Support for Competetive L4D?

[doublethink]

Just wondering if there's been any discussion on support for competitive style play... leagues/ladder support or will that be arranged externally (like we do with CS:S)?

Even cooler would be an integrated system like I've seen in Halo2 and Guild Wars.

So yeh - has there been much discussion on the "competetive" angle?

cheers,
dt

[squerl]

Not sure if there's going to be support with it with in-game mechanics, but we'll certainly be supporting any competitive leagues/ladders that start up here at L4D411 (if not creating our own :D).

The only problem I would see with that is that everytime IS different. In other games, you can rely on having the same experience and only having humans impact your play. The Director changes horde spawns up every single time, so how that will relate to fairness in a competitive setting ("this is bull, we got harder spawns zomg") remains to be seen.

[sir monster]

im not sure how you could do it but i like the idea.

[Natace]

The competitive side may be how long a team can last in a level for, or how quick they can get to the end of the level, and things like that, i'm sure it could be done, but it would just be different, and not personal either, as it's a team based game.

[frogopus]

I think squerl is quite right, the game does present itself very differently with each run through, and this makes for an interesting problem in regards to fair competitive play. However, while playing I really felt that the actions and skill of the Infected really affected the outcome of the game. It's hard to rule the normal Infected out entirely because the AI is so strong, you really do get surprised all the time. It was exciting hearing stories from the Dev's, talking about what new thing they encountered from the AI. Even still, the normal zombies are presented in such a way that they're really more of an annoyance-- something that needs to be controlled and monitored but not really a concern as players gain more experience with the game. This means that the regular Infected will become more of a tool for the Infected team, using their presence to judge time for attacks, cover, and overall pressure. If this is the case, competitive play seems perfectly viable to me. The one wrench in the works may be how the Director handles the actual spawns of the players involved. There were certainly good spawns and bad spawns but hopefully it'll all balance out. I'm sure the losing team will still complain :P

[MarxismIsOk]

Ok...first off, this is branded as a complete coop experience. We know there will be scoring and achievments and such, so you can compare these for bragging rights, but other than that, you guys are forgetting that its survivors competing against infected. 4 vs 4. I know that the survivor experience is the premise, but I for one cant wait to pull fools off ledges with the Smoker, or just BEG to be shot as a Boomer. Remember, if you want a competitive instead of cooperative experience, log on to the infected side.

[sir monster]

the problem with a ladder in this case is this :
players who play survivors will be competing against other survivor clans. probably a time/ death sort of thing, who can do the missions quickest/ most efficient.

the infected clans will probably have a similar ladder where the clans see who can stop the survivors the quickest/ most efficient.

the only ways for these to be even remotely fair is if both ladders do AI (maybe at a high difficulty setting) and the team only.
it would have to work like this : once a week every clan in the ladder can submit a vid and summary of their latest quickest time by a certain deadline, then each week the ladder would be updated with the newest information including clan times, player deaths (maybe add a point system to deaths for the competition league only example: every death +30 seconds to the time). these ladders would reflect which clans have the best efficiency for their respective sides.

then a annual or bi annual combined tourney could be run, where the clans who so choose to represent their side will compete in a sort of conquest game type. each team will face each other team on each map... then from the results of those matches you can find who is best on what map for each side... ultimately at the end of the tourney declaring who wins each mission infected/ survivors, as well as clan by clan results.

it would have to have rules and good administrators , dedicated to the time it takes and the trial by error it takes to iron out the rules and formats but this is really the only way i can see competition being implemented in this game while keeping it as fair as possible.

[frogopus]

I have little interest in doing time trials because one nice part of the game is you set your own pace. Walking and taking your time is perfectly viable and a great way to keep the group together and I would venture a guess that this style may really be the best way to handle higher difficulties. Or you can run and gun your way through and that may work just as well for you. The dev's actually commented on this, saying that at TRS the guys will spend a ton of time working their way carefully through the level and then they go to Valve where its a much quicker pace. We experimented with different speeds, once with me trying like hell to keep up with squerl and the two other Survivors just cleaning up the stuff that was probably trying to get behind us.

I still say that itll be possible to run matches like you do in CSS, with two clans playing with one on Infected side and one on Survivor, and then switching. Clearly if one team Survives and the other doesn't the winner is obvious. If both teams survive or both die on Survivor side, then there would be some way to judge (distance across map would be best).

