down their opponents: yep, that's what we want.

Don't expect my goshdarn clone to remain a clone. My Breakfast of Champions clone didn't stay a clone, after all. Neither will this. Running it as a clone is merely a starting point.

@Blondie: Have I satisfied your concerns?

@Phytotron: Have I satisfied yours?

[blondie]

not really, I'm not talking about the decision to do armagoshdarn vs fortress/hr/racing w/e. I'm talking about the decision to have 3 rubber instead of 2.5 or cycle_speed 10 instead of 15, or cycle_accel 30 instead of 29, etc, etc, etc. Like I said, I've been consistently underwhelmed by armagoshdarn-clone physics, so I was wondering if there was a explanation of them.

[Tank Program]

Think of Armagoshdarn for normal game modes like Z-man's test server was for fortress game modes. That aside, I think I see what you're saying about the particular physics settings. My thoughts on that are that physics settings at that level will always feel a bit arbitrary. It's up to the server admin who creates the settings to say "these are the ones, this is the feel I want". In this case that's us the project developers with feedback from the community. There are too many possible combinations for a more reasoned approach otherwise. It's a bit monte-carlo like what takes off.

[sinewav]

...physics settings at that level will always feel a bit arbitrary.

A good point, I agree. I think servers like Goshdarn (all incarnations I've played), Shrunk, and other similar ones all have good settings. Likewise, blondie has made a few servers that feel just as good. All of these servers new and old are good because they are thoughtful. Every one makes necessary compromises on speed, rubber, grid size, etc. None of them are perfect and none of them can be. They all have their quirks. However, they are all balanced, well tested, and are the result of solid theory, careful planning, and execution. I wouldn't mind seeing a few of blondie's ideas go head to head with the old favorites, though we should all understand that to the average player these differences will also seem equally arbitrary.

[D33P]

you had to take risks to take down your opponents.

If there's a core concept of this game, that is it. Official servers need to be built around that concept, period.

That is your own philosophy. There are many different kinds of servers with many different ways of “winning” that don’t involve risk taking. Why should we restrict ourselves to anyone's philosophy? We should choose servers based on good reasoning, not by adhering to an arbitrary philosophy or standard.

Also, new players are expecting to crash when they hit a wall, and High Rubber definitely doesn't provide that experience.

A brand new player might expect that during the first few seconds that they play the game, but on any server with more than 1 rubber, they soon realize that they have this thing called rubber that prevents them from dying immediately on contact with a wall. I do admit that High Rubber (the gametype, not any server with high rubber) wouldn’t be the best server to use, as it’s camping is essentially game breaking.

There should be only 3 restrictions as to what servers we should consider as official servers:

1. Easy to understand - pretty self explanatory. A confusing server would be discouraging to new players that are still trying to learn the fundamentals of the game.

2. No rules - rules add complexity and are enforced subjectively. It would also be discouraging to a new player to be scolded at or smited for doing something they don't understand.

3. Able to survive more than 10 seconds - some servers require a skill level to play the game at a basic level that’s above the skill of a new player. For example, if a brand new player entered a sumo server, they would either be killed for wandering outside of the zone or for dying on a wall inside of the zone - most likely within 10 seconds of the round starting. We don’t want new players having to wait most of the round spectating instead of playing.

If a server meets the above 3 criteria, then it should be up for consideration as an official server. I would be fine with servers like Armagoshdarn and Breakfast in ______ being official servers, but in addition to those servers, we should try to have a diverse number of servers that offer different types of experience, such as an (easy) racing/tunnel server or a gametype like Fasttrack. Of course, as a Fasttrack player, I have a bias towards it; however, Fasttrack has a large population of new players that seem to visit frequently, and it offers a fun, competitive environment that doesn’t require rules or “frowned upon” strategies, so I feel it would be a good official server.

[Lucifer]

you had to take risks to take down your opponents.

If there's a core concept of this game, that is it. Official servers need to be built around that concept, period.

