# Which style is more successful (L4D and TF2)



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2011)

Right now I am working on a project and wanted to get a basic idea of what is considered a more successful style for L4D and TF2 games. Success is completing the map, for L4D, or beating the other team for tf2

The options are, having a leader that oversees the game and tries to organize the group 
Or individuals are specialized, they have a specific duty to perform and do that without an explicit leader. (ex: having a pyro spy check, or having someone in l4d take shotgun to clear horde) 

thanks for this guys.

I want to clarify that by leader I do not mean someone that can suggest action, but more someone that has the final say. Obviously following a more experienced player works better.


----------



## Xegras (Mar 1, 2011)

I've been playing TF2 for a while and the most I've noticed close to having a leader was an old pro popping in and telling people what to do. Majority of the time you either get luck with people doing specific jobs or switching to another class to balance out the team.

I would say in the case of TF2, just having an even amount of each class helps.


----------



## Icky (Mar 1, 2011)

It depends on the task, really. In a vidja game setting, I would say having specialized tasks would be more efficient; but in all of my experiences as a leader (which is a fair amount), having that "go-to" guy, that guy you can go to for problems or concerns makes the job go more smoothly.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 1, 2011)

Generally when I play those games with friends we each decide what we're going to do. Who's going medic, who's going to carry shit in L4D, etc.

I find these work better than someone barking commands that people might not even listen to.


----------



## Xenke (Mar 1, 2011)

Well, I'd be happy to help you stranger!

From my perspective, since I am the type of person who would rather follow orders than figure out what to do for myself, the first option is the one I would choose. This is assuming either option results in teammates of equal competence.

Furthermore, when I was more acclimated to the roles of the leader and what not, I'd be happy to step into that role. What I like about the first option is that in theory the overall success of the team depends on the skill of the leader, while in the second option success depends on separate entities working harmoniously. Frankly, I feel my faith is better placed in a single person rather than a group.


----------



## Alstor (Mar 1, 2011)

While the specialization option seems the best in theory (and how the game should be played for maximum fun), I think that there really needs to be a leader to handle everything. When put into practice in TF2, for example, it will lead to conflicts that could have been solved in the pre-game lobby, such as who is the sniper and how many you need of them. 

Same with L4D. If you take the opening chapter, for example, if you have three people going for the shotgun because they want it while one person gets a SMG, odds are, the team won't be great at making good longshot kills, even if they do take out their pistol and crouch.

Unless you have one person that can supervise, like in a clan, it can be and will be chaos.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2011)

Personally I think specific tasks work better. Given that each member is communicating. I don't think having a leader trying to work out how to make the group best for the situation is as good as just having a group that has one person take point, one rear, and say two middle for cover and such. 
I don't think in those games a single person can plan or oversee everything as well as a group could work together. 

this is assuming the group is good and not some 12 year olds that all want to be a sniper.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> this is assuming the group is good and not some 12 year olds that all want to be a sniper.


 Ugghhh I can't stand this. I don't get the 12 year old obsession with snipers. Is it because they can usually one shot people in games?


----------



## Gavrill (Mar 1, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Ugghhh I can't stand this. I don't get the 12 year old obsession with snipers. Is it because they can usually one shot people in games?


 
I wanted to be a sniper

but that was because i'd already been hunting a few times and I'm very patient 

Also, I like the TF2 style more.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Ugghhh I can't stand this. I don't get the 12 year old obsession with snipers. Is it because they can usually one shot people in games?


 It's easy in many game tbh you can hang back and well...snipe.

by easy I mean. it's easy to play, hard to master though


----------



## Xegras (Mar 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> It's easy in many game tbh you can hang back and well...snipe.
> 
> by easy I mean. it's easy to play, hard to master though



Till you know...

*Stab*

Dead


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Mar 1, 2011)

In a team-based competitive game, you should have one person give out the main idea. Split everyone into smaller groups and use a more complex strategy (provided you can get people to listen, hurr). In L4D, you just need to have someone stand in the front, preferably with a fully-loaded autoshotgun so he can open doors and shoot some face.

And in sniping in games, it can be easy... If you can click an icon on your desktop, you can make a headshot. The only problem involved would be making sure you got a good view, making sure you don't get raped from behind (hard to do in most games now due to the fact that all snipers have a way of being beaten by this method) and also getting kills (or mouseclicks) within a tighter time constraint.

