SCDS_reyalP wrote:
Reduced size maps are also better to quicker rounds, which is a good thing for competition, IMO.you mean you dont enjoy 3 hour double full holds?
Only if it involves a bottle of baby oil, some swedish twins and a bottle of liquor.
–Mortis
Some preview said 32 players support with 64 possible through some server cfg…
I can’t stand playing ET with more than 8vs8, it becomes a lame spamfest 100% of the times. I hope ETQW, given the bigger maps, will be very playable with only 5vs5 to 9vs9
rofl that’s where i read it! small world! you sir are a visionary. 5v5 ftw imo tbh bbq :chef:
you are correct sir. and regardless of what casual pubbers may enjoy, spam does not require skill. it may require intelligent placement, but we all know that doesn’t happen on pubs. rather than saving that airstrike for a clutch moment, odds are it will be thrown willy-nilly at the nearest enemy as if it were a rock. and why shouldn’t it be? you’ll be able to throw another one in a matter of seconds.
and rather than using mines intelligently to soften up opponents before you finish them off, they will likely be found it the most mind-boggling places you can imagine, and probably doing more team damage than enemy damage. but again, why not? if you have more mines than you need for all available choke points, why not place the rest in asinine locations “just in case”? nevermind that they will likely be tripped by a teammate as he circle-strafes during a 1v1 smg fight, never imagining there would be a mine in that location.
you really can’t blame the pubstar for playing like one. his environment rewards him for his lame “tactics”. that doesn’t mean those of us who enjoy other aspects of gaming should be subjected to it. some of us actually like to think and strategize instead of just grabbing a panzer and playing the bull in a china shop.
anyway this isn’t the place, and i feel like i’m insulting SD which i don’t want to do. they made a pub game, and it’s the best one of all time imo. it’s up to the community & modders to make the necessary changes needed for competition (<3 bani). also, SD created the great foundation which made it possible to develop ET into a serious competitive game. that’s why i know ETQW will kick ass, because it’s not being made by a bunch of chimps like a lot of other games seem to be.
I only have 2 items on my wish list for ET:QW
Assuming it has an XP system (and why not, it’s massively popular on pubs) then please ensure it has an XP on/off switch. It took ET over a year and a lot of arguing and whining to get XP taken out of competition, so let’s just cut the crap and have XP off from the start (for comps).
BF2’s scaleable map idea is a great feature, which caters nicely for the comp player prefering smaller teams and the pub player prefering larger ones. The reason it doesn’t work in BF2, as mentioned previously, is mostly the Conquest game mode. Hopefully an Objective game type in the best RTCW/ET tradition will ensure ET:QW doesn’t fall into the same trap.
It will have “persistent character promotions” according to the press release, but I hope that means you’ll just get a new grade on your uniform/helmet and not “skill” upgrades like in ET… :blah:
I believe it means that you get some ET-alike XP system but it gets saved with some sort of account then. I could be wrong, but this XP system has some benefits. Battlesense, for an example, if you want to upgrade it you need to find where the battle’s going on. If they would also include something like driver skill, it’ll be harder to hit some enemy with a fast moving vehicle since you can’t drive it that well if your XP is low.
Oh well, it’s just a personal view. I dodn’t bother with it. I see these upgrades just a bonuses or rewards for the guys who are allready longer on the server.
because it’s not being made by a bunch of chimps like a lot of other games seem to be.
are you sure
If they would also include something like driver skill, it’ll be harder to hit some enemy with a fast moving vehicle since you can’t drive it that well if your XP is low.
omg no, how hard would it be to drive if the cars changed in performace all the time
I don’t care what the “XP” system does or comprises of, as long as it can be switched off.
OK, it may be an idea that’s in the shady-dark zone, but why would the car handling change all of the sudden?
I’ve been playing GTA SA recently, and here the driving skill has an effect on most cars, however they are still under control most of the time.
It was just some idea to avoid a lot of guys jumping in a car to go play ‘carmageddon’. If their driving skill wouldn’t be that high, they wouldn’t be able to cut short corners and enemy’s could still dodge the vehicle.
But anyway, this just my personal view. And even if it would make it to the game, it should be posible to configure XP things…
It was just some idea to avoid a lot of guys jumping in a car to go play ‘carmageddon’. If their driving skill wouldn’t be that high, they wouldn’t be able to cut short corners and enemy’s could still dodge the vehicle.
i dont like the idea that players who have been playing longer can then get cars making it easier for them to kill the less xp players
what would make it good imo would be the players own skill, some can trickjump in ET amazingly well so should there not be ppl who are much better drivers than the average player so everyone can find there own role withing the game
look at bf1942 desert combat mod, the helicopters were so hard to fly that most players didnt bother with them but with a lot of perseverance you could perfect them and learn to do stunts like loops and rolls, cos many couldnt use them i think it made them a more valuble thing as poeple would be less prepared to fight helicopters, then of course in bf2 there easy to fly and they just dont have the same thrill now everyone can fly them
Oh, liked the DC helli’s. They were good but hard to keep under control. (problem was: you couldn’t see your elevation on the hud, it needed some roll and pitch indicators or really carefull flying)
So you mean more “make cars harder to drive, so the best can hanlde them the best”? I could live with that.
yeha make them hard and make everyhting realy differnt to drive so it doesnt feel like ur riding in a car then a bigger car, then a flying car
maby not so only the best can hanndle them but the leave something in that you would have to be realy skilled so you can get the most out of the car
I’ll take 24-32-players driven gameplay over 64-players musical chairs gameplay any day.
the netcode in cs is completely different than that of et or even q3. cs is a far simpler game by orders of magnitude, the same number of players takes far less bandwidth simply because there’s so much less going on.
make cs as complex as et and youll have the same network issues as et, if not more.
To clear up a few things:
Well, it wasn’t - and I should know 
It’s not going to be subscription-based. I love how some people ask if it’ll be free ‘like the first one’ while others worry it’ll be p2p
12 can be hard. I have some experience of this (I play/played for the best Tribes 2 clan in Europe), and it’s really difficult to keep a clan going when you need to field a team of more than 8 players. The bigger your squad, the more things go wrong, and you need to keep a constant eye on who’s playing actively and who’s bored, who is offline for two weeks while they move house, who is on holiday, etc etc.
You end up with way more people than will fit in a team, and when a big match comes along everyone wants to play and will sulk if they have to sit out a map or two. Then there are the absolute best players in the squad who seemingly always get to play every game, and end up resented by the rest of their teammates, and the stand-ins who are only just good enough and feel like they get dropped more than everyone else, and end up playing roles they don’t particularly want to just to get a game… and so on.
You have to bear in mind that SD is a relatively small company. Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t realistically test the game with more than about 10 vs 10, and that’s in fairly exceptional cases. There are just too many people off sick/on holiday/busy/out of the office/feeding the tapirs at any given time, and we generally end up playing with much smaller numbers unless we’re testing performance. So, if the game is going to work and be fun at all, it should be fairly safe to say that it’ll be fun for smaller team sizes, whatever happens.
I’m very happy to read that, as I think it points towards smallish teams
Also games that require lots of players to be enjoyable have a hard time to fill servers
Now that’s a post Wils, thanks for the insight! 
(OK, maybe I’ll be buying it afterall)
Aw Come on Kendle youd have bought iut either way… who can resist… all must buy QW!
:drink: