This is all false. Quake 3 was developed with the mindset of multiplayer in mind. That’s why its single player is a tacked on story of being dropped into an “Arena” against bots. That is also why it is called Quake 3: Arena.
Secondly, no guns were made weaker. In fact, they actually started players with a stronger weapon (the machinegun) so that you could potentially get a kill off a straggler or favorable respawn (dm/ffa). Movement was slower compared to Quake, but lightning speed compared to Quake 2 especially regarding weapon switch. Your ability to travel around the map (especially w/ rocket jumps and strafe jumping) rivals anything Quake 2 could do even with a grappling hook proThe armor system was kept the same except the “gray” armor was removed because it was insignificant and not used by mappers for many 1on1 DM maps. You also spawned with more health to compensate people from dying from a single rocket to the face or snap rail shot after a respawn. So, while the mindset of adding the machinegun and extra spawn health was to help newer players, it never hindered gameplay or slowed anything down.
CPMA was a mod to actually bring Quake physics to Quake 3. It was just a mod to introduce air control (and thus faster movement), removed footstep sounds, and insta switch weapons. Basically, everything people loved from QuakeWorld was brought over to Q3 via CPMA. It was never a defacto tournament mod or was there ever any real significant tournaments for it.
Uh…yes O_O C&C Renegade was one of my all time favorite games. I don’t really remember any true competition for it. I’m sure there was clan wars and stuff though. If there was major competition for it, feel free to correct me.
Competition can form out of any game, it’s just up to people to organize it.
Pretty much agreeing with what has been said here about the changes.
Mines need arming like they were done in ET. Throw the mine to the ground and somehow arm it with those pliers. Also maybe slightly longer time to explode so you could avoid them by running back around the corner like in ETQW with proximity mines. But that needs testing because the mines also need to be useful.
No trip mines, please! …unless we can shoot them too. It was stupid in etqw when you needed to waste your nades on those.
Shotgun damage is too high now. 3 perfect body shots or 2 good headshots for the kill. I don’t mind if the spray would be a little smaller for easier balancing at close range. Also then the difference wouldn’t be so big if the enemy is standing 1m away or 5m, it’s still close range.
I really don’t understand the ammo stations. Defenders don’t need those. They have a class for that and also the attackers are happily bringing more to them all the time.
Healthpack change sounds good because medics have had it too easy in previous games, but have to test more to be 100% sure. And if attackers are having problems at some stages because of this then maybe the problem is in map design, not the medics?
This is a rhetorical question right? Because obviously games can have multiplayer components without meaning to be esports. I guess we can use the Wii as example, but what point are we trying to prove?
The games that have wildly popular multiplayer components have become games that are highly competed in. Quake 2 was a single player game with multiplayer tacked on. It, however, evolved into a highly successful multiplayer game because the mod community was so supportive. From that kindling mods like OSP were developed to support the competitive gaming community essentially creating the first ever competitive modes.
However, this is no longer 1999 and gamers as well as gamer taste has evolved. Back to the Wii, and we see how their system was pointed at the casual gamer and is incredibly successful. However, besides for children, the Wii became a lackluster console regarding the software developed for it (save the hardcore Super Smash Bros. players).
We have very specific taste as far as what makes a game fun or worthwhile to play and a lot of that revolves around balancing the game for competitive play. It’s not about being eSports all stars or boasting our track records from the early 2000’s. The biggest thing you have to realize is that we are actually very excited about the prospect and potential Dirty Bomb has to offer. The end goal is the same as your end goal: to make Dirty Bomb an incredibly popular and successful game. I want nothing more than to see Splash Damage succeed. As an alpha tester I am going to give my two cents as to what I think will balance the game and make it more fun for EVERYONE; pubbers and competitive players alike.
The silly part is you see eye to eye with us on a lot of the subjects (game issues) we talk about Inferno. It’s almost as if you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate because it’s fun or because you want to object to certain people’s point of views. Again, we all have the same goal, to make Dirty Bomb a fun game. Everyone here is entitled to express what their concerns are about the game and some of us paid real money to get that opportunity. Part of the goal of making Dirty Bomb fun is to make it viable in a competitive atmosphere. Wouldn’t you want to see Dirty Bomb as the highlighted tournament on Twitch.TV or the big draw to ESL? How the hell is it supposed to ever get that recognition if the game is not balanced for competitive play?
I’m of the opinion mines absolutely do not need arming. They may need a bit more of a delay, but even playing tonight I had enemy players able to activate my mines without being outright killed by them.