Playing ArmA II and killing somone 3,000 metres away in shitty weather and actually using zeroing, angling and compensating for ballistic physics and making sure you get it right the very first time? Now that is sniping.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2011)

So lemme give a l4d example. 

group 1: takes time at the start of each level to communicate. Each member is equal in the group. Each picks what position they want to play, point, rear, or middle and take the weapon best for that. They will communicate in the game to say where health and stuff is, but no one will have the job of determining exactly when they heal or whatever. 

group 2: has one leader. He has the final say, he will coordinate the group. He will tell people what position to take as they game goes on and when they heal and such. the group is fluid as he gives new orders. 

which do you think would be more successful?


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> So lemme give a l4d example.
> 
> group 1: takes time at the start of each level to communicate. Each member is equal in the group. Each picks what position they want to play, point, rear, or middle and take the weapon best for that. They will communicate in the game to say where health and stuff is, but no one will have the job of determining exactly when they heal or whatever.
> 
> ...


 
I really think group 2 will usually be more successfully becaue the leader is probably already the best of the bunch and knows how to play. He has the ability to adapt and change with pace of the game. The leader already know how thing will already play out like Chess Grand Master who thinking 20 moves ahead, its a weird analogy but I hope that makes sense .However, having a group like that is rare, in TF2 one is usually playing with a bunch of random people focusing on what they want do, however must people I know play L4D with people they know so it is pretty established from the beginning who the the leader which is basically the best one.


----------



## Jashwa (Mar 1, 2011)

Specializations. It's like opportunity cost in economics. In fact, the whole situation is like economics. You let people do what they're the best at, while keeping what you need to have instead of having an outsider try to appoint people to do certain things.  That and with a leader comes conflict. People will vie for power and either fight to be that leader or undermine the leader's responsibility. Sure, with specialization you have the blame game, but that's still there with a leader as well. People will still blame each other for executing wrong, no matter whether they were following their own rules or a leader's rules. 

Plus, a leader can only think of so many things, devoting some brain power to managing each task at hand. With a group of specialized people, however, they can each focus completely on one task.


----------



## Fay V (Mar 1, 2011)

Rouz said:


> I really think group 2 will usually be more successfully becaue the leader is probably already the best of the bunch and knows how to play. He has the ability to adapt and change with pace of the game. The leader already know how thing will already play out like Chess Grand Master who thinking 20 moves ahead, its a weird analogy but I hope that makes sense .However, having a group like that is rare, in TF2 one is usually playing with a bunch of random people focusing on what they want do, however must people I know play L4D with people they know so it is pretty established from the beginning who the the leader which is basically the best one.



I think you're making too many assumptions about the leader. Assume all players are average.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 1, 2011)

Rouz said:


> I really think group 2 will usually be more successfully becaue the leader is probably already the best of the bunch and knows how to play. He has the ability to adapt and change with pace of the game. The leader already know how thing will already play out like Chess Grand Master who thinking 20 moves ahead, its a weird analogy but I hope that makes sense .However, having a group like that is rare, in TF2 one is usually playing with a bunch of random people focusing on what they want do, however must people I know play L4D with people they know so it is pretty established from the beginning who the the leader which is basically the best one.


 Just because the leader is the most skilled doesn't mean that it's an instant victory even if he can predict and adapt. It's not a single guy but a team of four. They all have to communicate and work together. The only way scenario 2 would work is if he has very good leadership skills and the other 3 are willing to listen and trust his judgment.


----------



## BRN (Mar 1, 2011)

Spoiler: L4d2



[yt]gRTXKEd2o30[/yt]
You can hear how the good player is telling the other players where items and resources are, what he's planning to do, while the quietest player dies first.



Personally I think everybody just should communicate with each other. People with experience know what to do, and if you know each other well, can predict what everyone's going to be doing. It's not about leadership, but teamwork. Trust, in a way. So, the key factor is knowing your teammates, because if you can trust each other, you'll be able to help each other out effectively.