Its definately not as cut and dry as some games but I want to see it work out.

[sir monster]

i would just be worried about the game play styles for infected and survivor being too different..

i still like the idea of doing a tournament where clans pick a side and then compete against clans on another side on each map.... showing which side won most for each map and then breaking it down by clan. that would be fun no matter how the ladders are done.

[frogopus]

The two game play styles are very different. The strongest clans will be the ones that have mastered both sides.

I agree that a way to track clan merits/demerits along with individual players would be a great system.

[dontleave]

I dont think so, this game isn't really competitive, considering this is Co-Op. And Infected vs. Survivors isn't fair either, considering there are 4 Survivors vs. 40-44 infected (do boss count in that 40 estimate, or what)

[sir monster]

I dont think so, this game isn't really competitive, considering this is Co-Op. And Infected vs. Survivors isn't fair either, considering there are 4 Survivors vs. 40-44 infected (do boss count in that 40 estimate, or what)

well any team based game in competition is co-op. i dont see that being an issue.
and as its been said once you get the hang of things working together killing the normal zombies is rather easy and more of a tool for the boss zeds to use to catch you off guard, hide within ect ect.. if there were no hordes of AI zeds it would be impossible for infected to win a match, but with them they are just enough of a problem to make it (in competition) a level field.

id really like for L4D411 to do a ladder and tourney.

[dontleave]

Yeah but its not the same in this case, CS:S, TFC pretty much every laddered game you can think of, each teams mirror each other, or their choices are the same, its not like that in L4D. Infected Bosses are marginally different from Survivors and add the third party (being the normal infected) it just doesn't work out. Plus they can also serve as disadvantages for both teams and the way im thinking more of a disadvantage for the Survivors.

Imagine it. The infected team can kill off the entire team of survivors without even being AIMED at, they'd be to worried killing normal zombies, or to worried about bosses and NOT killing normal zombies, either way they die.

[frogopus]

Trust me, its much harder to kill a Survivor than it is to kill a boss Infected...

And I realize the differences in teams that is why I would suggest a match consisting of two rounds, alternating sides.

In CSS there are maps that favor one side so heavily, you know you won a game if you get just a few rounds on the tougher side.

411 is very interested in experimenting with competitive play, so keep the ideas coming. We hope to experiment with a few different ideas but all in all, I'm hoping that a direct head to head between two clans, alternating sides, will be the way things work out. The viablity of this is one of my main focuses while playing and if things work out the way squerl and I see it, the only issue will be the randomness of spawns.

[MarxismIsOk]

I think for purposes of practicality any tourney should be enterable by 4 man squads, not whole clans, waaay, easier to manage. These squads could be representing a clan and whatever, but I think it would be easier to manage as well as encourage groups of friends who play together but arent necessarily in a clan to join the tourneys. From what I heard the Freespace 2 Squadwars worked in a manner like this...

[frogopus]

I really don't see a clear way to judge who performs a scenario better, though. It's not a race, so time wont work. A clan may have a clumsy run through very quickly while another may take longer but perform better.

I think you'll be surprised how easily the game handles cooperative and competitive play. Towards the end of our twelve hours, the game really turned into players talking crap, yelling into the next room. It's a great balance, I don't want readers to lose sight of the competitive nature when we stress the cooperative play.

But again, this is another debate that doesn't need one answer. Assuming all the kinks can be worked out, I hope to see several different styles of league play.

[JoMo]

Play it like CS, like someone up there said before, on maps like train winning 5 out of 15 rounds is a success on CS. I think we can play it exactly like CS, in CS there is an objective on the map, in competetive play the objective is for 1 team to plant the bomb, 1 to stop them. In L4D the objective for one side is to kill the surviviors, the other team to survive. So we treat that as our scoring system.

5 maps, we us ethose as rounds, 4 survivors, for each survivor killed the infected gain a point, fo reach survivor alive at the end of each map the survivors gain a point, then the teams are switched, and the campaign replayed with the opposite teams. The only problems I can see are:

1) it would be much better if when the whole team is killed on 1 map they restart the next map back again with all 4 team mates(for competetive purposes only)), as 1 bad round shouldnt destory the whole team it should make them work harder to win the others.