I will say the lethality has been increased a bit (it feels) but nothing extraordinary. There should simply be a delay in activation (which I believe there already is). I honestly don’t see what all the fuss is about - (again, other than just not being used to engineers having the ability to have mines).
Part of the problem with rotations like this, is when classes are not readily available to players - and thus aren’t needed to be accounted for - it’s easy to start adopting strategies that make the most sense against the available classes. Then to suddenly introduce something new and everyone’s ‘strategy’ which is perceived as ‘normal gameplay’ goes out the window and there’s a whine-fest.
[QUOTE=Bananas;431909]Uh…yes O_O C&C Renegade was one of my all time favorite games. I don’t really remember any true competition for it. I’m sure there was clan wars and stuff though. If there was major competition for it, feel free to correct me.
Competition can form out of any game, it’s just up to people to organize it.[/QUOTE]
There were renegade matches on GAMESPY, I know because my team never lost a map let along a match I do like that game, pistol engi!
[QUOTE=amazinglarry;431925]I’m of the opinion mines absolutely do not need arming. They may need a bit more of a delay, but even playing tonight I had enemy players able to activate my mines without being outright killed by them.
I will say the lethality has been increased a bit (it feels) but nothing extraordinary. There should simply be a delay in activation (which I believe there already is). I honestly don’t see what all the fuss is about - (again, other than just not being used to engineers having the ability to have mines).
Part of the problem with rotations like this, is when classes are not readily available to players - and thus aren’t needed to be accounted for - it’s easy to start adopting strategies that make the most sense against the available classes. Then to suddenly introduce something new and everyone’s ‘strategy’ which is perceived as ‘normal gameplay’ goes out the window and there’s a whine-fest.[/QUOTE]
we were purposely not over using the engy. what about the carryable objectives? what did you think about those.
[QUOTE=ImageOmega;431924]
We have very specific taste as far as what makes a game fun or worthwhile to play and a lot of that revolves around balancing the game for competitive play. It’s not about being eSports all stars or boasting our track records from the early 2000’s. The biggest thing you have to realize is that we are actually very excited about the prospect and potential Dirty Bomb has to offer. The end goal is the same as your end goal: to make Dirty Bomb an incredibly popular and successful game. I want nothing more than to see Splash Damage succeed. As an alpha tester I am going to give my two cents as to what I think will balance the game and make it more fun for EVERYONE; pubbers and competitive players alike.
The silly part is you see eye to eye with us on a lot of the subjects (game issues) we talk about Inferno. It’s almost as if you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate because it’s fun or because you want to object to certain people’s point of views. Again, we all have the same goal, to make Dirty Bomb a fun game. Everyone here is entitled to express what their concerns are about the game and some of us paid real money to get that opportunity. Part of the goal of making Dirty Bomb fun is to make it viable in a competitive atmosphere. Wouldn’t you want to see Dirty Bomb as the highlighted tournament on Twitch.TV or the big draw to ESL? How the hell is it supposed to ever get that recognition if the game is not balanced for competitive play?
You see: Same Goals.[/QUOTE]
I really like competitive play and would like to see it succeed, no doubt about it. The thing is that I have different priorities and views on the subject of what is most important. Esports competitive players are a very small niche group. Then there’s the competitive pubber, which is a larger group such as pub clans, etc. And then there’s the highly casual players who make up the major population. What I want is to have a game where every group can be satisfied seamlessly across the board without having to change the game from one end to the other. Almost every successful esport game doesn’t have any limitations on content because it doesn’t need to. That is my incentive towards every bit of content in this game. I define success by how long lasting public interest is as anyone can throw $$$ tournaments at a game these days, but that doesn’t mean anyone cares or is actually playing the game besides a few money hungry comp gamers that more than likely hate what they are playing. In order to have long lasting interest you need the base game to be just as good. Without a pub population developers would no longer be able to improve the game, continue with content/feature updates, or take the time to aid in the formation of a strong competitive community. One must come before the other. Yes a lot of the more successful esport games have a very competitive oriented feeling to them, but that’s because they were well designed as games and not necessarily focused on promoting their game as an esport. Esports are good for promoting lasting interest in games for some people sure, but they definitely aren’t the key to them being successful.