----------



## Mentova (Mar 1, 2011)

Also, I personally think that people would be more comfortable on a team that didn't have a set leader. Authority figures generally make people uncomfortable and are disliked. Plus nobody wants a nasaly nerd barking orders at you. :V


----------



## Branch (Mar 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> which do you think would be more successful?


 
G2- people aren't in it to be strategists (save the few hardcore gamers)- they're in it to shoot stuff and maybe have a plan in mind.



SIX said:


> Personally I think everybody just should communicate with each other. People with experience know what to do, and if you know each other well, can predict what everyone's going to be doing. It's not about leadership, but teamwork. Trust, in a way. So, the key factor is knowing your teammates, because if you can trust each other, you'll be able to help each other out effectively.


 
sort of a juxtaposition then, no? the more avid the gamer, the less friends society says they'll have, and thus less trust.    ...ha.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Just because the leader is the most skilled doesn't mean that it's an instant victory even if he can predict and adapt. It's not a single guy but a team of four. They all have to communicate and work together. The only way scenario 2 would work is if he has very good leadership skills and the other 3 are willing to listen and trust his judgment.



I guess that was a very large assumption on my part. From playing Left 4 Dead with my friends and everyone is mentioning then own thing it just seems like so much work to do. If you have a good leader he can streamline the conversation, saying x,y,z in order of importance. I'm getting at the other guys not communicating, just faster and more cohesive communication.



Heckler & Koch said:


> Also, I personally think that people would be more comfortable on a team that didn't have a set leader. Authority figures generally make people uncomfortable and are disliked. Plus nobody wants a nasaly nerd barking orders at you. :V



I agree with that statement, but I was going with playing people one knows. Its not like he is really the leader but helping to direct and guide the group. Anyone can cherp in any time and have a change in plans.


----------



## BRN (Mar 1, 2011)

Branch said:


> sort of a juxtaposition then, no? the more avid the gamer, the less friends society says they'll have, and thus less trust.    ...ha.


 
Furries. 'No friends' is a given. But you can build up working relationships with strangers on online games, or better yet, utilise your more permanent online friends.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Mar 1, 2011)

As far as I see tactics in L4D2, they're not overly important other than sticking together and staying aware of the specials which won't be much of a problem even if they do get one of your mates as it'll be an easy save (chargers and tanks are a different story, though). The only _fatal_ decision I can think of is a crappy weapon loadout for the team or making a stupid accident like dropping a molotov at your feet.

A leader in L4D isn't actually necessary, but _someone_ will have to go in front of the group. He'd be the pointman, not the strategist. I don't really need to discuss a weapon loadout... Most people just check what weapons the other guys have and then pick something that they don't have already. Sometimes you don't even need to. A shotgun gives you close range firepower and a magnum gives you some long range proficiency and then you can do the reverse with a sniper rifle and a meleÃ© weapon.


----------



## Branch (Mar 1, 2011)

SIX said:


> Furries. 'No friends' is a given. But you can build up working relationships with strangers on online games, or better yet, utilise your more permanent online friends.



for some reason that's always ended with a 14-year old's voice shattering the illusion of a bad-ass stereotype with a chainsaw. though fair enough. TF2... well, to get that many friends together at one time... you're probably already doing alot of tactical work.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Gibby said:


> As far as I see tactics in L4D2, they're not overly important other than sticking together and staying aware of the specials which won't be much of a problem even if they do get one of your mates as it'll be an easy save (chargers and tanks are a different story, though). The only _fatal_ decision I can think of is a crappy weapon loadout for the team or making a stupid accident like dropping a molotov at your feet.



Team work is very important in Versus, especially the infected side.


----------



## Seprakarius (Mar 1, 2011)

I have to say I'm more partial to working with a team of specialized individuals than putting everything on the weight of a single leader.

As for why? It just feels to me that such a dynamic allows individuals to focus more on their chosen roles, rather than being an extension for enacting those roles through one person. Not only does delegating everything to a leader mean the leader has to be responsible for everything at once (jack of all trades, etc), but there will always be at least some minor delay in relaying information and the chance for miscommunication of what the leader wants.