That is your own philosophy. There are many different kinds of servers with many different ways of “winning” that don’t involve risk taking. Why should we restrict ourselves to anyone's philosophy? We should choose servers based on good reasoning, not by adhering to an arbitrary philosophy or standard.

Also, new players are expecting to crash when they hit a wall, and High Rubber definitely doesn't provide that experience.

A brand new player might expect that during the first few seconds that they play the game, but on any server with more than 1 rubber, they soon realize that they have this thing called rubber that prevents them from dying immediately on contact with a wall. I do admit that High Rubber (the gametype, not any server with high rubber) wouldn’t be the best server to use, as it’s camping is essentially game breaking.

There should be only 3 restrictions as to what servers we should consider as official servers:

1. Easy to understand - pretty self explanatory. A confusing server would be discouraging to new players that are still trying to learn the fundamentals of the game.

2. No rules - rules add complexity and are enforced subjectively. It would also be discouraging to a new player to be scolded at or smited for doing something they don't understand.

3. Able to survive more than 10 seconds - some servers require a skill level to play the game at a basic level that’s above the skill of a new player. For example, if a brand new player entered a sumo server, they would either be killed for wandering outside of the zone or for dying on a wall inside of the zone - most likely within 10 seconds of the round starting. We don’t want new players having to wait most of the round spectating instead of playing.

If a server meets the above 3 criteria, then it should be up for consideration as an official server. I would be fine with servers like Armagoshdarn and Breakfast in ______ being official servers, but in addition to those servers, we should try to have a diverse number of servers that offer different types of experience, such as an (easy) racing/tunnel server or a gametype like Fasttrack. Of course, as a Fasttrack player, I have a bias towards it; however, Fasttrack has a large population of new players that seem to visit frequently, and it offers a fun, competitive environment that doesn’t require rules or “frowned upon” strategies, so I feel it would be a good official server.

I haven't played on any Fasttrack servers. I'm not dismisssing them, and I'm not the authority to appeal to on this one. I'm trying to set up a proof of concept, basically making sure that what we're trying t do can be done.

As far as actual servers, personally, I'm quite open about them.

Your three points are to be added to the requirements for official servers, because they are excellent points points.

It's worth pointing out that every server need not meet those requirements. New players that get pwned on a server can try a new one, where the odds may be different. In that way, maybe you make a stronger point about diversity.

This thread isn't about establishing what the official servers will be. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. This thread is about experimenting with them, and setting up the backend to make them actually happen.

When I made my goshdarn clone, I had no intention that that should be an official server. I had the hope, don't get me wrong on that, but not the intention.

For the immediate future, let's focus on making sure it's technically possible, and if there are any code changes needed, let' get those done.

There's pleny of time to sort out the servers that will be used.

Everything I've said is not a dismissal of anybody's concerns. It's simply a statement of my priorities. My priorities don't make the game, although they can be quite influential.

[Tank Program]

I'd like to point out that "rubber" is probably a difficult concept for a new player to grasp, particularly thanks to its somewhat misleading name. As players communicating with each other back in the 2004 era, it took us a good while to work out what it was and how it affected the game. We should be cautious with any mechanic that directly involves rubber effects in an official server because it's not intuitive. This is especially true if a player's only experience of light cycles comes from the Movies or any of the other top down games with much simpler game physics. For example, imagine if you started playing a game of snake with rubber, but weren't told it had it.

</Side track from Lucifer's point about the technical feasibility, which is where we're really at the moment.>

[/dev/null]

As far as darn (and probably a bit closer in this case, ish) clones go, I feel I have a pretty good config setup for world of hate if anyones interested in trying it. Its not instakill, but you certainly dont want to 180 if you dont have to, while still having just enough room to grind. I have no idea how well it works on servers after 2.8 or before 2.7, but it works well enough on those two.

Granted, I cant grind for shit on my own servers, but thats due to the ping rubber I give to people to keep them from instasplattering (which could possibly be turned down a bit safely, I never experimented with it much, I enjoyed the challenge)

If anyones interested, im sure I can find the configs somewhere, I think they are still on my dead servers boot drive.