2) the campaigns are rather long to do twice, once with each side, thats an 80 min match. If we could somehow only do like the 1st, 3rd and 5th maps in each campaign it would be much more conducive to competetive play .

3) In comepetive play i think the idea of it being a ZOMBIE game will be lost, surviving wont be the same joyous event but some points for your team and the game will have to be treated differently in order for it to work. However, I do think it will be a good game to play competetively, well oiled teams with good communication will do well on the survivor side and instead of playbooks for maps practice just on what to do in certain situations will happen, an interesting new angle. On infected I only worry it may become slightly to easy for them if all 4 can be coordinated to attack at the same time......

Any other porblems people can see in my system?

[lilsamuraijoe]

I just don't see L4D becoming a competitive game at least not to the level of CS.

[JoMo]

No, I doubt it will ever reach the same level as CS competetively, considering CS is basically built as a competetive game, but it would be nice. I love the look of the game so far, but it just wont sustain my interest playing it lots of time with no challenge or meaning.

[frogopus]

with no challenge or meaning.
No challenge? Makes me laugh.

[JoMo]

No challenge? Makes me laugh.

its the same with CS, after a while just playing pubs is boring, there needs to be a level up for you to get onto, not just the same again.

[bub]

Why does everyone need competitive play? It's not a competitive game. It's a co-op game and that's how you should play it, that's how you will have the most fun, it's not cs! Competetive play will hurt the game. Then new players won't try to survive they will try to kill the boss infected and that's not what this game is about. And as for JoMo a game where you're not playing against other people can be plenty challenging even if you play it over and over, no one will master this game.

[Edz]

Im pretty sure that the AI boss infected will be 100% better players than boss infected players....atleast at first. People first playing infected will be newbs and will just be getting used to played them. Were as AI controlled can walk all over you from the start. :D

[JoMo]

Why does everyone need competitive play? It's not a competitive game. It's a co-op game and that's how you should play it, that's how you will have the most fun, it's not cs! Competetive play will hurt the game. Then new players won't try to survive they will try to kill the boss infected and that's not what this game is about. And as for JoMo a game where you're not playing against other people can be plenty challenging even if you play it over and over, no one will master this game.

No, because the noobs will be playing the game in its original format, survive as a team. In the competetive play the emphasis will be shifted slightly and "surviving" becomes quantifiable, allowing scoring. Also in my system of scoring killing the infected gains no points outright, all my competetive system does is quantify the key element of the game, you win points by surviving, or stopping people surviving.

Im pretty sure that the AI boss infected will be 100% better players than boss infected players....atleast at first. People first playing infected will be newbs and will just be getting used to played them. Were as AI controlled can walk all over you from the start. :D

and comepetetive play is not for the start, but at the top end of the players, most CS players dont play competetively, only the better more dedicated ones do.

[Deadly]

it could be competitive if there is a timing ladder, for example a ladder might say "the fastest time on the hospital by was done by the {411}clan with players deadly squerl frogopus and sirmonster." could be something like that

[mopman]

No, because the noobs will be playing the game in its original format, survive as a team


I didnt know it was noobish to play like you are supposed to lol. And you will be one of them until you have played it. As far as I'm concerned, everyone but squerl and frogopus are noobs

[JoMo]

I didnt know it was noobish to play like you are supposed to lol. And you will be one of them until you have played it. As far as I'm concerned, everyone but squerl and frogopus are noobs

I didnt say it was noobish, but noobs definitely wont be playing the game in a slightly different competetive format, and how does me never having played the game affect the idea of a future competetive format for the game?

I'm not saying the game sucks because it doesnt have a competetive element or that your a noob unless you play it in that way, but personally I like having something like that in a game.

[dontleave]

No... I won't be a noob, noobs are people who get on the game and ask how to reload when its done for the automatically.

[frogopus]

It's a co-op game and that's how you should play it, that's how you will have the most fun, it's not cs! Competetive play will hurt the game.
So the players playing boss infected are there to help the Survivors along huh? It is a hybrid between Co-op and competitive. If you wish, you can play from the Survivor's perspective and never realize that you're playing anything more than a Cooperative game. But as soon as you switch to the Infected side, you realize that you're there to out do the Survivors. If you have two groups of people (lets say clans perhaps) that are cognizant of this situation and aware that one group is out to kill the other, does this not suddenly become a competitive game?