A good portion of the people around here are too caught up in the idea that competitive mode is more important than public, and so are dismissive of anything new to them. Remember that this isn’t a remake of the game that you liked best or want, but one that needs to appeal to the general gaming population. KISS works fine if your releasing a game that people purchase for a dollar price, but this is not the case and content is a necessity. The priority here is to establish a wide variety of content and balance it so that no one suffers. No one will play the game if pub is a messy spam fest with op weapons and the like, which is why we are alpha testers and our job is to suggest ways to make everything work instead of telling them to kill it with fire. There’s plenty of games that had well established balance and a variety of content, and just because the last game you played competitively was simple doesn’t mean that it set the highest standard for what is achievable. We could just make a super simple competitive mode in DB sure, but then that makes it less attractive to the general population and limits the growth potential of the competitive scene. On top of that you would have lots of people who disagreed with the limitations of a comp mode when they considered the pub equally functional. SD has already said that they want to make this a very balanced and accessible game for every type of player, which is why your seeing such a small player cap in pub as a means of allowing for the two to be as close as possible.
I’m no devil’s advocate, I am simply a competitive player without tunnel vision when it comes to the subject and my experiences or lack there of in other games. Do you want a small competitive community with minor interest from the public, or do you want a thriving and growing competitive scene that offers a friendly cross over between pub and comp? Heck, when does the esport scene not benefit greatly from the success of the pub scene. I am in alpha to help make suggestions towards making things work. We have plenty of time to test every aspect of the game and content ideas right now in the hope of meeting the overall goal for the game. There’s no big tournament tomorrow or next month and the release date hasn’t even been announced, so we need to be productive here and actually be testers right now. If we see a problem think of ideas of how to fix it or make it less problematic. If it does prove to be impossible it will more than likely get dropped and we will move on to the next item. We really ought to focus more on having as many pugs and balanced pubs as we can in order to get the most accurate information possible. Meta game changes drastically over time as people discover new things, so what’s weak today is op tomorrow and vice versa. On top of that I strongly dislike it when egos get in the way of proper feedback. No one is pressuring anyone to prove themselves and there’s no reason why top fragging or being the best alpha player should be important to anyone. If people get frustrated by the game they need to take a step back and figure out if it’s the fault of a game mechanic or if they could simply be doing more on their end before raging about it in game or on the forum. Hopefully I got my perspective across clearly so that you can understand where I am coming from.
I must admit I do appreciate the idea behind the way carryable objectives has been introduced in this patch, but I don’t think it’s intuitive enough.
I mean, I read the patch update, and I knew I could put the objective down to defend myself, but instead I ended up trying to escape and evade at all costs, even if choosing to place the objective and fire back would have been a better course of action.
I’m not saying that the idea and execution is terrible, but I just don’t think it lends itself very easily to something that is ‘obvious’. It’s too ‘mechanic-y’. Left mouse to place the objective, right mouse to swing with it… eh.
As an aside (at least in the experience I had tonight) there are far too many objectives that need to be returned for this mechanic to work how I felt it was intended to. When you have to bring 3+ objectives somewhere at once, there is a mentality of “Let’s bring them!”. With this mechanic, I found myself completely ignoring a carryable objective so that I might better focus on assisting a teammate who decided to run the gauntlet and carry one instead – since there’s a lot to be said for the advantage of a firefight going to the one who can fire first.
I wouldn’t mind the current mechanics remaining in place if the amount of carryables at a time per objective were reduced.
*Note: I did not get to play London Bridge / White Chapel
Read, and re-read this please. Then read it again.
I don’t want to see this forum and alpha become super melodramatic each time a build is released.
Yes, express your opinions about mechanics, gameplay, state of the game – but be clear, concise and include specific scenarios or whatever that will help support your concerns or suggestions. Simply screaming “A is overpowered!” is horse**** compared to saying “I think A is definitely too powerful because I was standing 500 feet away and was one shotted 3 times this map”.
I think a little more care in these posts, along with being objective (no pun intended) will make a big difference.
I think it is unfair to assume or allude that myself or any other has tunnel vision. Also, it is small minded to assume that changes proposed are not in the best interest of the general public just because people are outright against it or mention the very idea of it not being balanced for competitive play. Competitive play can also mean a pub. I do find the idea of a “competitive pubber” somewhat of an oxymoron given the way we have been throwing around that term. Are you competing in matches/tournaments or not? That is how I define competitive. Dirty Bomb as a game is competitive, but we have been using it behind the idea of clan matches.