[Durf]

I'd like to point out that "rubber" is probably a difficult concept for a new player to grasp, particularly thanks to its somewhat misleading name. As players communicating with each other back in the 2004 era, it took us a good while to work out what it was and how it affected the game. We should be cautious with any mechanic that directly involves rubber effects in an official server because it's not intuitive. This is especially true if a player's only experience of light cycles comes from the Movies or any of the other top down games with much simpler game physics. For example, imagine if you started playing a game of snake with rubber, but weren't told it had it.

</Side track from Lucifer's point about the technical feasibility, which is where we're really at the moment.>

I disagree - there are many cases where rubber is EASY to grasp as a "health bar".
There are many games where your "health" regenerates (rubber refill is the same).
If you ask me, it is the settings used that make the concept obscure (a combination of deplete and refill that makes it harder for users to see it as "health") on some servers.
Though Fast Track serves as a decent example - many players start on that server and they don't seem to have a problem understanding rubber.
I think it highly depends on how it is presented to users (the settings used, and the overall effects of the gameplay and how it affects rubber usage).

(You mentioned a snake game - that's how I describe tron to people. It's a multiplayer snake game, where you turn in absolute [precise] values wherever you turned [not in equally spaced increments] and you have "health" and brakes. If you ask me, I don't think it's a problem to grasp.)



Though onto technical feasibility:
Couldn't we just use branding?
I mean, people should know by now to expect something different when they see a server " - by: Durf". Those are the expectations set by branding.
Couldn't we avoid coding unnecessarily if the same effect can be achieved through branding?
Example: "OFFICIAL - Basic Racing Server" or something along those lines.
The only foreseeable problems are troll servers (people naming their servers so as to pretend to be official, which can still technically be done even if they aren't listed on top).
I have a few solutions in mind to "verify" official servers for clients (so they can be sure they are on official servers vs troll/copycat servers); lemme know if you're interested.
Anyway, this is hardly that big of a deal either way; but if it means less work in the end, why not?

[vov]

On topic of game settings:
I've got some settings here that make it feel a bit more like classic "movie-scene" tron. You can also tunnel like there and it graphically makes sense. Oh and head on crashes ftw! It uses lots of the complicated settings to make stuff happen, but keeps the gameplay mechanic really simple. It uses a slightly altered map to lessen rim hugging too. Don't know if the speed settings are good enough though.
I tried to make it newbie-friendly, for instance I did increase the turn rate to lessen multibind-spamming. Definitely promotes fighting and not camping too.
Give em a go, maybe there's some stuff you like that can be used for official servers.

[/dev/null]

Fast Track is one of the most boring servers ever. If we make people play that shit first then tron will be dead in a coupla years. Its nothing but go real fast, 180 forever due to the silly rubber, and wait for someone to **** up. It shares a lot of similarities with all the other high rubber servers.

I may be wrong but im pretty sure thats the exact kind of play we are trying to discourage.

Vov, from what ive seen the more of the funny settings you use, the less reliable the rubber becomes unless your ping is under 50, regardless of your actual ping. Also, being able to corner is a big part of the game, and learning how to do it is key.

If you do something and it reacts in a goof ass way, then it makes no sense, and is a lot harder to discern.

[vov]

Yeah, I've only tested in LAN so far, not sure what internet lags will do to it. And the part that allows the tunneling (_mindistance_gap) can be taken out (-> no tunnels at all) and with some other changes (setting cycle_rubber_speed to a more normal-ish value around 50-100 and bumping down _mindistance a bit like to .15-.2) they can be turned into "outdig to live" stuff if wanted. My thought was that the "outdig" behaviour might be a goof-ass-looking mechanic to newbies who expect something closer to other tron games so I tried to do it the way I did. It is indeed different from most other popular settings though. In the end it's gonna be the choice of whoever wants to host one.

[Monkey]

I'm loving this official servers idea, nice one.

