L4D competitive?

**Bunni** · 11-20-08, 03:26 PM

This is something ive been thourghally discussing in valves forums (900 users online in l4d forum, all posted = chaois :3 )
Wanted to talk about it here:
Whats everyone's opinion/idea about a competitive gametype for L4D? (i discuss vs below)

My thoughts:
Personally i feel, that if valve could come up with one, or develop one off someones ideas (community released mods usually do not succeed as much as they would if they were officially released)

The competitive aspect of css is what personally ables me to play dust2 a hundred times a week. Different strats can be called, a players skill level and experience plays a big factor in the gameplay, each side has equal opportunity.

Whilst the same could/can be said of L4D it seems that it does not hold as true? Im not sure what it is about L4D (dont get me wrong, i took the 19th off so i could play it non top

) but something rings as repetitive in it...

Vs does not seem like it will have a official competitive draw to it, sure its alot of fun but there are too many randomized factors that disfavor it for any true competitive play (ie when the tank is given to the infected team. Things need to be equal and give each team equal opportunity. Competitive draw is certainly what keeps a game alive, look at the current players playing statistics for css, 1.6 and compair them to lets say bf2 (not nearly as competitive as css or 1.6) or maybe 2142.

L4D certainly has competitive potential but it needs something, what?
_________________________________________________
Forced to give an example:

however i feel that is has potential for a gametype which is competitive, though i have yet to come up with some sound, full proof.

IE (ya this idea is crap, just a horrible example ) Two teams competeting to build/compete some objective while being attacked by waves of hords. Similar to garrys mods compete to build something, but in this case with a l4d style (not talking about building cars or something, maybe ie repairing a generator to open a door, or redirecting water through flood gates to open/allow some path of escape. SOMEthing were time is a factor and both teams are competing side by side (like garrys mod with a giant glass wall between) to finish first.

YES bad example, but a example none the less.

Thoughts/ideas for competitive balanced mods?

**Arreo** · 11-20-08, 03:30 PM

I don't think you need a mod, just take the scoring system from VS mode and apply it to a Coop game. Oh, and you would need to turn off the Director's randomness so that the same zombies spawn in the same locations.

IE you have two teams, both run through the same course (same zombies in the same locations) and see who comes out with the higher score. Obviously they couldn't watch each other's runs since that would allow them to plan out a strat.

It doesn't seem like it would be to hard to arrange, just a few tweaks of the coding.

**Arreo** · 11-20-08, 03:33 PM

Or simply take VS mode and lock the players into a class. No tanks, just the three other specials. Again, turn off the Director's randomness and have the AI zombies spawn in the same locations.

**CivilWars** · 11-20-08, 03:35 PM

I think the reason CS:S is so competitive is because it is fairly even head to head. What the other team does is just as important as what you do. If they stack one bomb site, and you go the opposite way then they might be screwed. If they split it even, and you outnumber them, then you have the advantage. I don't think the true competitive nature would kick in unless it is in a versus mode. That being said if the infected could control what leader they spawned as, and as long as there were the same number of horde, it would be even, and fun.

Edit - Screw Arreo, and his short reply.

**Arreo** · 11-20-08, 03:41 PM

Or, or, or,

Originally Posted by Arreo

Or simply take VS mode and lock the players into a class. No tanks, just the three other specials.

Then have the Director spawn AI zombies randomly however it wants to use them. But limit the total number 'available' for the Director to use. The Director would be free to place them anywhere on the map, use them as hordes or simply hold them in reserve for the various "hold off the horde" sections of the map. If the survivors killed all 300 (or whatever number) of the zombies then there wouldn't be any more, just the special infected PCs. But I think the Director's AI is already pretty advanced and regulates how it deploys and uses the zombies and likely wouldn't run out.

The one exception I see to this is that the boomer would always summon a horde consisting of a set number of zombies. Perhaps this number would vary depending on how many survivors got 'boomed'.

(Yes, I'm really bored at work and having fun thinking about this problem)

**Ewok** · 11-20-08, 04:21 PM

But see I think we're thinking about the Director's role all wrong.

The Director isn't random, it's AI. It's purposely trying to screw over the survivors, and in Versus mode, that means each team when they happen to play Survivors.

It's an equal-opportunity survivor-hater.

Imagine it like a CSS team-mate that always stays on the Ts side. Both teams eventually get him as a team-mate, and like a team-mate, he's not going to play the same every single round (we as players don't play the same every round).

We as players introduce variable-play into the game, so I don't see why we should treat the director any less valid than an actual player.

If the Directory truly did RANDOM things, I would agree, but it's not random, so it's more like a permanent infected team-mate.

Food for thought: Suppose one of the infected players could play AS the director (so his power was to spawn mobs and choose exactly where they spawned). That would be valid competitive play since a player gets that power. So for me, just because AI does it instead of a person, it doesn't make it any less competitive or tactically valid.

**CivilWars** · 11-20-08, 04:25 PM

Speaking purely from a third party perspective I have heard that on versus mode one team had more infected at their disposal than when roles were reversed. This may be biased in thinking it is harder when you are going through it, or it could be the random nature of the game. I am not saying that all of the infected should spawn in the same spot, or even react the same way, each round, but if one team had to fight 100 infected, and the other had to fight 300 it wouldn't truly be a fair test of skill.

**Bunni** · 11-20-08, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Speaking purely from a third party perspective I have heard that on versus mode one team had more infected at their disposal than when roles were reversed. This may be biased in thinking it is harder when you are going through it, or it could be the random nature of the game. I am not saying that all of the infected should spawn in the same spot, or even react the same way, each round, but if one team had to fight 100 infected, and the other had to fight 300 it wouldn't truly be a fair test of skill.

things are way WAY WAYYYY to randomized. Take for example the tank.
Ive played games where my team (infected) is getting wreaked, and games where my team is dominating... no tank

Yet the other team got a tank in all the games i recalled above.

Now if both teams got a tank, that would be balanced, but this random happening is completely mis guided

**CivilWars** · 11-20-08, 05:13 PM

That is why to make it legit you would have to let the infected choose their "class", and maybe put limits or restrictions on the Tank. Also, the number of infected horde needs to be somewhat even for each team.

**Bunni** · 11-20-08, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

That is why to make it legit you would have to let the infected choose their "class", and maybe put limits or restrictions on the Tank. Also, the number of infected horde needs to be somewhat even for each team.

definitly, come to think of it would have to restrict number of classes too, 4 hunters = instant win