Also, it seems extremely apparent to me that given two well-matched, ideal teams in Dirty Bomb that both sides would have a fair match and that cheesy or broken game tactics would not be to blame. As an example with this latest patch, let me refer to the idea of making objectives carryable. Can it work? Can the objective still be completed? Absolutely, but you are limiting the potential of the attacking team and significantly giving an advantage to the defending team. Not only since the attack carrying the objective can not shoot until he drops the famous “milk jug”, but also because the defenders can return the objective quicker than it takes to “deliver” the objective (by this I mean hitting the “use” key on the objective). Those just seem like broken game mechanics to me that don’t quite work. Hence, it will not only be good for competitive (or clan matches) gaming, but also, not so much fun for the general public or regular pubbers. I actually highly believe that pubbers are even more finicky than the average competitive player and will be quicker to drop a game due to broken game mechanics or unfair/unfavorable tactics (such as spamming mines and one shot shotguns). You see, it is these unfavorable mechanics why so many have passionately voiced their opinions. And, let it be known that there are many that share these concerns, not just the group of us you see as esports advocates.
Sure, there was a raising of the torches before the a fair shake of the stick was given, but the majority of the issues raised proved to be correct when testing was concluded. I, myself, mentioned that I enjoyed the new medic mechanics and thought the insta regen to full is actually a bonus for the medic instead of a hindrance. I think that players not being able to heal through damage (or have health bars going both ways in a fire fight as Anti put it) is absolutely an important mechanic to tackle. In fact, you may recall posting on the giant medic thread I posted where I mentioned a lot of the same ideas you share with me. So, again, same goal for the same game.
We are here to test the game and we have been testing it non-stop as well as watching these forums like hawks. I know that changes may be drastic and it is important for us to test and offer solutions. However, it can seem painfully obvious to some, maybe not all, the some mechanics that are introduced are not better than previously implemented and that is why there is a call to revert back to what was considered better. If we talk about something specific we can go into more detail on that. But, I really feel like you express the same ideas we have towards this game so I don’t understand what points we are trying to make anymore that is in any shape or form productive for the game? In fact I think this whole thread has devolved into a how to understand one another and post our thoughts thread than this is what we like or enjoy about the game.
Back to the game, do you think the carryable objectives adds any sort of benefit to the game? Do you think it adds unnecessary slow down to the game? Do you think it helped add an element of strategy or just convolute the mini-game of gathering objectives? Do you prefer the old system to the new system? I would be very surprised if your answers were very different from mine. I have shown my support for this game through and through from setting up DirtyBombers.com to organizing the Tuesday Night Fights. I think we need to not be short sighted in what we are all trying to achieve and chalk certain opinions to “tunnel vision”. We understand there is no tournament for this game and we know that we have no idea when the game will be finally released or even hit beta for that matter. So, our motives for the game is to create the best possible experience for all and we do this by playing daily/nightly and posting on these forums even more often.
Oh dear, so you mean your team would have to actually kill the enemy rather than revive your crack shot player and pump him full of packs to continue dominating?
Retarded because you make suggestions without looking at the bigger picture.Without even thinking about how it affects other elements of the game.
But your “bigger picture” is simply that, a picture of the past. ‘Change’, I know, retarded concept.
I did weeks ago. I said you either make it a HoT or you nerf the weapon but you don’t do both because the class will be painful to play and it won’t be enjoyable at all. I also thanked SD when they nerfed the medic gun and not the health packs and I felt medics were fine at that point. Then they took it a step further and nerfed the packs as well. You’re right, medics can run back and heal, that’s all they will do now tap tap tap a few times, run away, heal, come back and finish. Did it fix the problem? No, it just takes longer and makes the game boring and tedious.
There’s plenty of feedback to suggest otherwise. The game just doesn’t seem to fit your model now, that doesn’t make it wrong or unworthy of exploration and more importantly iteration.
SC2
CS 1.6
League of Legends
DoTA 2
Q3
All the games were built competitively, applied the KISS mentality, and are extremely successful (SC2 isn’t exactly simple but it was built from the ground up for competitive play.)
Sponge dealt with this quite nicely. I’d just add that classic fact about Q3 and strafe jumping originating as a bug. Hardly designed for comp play.
Aim has nothing to do with my opinion of you. It’s when you suggest moronic ideas without looking at how it affects the elements of the game, specifically competitive play. You want to get a positive KDR with minimal effort? Go play CoD, they made that game for people like you. SD is trying to make a game that will last and us “condescending assholes” want to help get them there.