To be honest, though, I'd actually say a mix is best. Grab someone who can see the bigger picture and offer a plan of action/advice, but don't meddle with the minutiae of exact roles beyond the general.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Seprakarius said:


> I have to say I'm more partial to working with a team of specialized individuals than putting everything on the weight of a single leader.
> 
> As for why? It just feels to me that such a dynamic allows individuals to focus more on their chosen roles, rather than being an extension for enacting those roles through one person. Not only does delegating everything to a leader mean the leader has to be responsible for everything at once (jack of all trades, etc), but there will always be at least some minor delay in relaying information and the chance for miscommunication of what the leader wants.
> 
> To be honest, though, I'd actually say a mix is best. Grab someone who can see the bigger picture and offer a plan of action/advice, but don't meddle with the minutiae of exact roles beyond the general.



This is what I'm learning towards best game to exemplify this would be either Battlefield 2, or MAG. Both game have small squards where everyone is equal and they all report to high authority who can help then by giving them air-strike and other goodies


----------



## Xegras (Mar 1, 2011)

I don't see there being one leader with TF2, there is so many different things that can happen in that game you would need to come up with a couple different plans and even then the person in charge really couldn't gather all the information needed to make a sure decision on what to do.


----------



## Fenrari (Mar 1, 2011)

Allowing each player to play there own given styles is more engaging and in my opinion fun to work with.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Mar 1, 2011)

I voted for the second choice because it's more likely to create drama and lulz.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I voted for the second choice because it's more likely to create drama and lulz.


 
You can just as much lulz in either or just a matter of how pissed someone get during the course of the game.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 1, 2011)

Or you have a leader commanding a squad that are each specialized. 

I'm an accurate shooter, but not good with hordes. So I tend to stay towards the back, picking off special infected all around, and dealing with those one-off zombies that don't die from the streetsweepers (front line machine gunners). I usually carry a sniper, but I'm partial to an AK with sniper dot.


----------



## Xegras (Mar 1, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I voted for the second choice because it's more likely to create drama and lulz.


 
I love when I snipe scouts and they get all butthurt and accuse me of cheating because they think there to fast too get sniped.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Mar 1, 2011)

Rouz said:


> You can just as much lulz in either or just a matter of how pissed someone get during the course of the game.


 
Yeah, but one leader only is a guaranteed ticket to instant lulz.

Especially if the leader is a 15-year old with a mic.


----------



## Icky (Mar 1, 2011)

Seprakarius said:


> I have to say I'm more partial to working with a team of specialized individuals than putting everything on the weight of a single leader.
> 
> As for why? It just feels to me that such a dynamic allows individuals to focus more on their chosen roles, rather than being an extension for enacting those roles through one person. Not only does delegating everything to a leader mean the leader has to be responsible for everything at once (jack of all trades, etc), but there will always be at least some minor delay in relaying information and the chance for miscommunication of what the leader wants.
> 
> To be honest, though, I'd actually say a mix is best. Grab someone who can see the bigger picture and offer a plan of action/advice, but don't meddle with the minutiae of exact roles beyond the general.


 
SEPPY, YOU ACTUALLY POSTED

HI


----------



## Unsilenced (Mar 1, 2011)

Depends on the players. A good leader can help a team with bad players. If there are a lot of good players though a leader isn't really needed, as people will know what to do anyways.


----------



## CAThulu (Mar 1, 2011)

Fay V said:


> So lemme give a l4d example.
> 
> group 1: takes time at the start of each level to communicate. Each member is equal in the group. Each picks what position they want to play, point, rear, or middle and take the weapon best for that. They will communicate in the game to say where health and stuff is, but no one will have the job of determining exactly when they heal or whatever.
> 
> ...



I play with 6-8 friends (depending on who can make it) every friday and we've done both examples one and two when we play L4D2, both when Survivors and as Infected.

I generally find that regardless of who does what, a leader will emerge but everyone can voice ideas on strategies when we start, and that certain people who are adept with a certain weapon should be allowed access to that weapon.

For example, one guy is a deadly sniper, so he usually gets that gun.  I'm really deadly with the Katana so my team usually lets me know where it is (then gives me plenty of room when a hoarde comes *L*)

so I guess the short answer is that a mixture of both is successful.  Have people specialized in certain jobs but also have a leader.


----------



## Rouz (Mar 1, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Yeah, but one leader only is a guaranteed ticket to instant lulz.
> 
> Especially if the leader is a 15-year old with a mic.



