After I played CoD:MW2 some hopes I have...

(tokamak) #121

Sure you have to aim more, but on top of that you always have to move in ironsightless games without spread modifiers. Running and shooting is just always and everywhere the best option which is rather lame. However if you add the option to sacrifice certain advantages like full sight, no recoiling frame, and movement speed then it’s the smartest player, the one with the best situational awareness and anticipating that will win the shoot out.

And what’s so bad about camping anyway? Sure in deathmatch it sucks, but we’re playing an objective based game here where players are supposed to defend and attack. What’s so wrong about waiting and laying in an ambush?

(H0RSE) #122

I am against ironsights as well. It is on my list of things that killed FPS games, along with melee, snipers, not being able to shoot while sprinting, and the death of the health bar. Ironsights ruin the flow of the game, and really only offer a sense or ‘immersion’ or ‘realism,’ since the accuracy could easily be programmed to be the same without them. You don’t even need ironsights to ‘zoom’ since Quake 3 had a zoom in feature, and no ironsights to be seen. I like running, seeing a guy, and shooting him. Not running, seeing a guy, shooting him…oh shit! I have to aim down the sights…aim down my sights because my aim is shit otherwise, Dammit! he ran away because of this slow movement while aiming. It also takes up half my screen with a close up of a gun and killing the flow of the game.

There is already a perfectly fine function that achieves what ironsights do…crouching. Increased aim, less mobility, and it still gives me full view of the battlefield, whether I’m crouching or not…something ironsights do not do. ADS is a not-needed feature in games, other than for a sense of realism. The only exception I could see would be long range weapons.

(Nail) #123

you can run and shoot in Brink, you can use iron sights or not, your choice. Lots of people use crouch in W:ET for the same advantage

(H0RSE) #124

I just hope they don’t ‘urge’ you to use sights, because it has a significant advantage to aiming.

(tokamak) #125

Oh boo hoo, you get an advantage for trading in so many others. Afraid of not knowing which one to pick at the right time and getting one between the eyes from someone who does?

(Nail) #126

Remember, lots of people (console players) think tweaking your own cfg is “cheating”

(timestart) #127

What is this “lame”? What about run&gun is “lame”? Running is not always the best option, particularly if you don’t want to give away your position.

However if you add the option to sacrifice certain advantages like full sight, no recoiling frame, and movement speed then it’s the smartest player, the one with the best situational awareness and anticipating that will win the shoot out.

As opposed to the player with the best situational awareness, anticipation, aim, map knowledge, weapon knowledge, movement skill and timing who wins in any well-designed run&gun game?

And what’s so bad about camping anyway? Sure in deathmatch it sucks, but we’re playing an objective based game here where players are supposed to defend and attack. What’s so wrong about waiting and laying in an ambush?

It’s not fun for the other team? Now I’m not saying we should avoid anything which might not be fun for one player or another but your example shows how the balance in a game can be easily shifted towards the defending team without the attacking team being able to do much about it.

Tokamak, watch a match on QuakeLive.TV or something - there’s more to run&gun than you seem to realise right now.

(H0neyBe4r) #128

[QUOTE=tokamak;204551]Sure you have to aim more, but on top of that you always have to move in ironsightless games without spread modifiers. Running and shooting is just always and everywhere the best option which is rather lame. However if you add the option to sacrifice certain advantages like full sight, no recoiling frame, and movement speed then it’s the smartest player, the one with the best situational awareness and anticipating that will win the shoot out.

And what’s so bad about camping anyway? Sure in deathmatch it sucks, but we’re playing an objective based game here where players are supposed to defend and attack. What’s so wrong about waiting and laying in an ambush?[/QUOTE]

Well, like I said, it is a matter of taste what style you prefer in your shooters. But the one you seem to favor punishes moving players and strengthens campers, which is something I do not want in a shooter with objectives (or at all, but thats just me), because it requires a lot of movement from the attacker.

Defenders can still camp and ambush in a “run and gun - shooter”, especially with mines, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, mg´s, turrets and what not, it is just not as easy as in shooters like CoD.

But apart from personal preferences, I cannot see a shooter with objectives that require certain classes and CoD - like gunplay work on a public server. It doesn´t work in CoD, how can one expect it to work with more complex objectives, teamplay and classes?

And whats wrong with pushing back the attacker aggressively or attacking and harrassing him from the rear instead of waiting and camping? How can waiting for something to happen be more fun then going straigth to where something is happening?