When you dismiss ideas solely based on them not matching your own then it speaks more of you than anyone else. Again, you seem content living in this narrow environment but you assume everyone wants to do the same or is speaking directly of it. I, for example, don’t give a cat’s twizzle about K/D, I play for fun and entertainment, win or lose my ideal game is one that is close, has a level of challenge to it and that is based on fair and balanced mechanics. So that doesn’t preclude competitive elements for me and during testing I can simply say whether something feels better for me. In this case, in granted a very small window of experience, I like that the healing portion of the game is being pushed away from the direct area of fighting. I’d at least like to see it tested longer and iterated a few times.
I actually think this is an extremely important point you made, amazinglarry. The mechanics not being intuitive can be completely off putting to newer players. Regardless of new or experienced though, I think the implementation itself should be intuitive and flow with the game instead of feel like a challenge (as in have to stop everything you’re doing and stare at the “milk jug”) to pull off something as simple as “delivering” or “picking up” objective.
Also, I agree with you that having too many objectives with a mechanic like this do not go hand in hand.
Image you tend to support your friends a lot, but they don’t always have the same opinion as yourself. That ends up causing confusion to me as to where you stand as an individual, or anyone for that matter. I have an overall difficulty understanding the motives of many of the player groups in alpha based on what I see them do in the game, and yes if your wondering I find a lot of things to be very counterproductive. I fully support what your doing though.
[QUOTE=ImageOmega;431938]
Back to the game, do you think the carryable objectives adds any sort of benefit to the game? Do you think it adds unnecessary slow down to the game? Do you think it helped add an element of strategy or just convolute the mini-game of gathering objectives? Do you prefer the old system to the new system? I would be very surprised if your answers were very different from mine. I have shown my support for this game through and through from setting up DirtyBombers.com to organizing the Tuesday Night Fights. I think we need to not be short sighted in what we are all trying to achieve and chalk certain opinions to “tunnel vision”. We understand there is no tournament for this game and we know that we have no idea when the game will be finally released or even hit beta for that matter. So, our motives for the game is to create the best possible experience for all and we do this by playing daily/nightly and posting on these forums even more often.[/QUOTE]
The new carry mechanic is different and I’m not really sure what to think of it entirely yet, but this is how I’ve broken it down so far.
Overall the system is meant to work when the offensive team secures the cell room. Attempting to avoid doing so results in frustration.
Good:
-pickup time=anti lemming
-transmit time=chance for defenders to make a come back
Undecided/Probably not necessary:
-replaces main weapon=requires team to protect carrier
-you can drop the obj=not restrictive
I can see the strategical value with this to some extent, but mostly on a map like Camden. I find the combination of map design and spawn waves in DB to make these types of objectives look and feel much worse than they need to. As for the overall system I don’t find it slows much down other than making it feel more like an objective and less like a lemming rush.
What I would like to have is making carry/transmit objectives more focused on the run back to the transmit area and less on the actual capture of the cells in the first place. I loved having two defensive points of interest (docs and transmit zone); it was Outskirts in ETQW. That is entirely lost in DB and makes those objectives quite boring as a result.
[QUOTE=INF3RN0;431946] Good:
-pickup time=anti lemming
-transmit time=chance for defenders to make a come back
Undecided/Probably not necessary:
-replaces main weapon=requires team to protect carrier
-you can drop the obj=not restrictive
I can see the strategical value with this to some extent, but mostly on a map like Camden. I find the combination of map design and spawn waves in DB to make these types of objectives look and feel much worse than they need to. As for the overall system I don’t find it slows much down other than making it feel more like an objective and less like a lemming rush. What I would like to have is making carry/transmit objectives more focused on the run back to the transmit area and less on the actual capture of the cells in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I see the whole snag the objective things like a min-game of CTF. I think the tactics involved are very much the same tactics you would use in any CTF game mode. Being able to snag the objective quicker (no pickup time) I think would promote defenses to stay on their toes some more instead of focusing on when the enemy will stop to pick up the objective.
I thought the transmit time and pickup time would be good until I played it on Camden. Then I thought these mechanics were terrible…And, let me tell you I was one of the few that was actually delivering the objective via sneaky ninja tactics from hence I declared myself the “milk man” for delivering all those “milk jugs”. The idea of hitting “use” to pick up the objective is fine. The idea of hitting “E” to deliver the objective is also fine. The time/delay it takes to do either is a nuisance and slows down the game tremendously, plus takes focus off the core of the game: fighting.
I do like that game, pistol engi!