Another example of the lovely world of options. The existence of competitive play will not hurt your game because you can choose to play entirely cooperatively.

everyone but squerl and frogopus are noobs
Damn straight :P

but personally I like having something like that in a game.
I believe 411 is going to try and see what we can do to help you with that.

[JoMo]

I believe 411 is going to try and see what we can do to help you with that.

thanks. If 1 site can get something going a few other probably will too, it just needs 1 to succeed. If it can work on 411 it might be possible to convince ED(european gaming ladder) to start a small ladder so that us UKians can play.

[Plankie]

Dudes, you're raping the whole idea of the game. If you watched the 1UP video, Michael said that he didn't want this game to be competitive. They didn't add the feature of playing as infected to make it competitive! okay, sure. If you really wanna play and show that you're better than everybody else and that you waste more time playing computer games than everybody else, go ahead and find a way to do that. But that's not really the point in this game.

[Edz]

and comepetetive play is not for the start, but at the top end of the players, most CS players dont play competetively, only the better more dedicated ones do.

Not sure you understood what i said but nm...

[TamAlthor]

Forgive me if I am repeating someone else's thought(s) but competitive play would have to be based more on merit than on anything else. This game is meant to be a true co-op. meaning we have to stick together and support one another to survive. So a 'good' clan would be one that helps and supports one another, have low occurrences of FF, or Boomer kill team damage, have high merits for sharing pain pills and health packs, team mate saves, etc. However it would have to be combined with number of campaigns/scenarios survived to make the stats have any validity. The way the game is designed, in my understanding is to provide a different game experience each time we play, but at the same time a challenging one. So to be competitive we have to show how we are better than someone else, right? The way we are better is by being good team mates and making it to the end, perhaps bonus stats for teammate that make it out with you. An Infected clan or Infected stat tracking, would be more similar to FPS tracking but rather than a kill/death ratio or frag rate you would want to look more at damage done respawn seeing as the Infected die a lot easier than the survivors. I suppose you could do bonus stats for a kill based on how much health the survivor had before you killed 'em. But I suppose but the big thing for the Infected it to slow/stop/weaken the survivors.

But the main point I want to make it that this game can be competitive but it is more based on team work than individual kills.

[frogopus]

Dudes, you're raping the whole idea of the game. If you watched the 1UP video, Michael said that he didn't want this game to be competitive. They didn't add the feature of playing as infected to make it competitive! okay, sure. If you really wanna play and show that you're better than everybody else and that you waste more time playing computer games than everybody else, go ahead and find a way to do that. But that's not really the point in this game.
Be careful when you think that its up to one person to dictate how others enjoy the game. A competitive league wouldn't affect your own style of play if you chose not to participate. I think you're thinking about it for the exact reasons that squerl and I fell in love with this game, but I don't want people to forget that there is (or can be) a competitive edge to the game (ala opposing forces and stat tracking).

I'm not sure how it'll work out, because there are a few barriers, but I would like to see something happen for those who wish to have a competitive experience. I think most of us here are looking to play the game for the cooperative game, otherwise we'd be talking about TF2 or Quake. There just happens to be a good healthy number of people who like that competitive edge of online gaming, and choose to waste their time playing that. Just as many others choose to waste their time playing sports.

Take volleyball for example. A game of volleyball is really about working cohesively with a group of people to achieve a goal (getting the ball over the net and on the ground). Then theres a group on the other side that is trying to keep that from happening. Team work dominates that game, but its certainly competitive.

[Plankie]

I just think, if you really want competitive it would be easier to just play something else. or make a TDM mod for it or something. It's really not how it's supposed to be played, and that makes it really difficult. But, yeah. If people wanna enjoy it that way, go ahead. But I won't be playing this game competitive, that's what I have other games for.

[dontleave]

Well thats stupid. If I wanted to go bowling vs. some friends, and you wanted to play bowl by yourself. I should go play basketball?