(tokamak) #129

The point is this: there’s more to tactical shooters than just moving, timing and shooting. There’s psychology as well. If you can predict what your opponent is going to do, then that’s a skill that should always be rewarded. If you know where and when a player will pop his stupid head up then you want to sacrifice all your advantages of full view and mobility in order to nail that shot. However, if you don’t have this option, you and the other guy who has no clue that he’s being played will have equal chances of killing each other simply because there’s no penalty to being constantly on the move and shooting at the same time.

Leaving options to reduce your spread sands off all the corners in the mental games going on in a shooter leaving everything to just twitch reactions. No problem with games that do that, I love a mindless shooter now and then, but when games have bigger objectives than just racking up a bodycount I want to see real tactics being employed.

(Shiv) #130

i hope you dont mean the mess of mw2 where everyone camps (i really mean everyone) the high buildings with augs and 1887’s so they can get the kill streaks.
then the ac130 comes flyin round that corner and you know its party time.

so much fun i forgot to enjoy it.

Tbh reduced spread is the way forward, why should i feel cheated out of the kill because the spread went “LOL LOL LOL” and kicked it out with all my bullets spraying round the opponent while he, with exactly the same equipment shoots back at me after and drops me like a mouldy sack of potatoes (because potatoes are pretty hard… mouldy ones are a bit softer like skin)
You can keep your crosshair on where he keeps popping up with reduced spread… your just more likely to deal a painful blow to them with it… kinda better for tactics yes?
You do also have to remember that knowing where the other guy is means you have half the battle one already, they might not know where you are, this leaves your tactics more in the realm of position, moving to an area which gives you most advantage over their position instead of… sitting still.
i dont mean lots of damage for every shot, thats not reduced spread… in fact thats even more of a lottery excercise.

(tokamak) #131

[QUOTE=Shiv;204799]i hope you dont mean the mess of mw2 where everyone camps (i really mean everyone) the high buildings with augs and 1887’s so they can get the kill streaks.
then the ac130 comes flyin round that corner and you know its party time.[/QUOTE]

COD2 rewards camping in every possible way, besides, most of it is plain death match anyway.

Seriously you guys really don’t seem to have very few other comparisons than that.

[QUOTE=Shiv;204799]Tbh reduced spread is the way forward, why should i feel cheated out of the kill because the spread went “LOL LOL LOL” and kicked it out with all my bullets spraying round the opponent while he, with exactly the same equipment shoots back at me after and drops me like a mouldy sack of potatoes (because potatoes are pretty hard… mouldy ones are a bit softer like skin)
You can keep your crosshair on where he keeps popping up with reduced spread… your just more likely to deal a painful blow to them with it… kinda better for tactics yes?
You do also have to remember that knowing where the other guy is means you have half the battle one already, they might not know where you are, this leaves your tactics more in the realm of position, moving to an area which gives you most advantage over their position instead of… sitting still.
i dont mean lots of damage for every shot, thats not reduced spread… in fact thats even more of a lottery excercise.[/QUOTE]

Options to reduce spread are the way forward. If you’re spraying bullets around the opponent than that’s not bad luck, that’s you doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. You’re sprinting around and shooting at a too large distance, so less bullets will hit your opponent and it will take longer for him to die.

It’s just an example of wanting it both ways, maximum accuracy and maximum mobility at the same time, it’s ****ing brainless.

(timestart) #132

[QUOTE=tokamak;204795]The point is this: there’s more to tactical shooters than just moving, timing and shooting. There’s psychology as well. If you can predict what your opponent is going to do, then that’s a skill that should always be rewarded. If you know where and when a player will pop his stupid head up then you want to sacrifice all your advantages of full view and mobility in order to nail that shot. However, if you don’t have this option, you and the other guy who has no clue that he’s being played will have equal chances of killing each other simply because there’s no penalty to being constantly on the move and shooting at the same time.

Leaving options to reduce your spread sands off all the corners in the mental games going on in a shooter leaving everything to just twitch reactions. No problem with games that do that, I love a mindless shooter now and then, but when games have bigger objectives than just racking up a bodycount I want to see real tactics being employed.[/QUOTE]

What you don’t seem to understand is that this skill exists in games that don’t have ironsights. Every good player will analyse their opponent’s strategies on the fly, predict their movement patterns and exploit their weaknesses. There is plenty you can do within the mechanics of the game to give yourself an advantage from reading your opponent aside from scoping up in a path you expect them to take. Tempting them into an area by deliberately missing an item so you can get them with an easy shot, faking a retreat when you’re not as low on health as they think you are to nail them should they follow you or just a well predicted rocket. If anything ironsights simplify this complex nature of a game by providing an easy and obvious way to give yourself an advantage.