They just think they are the leader and just say annoying things


----------



## xiath (Mar 2, 2011)

I would have to say it's a mix really.

From a more organized TF2 standpoint (6v6), it is very important that each person should know their role in the team and be able to make quick decisions on their own (ie, in starcraft type terms [I think lol] they control the 'micro' strategy).  However, having a single leader organize the team from a 'macro point' of view (ie, where each team member should go at the start of the mid fight, which passage ways to take, when to push or fall back, etc...) will make the team more tight knit.  

In TF2, since the medic doesn't have to worry about getting frags, the medic player is generally the shot caller (along with having to strategically heal his/her team and mentally keeping track of how close the enemy medic is to having an Ã¼ber charge) .

That only really applies to an organized 6v6 format though.  a 12v12 open server format is nearly impossible to organize with a single leader.


I really don't have enough experience with l4d to talk strategy.


----------



## Heliophobic (Mar 3, 2011)

I don't play TF2 or L4D... but I have played a lot of games with different classes. This is how I usually try to set up the group:

1 sniper
1 medic
2 light gunners
2 heavy gunners
4 infantrymen

Sniper (usually me) is in a high area or sniper tower. One light gunner is guarding the top of the tower, one's guarding the bottom. Double this for more snipers.

Heavy gunners guard major entrances to the base/ team spawn area.

Medic and infantrymen are sort of self explanatory.


----------



## Plague Wolfen (Mar 3, 2011)

I do and don't like option 2. I like the idea of games like TF where each character has a specialized task and unique weapons and stats based on that. To me it keeps things interesting and challenging. Especially if you're the type to stay with one character type all the time. If you get too good and therefore bored, just pick a different character.

At the same time I hate it because I always end up on servers with asshats that want to whine about avoiding a certain character. For example you hop on and it's like "why are there no engineers here?!" Which requires a, granted quick, but annoying absence from gameplay as I duck out to change to a needed character because no one else will. :/


----------



## fleetfoot (Mar 3, 2011)

I play on 'sort of pro' pub servers. I like that the people I play with actually know what they're doing, so I don't mind the OMFG NO ENGIES or OMFG NO MEDICS kind of thing.

After all, I do like to win, and you can't win if your team is going off doing whatever the hell they like to do.

It IS an objective based game, after all.


----------



## Oovie (Mar 3, 2011)

I like specialized tasks better, they're especially useful with communication. If you're against good Engineers usually the only ways to destroy a nest is with an Uber, but a combination of other classes can do the job just as well.

When I'm Pyro and up against a Sentry around a corner, I've gotten into the habit of communicating with Spys and having them call out when they're sapping. The Engineer and sometimes a buddy can deal with the Spy on their own, but with a Pyro running up on you now that Sentry is going down.

My favorite (and hardest to communicate) is two Snipers against a Sentry with no Engineer head to shoot. If you both charge up and shoot at the same time, nobody has to risk anything at all to get it down. Problem is Snipers typically have the worst players behind them for that sort of thing.


----------



## Heliophobic (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's a better explanation of what I said. This is a map I made on Roblox... based off of a Dday: Normandy map... based off of a WWII battle.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 7, 2011)

Poll's closed but anyway,

I'd say specialized tasks.  The most experience I've gotten where someone is considered "Team Leader" is in games like MAG or Resistance 2.  In both of those games you have a situation where there's an absurdly large number of players on a server that can separate off into different squads to complete overall objectives.  The problem is, unlike a normal combat scenario, there's no initiative for players to follow someone arbitrarily designated or self-designated as a leader.  This leads to dysfunction of the team and though the leader may know all the best strategies and tricks of the game, his or her squad mates won't necessarily be motivated to do anything aside from playing as a lone wolf.

The opposite side of the coin can be seen in Bethesda's upcoming Brink.  Players choose a class and have specific objectives laid out for them so that they can maximize the most XP they can out of the campaign.  Having a set list of goals plus incentives to complete those goals breeds more productivity because the player is properly motivated.  This doesn't happen in games like the recent slew of Call of Duty games because the immediate incentive of kill streaks outweighs the larger incentive of XP.  

In the end, it all comes down to player motivation, basically.


----------