I guess it wont be a traditional deathmatch in the sense of CS:S, Battlefield... etc. But the rounds thing someone else proposed is a good idea, where the teams take turns being survivors, and the other team tries to stop them. That's not to say the the infected bosses wont lay down some dirty tricks, cuz you know...

it could be competitive if there is a timing ladder, for example a ladder might say "the fastest time on the hospital by was done by the {411}clan with players deadly squerl frogopus and sirmonster." could be something like that

This is what I thought too, but that could take a while for people who jsut want to see who is better. And to make it time effecient you would have to run two games at once to see who completes first, and therefore monitor both games. And no doubt people will be all like...wth.

[TamAlthor]

I like games that i can jsut play and enjoy. I like to challege myself, but i also like supporting team mates. This was my attraction to this game when valve started puting out media to my steam client. I don't know that i would play completivly if there even was such a thing. I just don't hve the time or desire really. I'm just lookin; forward to having a couple of drinks and killin' some zombies with my friends, and challenging myself. lol

[dontleave]

2 hours?

[JoMo]

And the other team will have just realised that after 2 hours(!) of gaming

I've played CS competetively for a long time and it will be extremely difficult to find teams of people who'll be able to play for 2 hours straight. And I still dont see why it cant be played like CS: the objective of L4D is to survive or to stop survival. So the more you survive in a given round the more points you win, the more the infected kill in a given round the more points they win, you switch, points from both halves are added up and whoeevr has the most over both halves wins the match. Its a very simple system. Time doesnt work as the idea of the game is not to survive fast, it is just to survive.

And yes, it is a co-op game, but so is CS, the most successful competetive game of all time, its a team of people working together to achieve a goal, and the other team is trying to stop them.

As an even better example lets look at American football(I was going to use rugby but you yanks won get me). On offense your job is to try and get the ball in someone's hands over the line. On defense you are trying to stop them reaching the next 1st down(checkpoint?) to overall stop them reaching the line at the end as at each 1st down everything gets reset (all the players coming back to life) now on defense youg et a completely different set of players to achive your goal than on offence, with different skills and abilities. Now I can go into a detailed analysis which shows just how similar football and L4D are but I think you get the picture. Its 2 teams of people workign TOGETHER to achieve opposing goals, whoever is better achieves their goal. This is the foundation of team sports and what will hopefully be competetive L4D.

When the creators said that it is not competetive what they meant was the survivors arent fighting between themselves to see who can get the most zombie frags but to see who can play as a team best. If its not competetive then the boss infected should also be helping the survivors along, not trying to stop them.

[dontleave]

The point of the game is to get from point A to point B... im sure speed equals in somewhere in between.

And then whats to stop a team from just camping spots for a relatively long time, then moving on to the next spot to camp? And therefore the next team who actually do make it to the end on time and constantly moved has 1/5th he points the other team has.

And yes, it is a co-op game, but so is CS, the most successful competetive game of all time, its a team of people working together to achieve a goal, and the other team is trying to stop them.

Thats a very contradictary statement. I'll leave you to figure it out. Wait I wont. CS/:S is as much Co Op as HL2TDM. Aside, you just said it was a co op AND the MOST successful competitve game of all time. Having the best of both worlds rarely happens like that. Unless of course you are wrong.

Boss Infected are there to deal as much damage to the Survivors as possible, stopping them from getting to the Checkpoint is undoubtedly just another nifty side effect of killing someone.

[Edz]

you just said it was a co op AND the MOST successful competitve game of all time.

It is?

[JoMo]

CS/:S is as much Co Op as HL2TDM

In CS you must work as a team, HL2TDM just adds up all of the frags of the individual players, sorts them into arbitrary teams and announces a winner. No teamwork is actually required or encouraged. CS is just like any other team sport, you must cooperate better as a team to beat the other team, a compoetetive team sport, saying you cant do both is telling the mutli-billion dollar industry of team sports that they're wrong.

[Stupoider]

Seeing as both sides aren't equal it would be hard to do scoring. Then I guess you'd have to swap sides and do it all over again.

[JoMo]

If you give each team criteria which will give them points (killing all Survivors vs. Making it to the end of the level with all survivors, Killing survivors vs. not dying, etc. etc.), after the mission, as said before, you just switch sides and whoever des best overall, wins

so what we need is some criteria. I personally think going for players killed - players surviving for each map, then swap, keep it simple.