However, if you don’t have this option, you and the other guy who has no clue that he’s being played will have equal chances of killing each other simply because there’s no penalty to being constantly on the move and shooting at the same time.

I’m picking out this specifically since it’s simply not true - setting up a height advantage, backraping then circlestrafing, hiding round corners - all these are ways to improve your chances of killing an opponent without ironsights.

(Nail) #133

Camp’nSnipe is not a tactic, estimating your opponents abilities and exploiting their weaknesses is. Snipers don’t win games. Boots on the ground do, snipers may help, even affect the win, but it’s usually up to some poor engineer/technician to do the objective (after dieing 19 times)

(Shiv) #134

Urban terror.

(alias) #135

even on xbox360…?
:wink:

(MILFandCookies) #136

The team I played for had some of the best snipers in ETQW. We would only run them though, when we knew the opposing team didnt have anyone who could countersnipe. ie estimating our opponents weaknesses.

Secondly completing the objectives is pretty easy, when everyone on the other team is dead, waiting to spawn.

(Ragoo) #137

[QUOTE=tokamak;204795]The point is this: there’s more to tactical shooters than just moving, timing and shooting. There’s psychology as well. If you can predict what your opponent is going to do, then that’s a skill that should always be rewarded. If you know where and when a player will pop his stupid head up then you want to sacrifice all your advantages of full view and mobility in order to nail that shot. However, if you don’t have this option, you and the other guy who has no clue that he’s being played will have equal chances of killing each other simply because there’s no penalty to being constantly on the move and shooting at the same time.

Leaving options to reduce your spread sands off all the corners in the mental games going on in a shooter leaving everything to just twitch reactions. No problem with games that do that, I love a mindless shooter now and then, but when games have bigger objectives than just racking up a bodycount I want to see real tactics being employed.[/QUOTE]

lol seriously, watch some good matches @ quakelive.tv and come back. The level of mindgame in Quake is soo high, but it has no spread and max mobility all the time. Knowing where your enemy is all the time is so very important. It is not a “mindless shooter” nor is it “****ing brainless” as you call it. It’s just a different and faster type of game.
IS and spread definetly make games slower (too slow for my taste) but they don’t automatically make them tactically better. Just different.

(tokamak) #138

They do automatically make the game tactically better. Mind you, you’re still free to keep moving while shooting, it’s just that the people who don’t will have an advantage in aiming over you.

Sure for arcade shooter it’s all about movement, games like Quake and Unreal wouldn’t work with Ironsights, but in games where the objective isn’t just killing other players ironsights are a great addition.

(darthmob) #139

Come to think of it I’m not really sure if iron sights are a bad thing. The problem is that many games with iron sights entirely removed the movement aspect. Call of Duty for example: It wouldn’t be a more / less complex game if iron sights got removed and it still wouldn’t need any movement skills.

Basically you need the same set of skills to be good at any shooter. Aim (obviously) and situational awareness (when do you have to be where; what weapon do I use in which situation; do I use the iron sight or not; how will my enemy react on my action; how can I influence what the enemy does; what will my enemy expect me to do). You may want to call it tactical if the game is slower but that’s just what it is - calling it a different name. It’s not better or worse, it’s different. You have to make the same decisions and rely on the same set of skills no matter how fast the game is.

The problem with the likes of Call of Duty is that there is no movement. You say Quake and UT are all about movement but that’s not true. It’s just equally important as aim and situational awareness. A random good CoD player will get utterly destroyed in Quake because he can’t move. A random good Quake player will most likely destroy others in CoD because where before he had to use three skills there are only two required now.

If you’ve spend some time with ET / RTCW or Quake all other FPS without movement get boring quickly because there is not much to discover. Aiming is more or less the same in any modern shooter (especially if there are only hitscan weapons) and situational awareness comes with practice. I’m not sure if you can ever master movement in idtech3 games. There’s always something to improve and it just never feels old.

I didn’t plan to write so many words, but meh. The bottom line is that iron sights may not be so bad but having no movement is. That said I really hope that the SMART system in Brink manages to fascinate as much as the strafejump mechanics in other idtech games do. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #140

Don’t forget that there are different bodytypes here. Ironsights could be less important for the light wights, also different guns can have different spread behaviours (one is more accurate than the other when standing still, one is more accurate than the other when running).

It could even be a specialisation form, where you can chose between less mobile spread or less stationary spread.