Fast Track is one of the most boring servers ever. If we make people play that shit first then tron will be dead in a coupla years. Its nothing but go real fast, 180 forever due to the silly rubber, and wait for someone to **** up. It shares a lot of similarities with all the other high rubber servers.

I may be wrong but im pretty sure thats the exact kind of play we are trying to discourage.

I agree.

I would also like to point out that, in my opinion, a highish cycle_delay is better for both newbies and advanced players. I've just been trying out Tank's server and the low cycle delay just ruins it. Firstly it enables ridiculous camping and secondly it gives multibinders a definite advantage over single binders.

[Durf]

There's a lot of problems with any settings that favor "high rubber".
LIKE ANY combination of settings, only some are viable and playable (fun and competitive).

That being said, you're all experiencing prejudice against high rubber game types because of the history they've had to go through (all the unviable settings attempted).
FastTrack is one of the few higher rubber based settings that are viable (actually has a competitive environment - huge depth in skills to learn).

The problem I'm seeing is that people seem to think fortress is the only game type that is viable enough to have that kind of in-depth competitiveness.
That's simply not true / it takes time for any special configuration of settings to be adjusted over time until it is viable.



IMO, a lower cycle delay is better; multibinding should be encouraged and if anything made default with a new set of default controls.
Ignoring the effects of camping for the moment, multibinding is good and gives you more control over your cycle (try camping with single binding and see the difference).
Many games (like first person shooters) have an alternate set of controls users can switch between. I suggest having multibinding already setup in a few different ways so users can choose one by default (for example: LLLL RRRR or LRLR LRLR or RLRL LRLR or something else that can be decided later).
Saying high cycle delay is good is expecting the players to only single bind (I started tron, and within a day knew how to multibind - single binding is a joke).
The ability was added in for a reason - we shouldn't be avoiding it like it doesn't exist.

it enables ridiculous camping

^ this is an example of how you think that's the limit of the gameplay. If you stayed with it, and pursued the skills available, your attack skill can eventually outdo their camping ability (a box too small to camp in). This is an example of the competitive nature of FastTrack that is met with prejudice (you dismiss it because "camping is annoying" - but that's talking about old HR, not FT).
Even if players camp in Fast Track, FT has "no rules", and therefore it is allowed - it is a part of the gameplay itself.
Just as fort has certain dynamics that must be learned before you can even play well in it, the same is true for any other game type.
That being said, most of the people that have an issue with Fast Track (that I've seen) simply haven't committed to learning how to be good at it (it's the same thing as a noob refusing to grind the center player in fort - they don't think they have to, the game play should be good enough without having to do that.. right?)
I don't expect you to understand, but there's no reason why others wouldn't - don't discount the possibility that Fast Track is just as viable as any other game type just because it doesn't meet your personal preferences - a large majority of players start out on HR servers, and FT in particular.

I may be wrong but im pretty sure thats the exact kind of play we are trying to discourage.

There should be only 3 restrictions as to what servers we should consider as official servers:

1. Easy to understand - pretty self explanatory. A confusing server would be discouraging to new players that are still trying to learn the fundamentals of the game.

2. No rules - rules add complexity and are enforced subjectively. It would also be discouraging to a new player to be scolded at or smited for doing something they don't understand.

3. Able to survive more than 10 seconds - some servers require a skill level to play the game at a basic level that’s above the skill of a new player. For example, if a brand new player entered a sumo server, they would either be killed for wandering outside of the zone or for dying on a wall inside of the zone - most likely within 10 seconds of the round starting. We don’t want new players having to wait most of the round spectating instead of playing.

This is specific enough to ensure viable gametypes are official, as well as making sure it's easy to play.
If you want to talk about discouraging certain gametypes, then dogfight would be the first on that list as it has imposed rules that are difficult to understand...let alone actually play by when you're just a noob.
Surprisingly though, Fast Track fits the criteria just fine.
So what exactly about Fast Track should be discouraged? If you ask me, the prejudice needs to stop - you limit yourself from areas of the game by being that narrow minded.