[dontleave]

In CS you must work as a team, HL2TDM just adds up all of the frags of the individual players, sorts them into arbitrary teams and announces a winner. No teamwork is actually required or encouraged. CS is just like any other team sport, you must cooperate better as a team to beat the other team, a compoetetive team sport, saying you cant do both is telling the mutli-billion dollar industry of team sports that they're wrong.


Uuuuh hell no. The only thing that seperates both games is the objectives. Which people wouldn't even go for EXCEPT for the +3 KILLS for detonating bomb, and money for saving hostages. Either way people just want whats best for themselves. And the game doesn't encourage teamwork whatsoever when one guy with a noob cannon can take out the whole other team.

And do both of what?

[JoMo]

wow, you play CS with some really sucky people if thats what you get up to, and if your referring to the awp then position yourself better, its not all about who can aim the best, and if your refrring to the auto-snipes, then if you die to one you really need to get a bit better.

In CS matches frags dont matter, getting the objective does, and we're talking about that level, not morons running around screaming "noob lucker" at every death.

Have you ever played an actual 5on5 organized MR15 match of CS, you obviously havent from your comments and until you have you can really comment on hwo the game is played competetively and cooperatively.

[dontleave]

Umm.. whether im good or not... the Noob cannon still can pwn half the team. It's a virtual fact now.

[Edz]

Uuuuh hell no. The only thing that seperates both games is the objectives. Which people wouldn't even go for EXCEPT for the +3 KILLS for detonating bomb, and money for saving hostages. Either way people just want whats best for themselves. And the game doesn't encourage teamwork whatsoever when one guy with a noob cannon can take out the whole other team.

lol dontleave, i take it you have not played CS competitively at a high level? What you say happens on a public server, far different to a clan match. The game is almost 100% teamwork, you dont work as a team, you loose your matches.

[bub]

CS competitively
How do I get into that?

[Wrath]

In CS you must work as a team,

Biggest_Oxymoron_Evah.

[frogopus]

Biggest_Oxymoron_Evah.
The majority of CSS players never played outside of pubs, so the teamwork aspect is lost on most.

[JoMo]

How do I get into that?

If your EU head to enemydown.co.uk, that'll be your starting place, look around, search the forums to find out about "mixes".

if your US then im not sure but your best bet would probably be googling for CAL and heading to the Cal-O forums and doing the same thing.

Once yuove got a bit of experience you'll join a clan of a skill level akin to yours and start on the ladder to screaming at your teammates for putting their flash 2 inches too far left.
Biggest_Oxymoron_Evah.

go get a GOOD clan and play the game how its suppoed to be played, as a team, in matches, or go to gotfrag.com, download a couple of HLTV demos of CS or CS:S and watch a few of the nades and their teamwork and then try and claim that there's no teamwork in CS.

[dontleave]

ROFL. That is NOT how CS:S was meant to be played. Otherwise we wouldn't have third party organizations. These are seriously competitve people... apparently to competitive to play real sports so they play CS:S. THEY ARE NOT the majority of the player base.

Theres not teamwork in CS. Although people can make what they want out of it. That's common sense. But when you say CS, we assume the general population. And there is none.

[JoMo]

no when I say CS players I mean the competetive players, the people who play CS, not people who play FPS's and use CS as a medium for that, CS is not a generic FPS where the aim is to go and shoot people, the aim is the objective of your team on that map, thats what the game was designed for. Saying CS is just a non co-op fragfest because some people play it like that is like saying that L4D is going to be a non co-op zombie frag fest because people play it like that, a game isnot defined by the people who play it. Go play Cs properly before you talk abotu stuff that you haven't experienced and dont understand. Ive played it properly for a few years and teamwork is the key element in any successful team.

[dontleave]

Saying that because MOST people play like that if not 90% a game is MOSTLY defined by how people play it... just ask anyone. And I have played competitve CS but not CS:S. So don't tell me I've never experienced. I just know that the mosto f the people who play CS:S dont do it competitvely therefore making it what it is. The UN-most competitive game. and if you'd been in competitve games just in CS:S then you've missed out a lot. UT04 was a great competitve game, and BF2 was also until it started getting crappy.

[JoMo]

ive played both sides, and im talking about the clan side, the thread is about introducing a clan-side to L4D, so the other side of CS:S is irrelevant, the clan side works in a cooperative way, just as it can in L4D. It will work.