Is this game dead already?

(.Chris.) #81

You do know that Bani and co fixed a hell of a lot in ET with ET Pro? Lots of their fixes were included in the last major patch. To a lesser extent ET:QW Pro was the same though it just added some options that should have been there from start rather than fixing ‘proper’ bugs. The two promods aren’t exclusively for competition purposes, one of reasons I wish they were both named differently.

(tokamak) #82

Yeah and as we all know ETQW would never even have sold without it’s promod…

And this rolls right back to the point we argued over many times. Attempting to model gameplay through rigid rules and rewards

That’s something completely different! If anything a complex rules and rewards system will only benefit the players because it will cover more of the weird stuff than a simple rule system does. I’m talking about pidgeonholing everything you can do into an explicit ability. These are two completely different subjects.

(deems) #83

THIS. Bring back this!

[QUOTE=tokamak;385922]the more subtle, ordinary stuff like a great combination of class abilities (having an AIT near an AVT and a supply crate to maintain the infantry surrounding it). In ETQW these things just kept stacking on top of each other. People could build really congruent combinations of stratagems which then challenged the opposing team to probe for weak spots and see if they can topple it all.
[/QUOTE]

(king_troll) #84

you can download http://planetquake.gamespy.com/View.php?view=QuakeWars.Detail&id=32 for quakewars. even if deathmatch gets added to it, you will need all classes for weapons, to destroy vehicles etc, vehicles are armoured vehicles and take alot of hitting without a HE or rocketlauncher or some deployables around

you all can make urban etc maps for it, and make it better then W:ET and Q3/URBAN TERROR

(DarkangelUK) #85

What’s the point you’re trying to make with this comment, that the discussion is to do with success via sales and not through longevity brought via mods and fixes?

(SockDog) #86

So an open system that allows creative play is not as good as a closed system which defines play? The former allows you to do everything you want while the latter imposes restrictions, albeit by unintentional consequence. The pigeonholing you speak of is exactly the result of defining stricter and wider rules.

Wasn’t you also very much for the abilities and the “depth” they brought to the game by locking in players to skillsets?

(tokamak) #87

The point is that ETPRO has been confined to the unranked players which means ETQW got by entirely without it.

(tokamak) #88

I’m glad you understand the difference between hard restrictions and indirect consequences. Shows we’re still on the same page even though you act like they’re the same for the convenience of your argument.

A ruleset that covers all the things you can do in the game doesn’t need to restrict anything. It only means that the game recognises what you’re doing and rewards you for it. Case in point, in W:ET and in ETQW you’re not rewarded for throwing smoke grenades even though they’re really useful. The game completely glosses over the value you bring to your team because it’s system is too rudimentary still. If the game was actually able to detect your action as well as being able to place it into the context of the rest of the match and thus able to calculate the value to the team then it is able to reward you for doing so which results in a more accurate reward distribution and thus an overall benefit of the game.

This is completely different from the game building a mission ‘throw smoke grenade near objective’ where it then places a marker on the spot and lets you press ‘f’ to throw the grenade and then rewards you accordingly.

One is implicit and the other is explicit. I’d appreciate it if you would stop intentionally confusing the two because by now you’ve demonstrated that you understand the difference very well indeed.

The point is that ETPRO has been confined to the unranked players which means ETQW got by entirely without it.

(INF3RN0) #89

Of course your statement is conveniently ignored, as it completely negates the entire purpose of argument. Those that argue against promod have obviously never even looked at the readme change log. And when I hear people who describe promod as if it is a server config with limits on things I lmfao… It’s the same dam game with zero limitations (limits come from a config you can use on any server vanilla/promod) and is realistically more of a community patch than anything else; which might only matter if your a competitive player or give a dam about improvements in convenience. Only point I might make in ETQW promod for example would be that the weapon spread reduction might not have needed to be as much if the net code was actually good. Years ago, we had a 32 slot promod pub server and it was freaking awesome.

(INF3RN0) #90

If you had ever played ETpro enough, you might come to realize that a server config (ie limits) is made separately and then applied. It has zero connection to promod, and is only meant to put limits on game variables (ie nades/vehicles/etc) in correlation to the number of players that will be playing. You can have a full vanilla config in promod ffs… Again, get it through your skulls folks… promod is not a server config! It’s like a herp derp fest in here between people who don’t even know what they are jabbering on about.

What would have been nice is if there was a dynamic config that altered rule sets as the amount of players varied, considering the game was designed to originally function at 16v16. Server configs were mainly utilized for competitive play though, but that doesn’t mean promod was limited to only league configs…

(tokamak) #91

If I don’t know what I’m jabbering about then so does the vast majority of (ex)ET players. I’m not saying the mod isn’t beneficial or significant, I’m saying that the majority of the players don’t recognise it and it’s functions even if they’re playing frequently on the servers that benefit by it. It just doesn’t appear on the casual gamer’s radar.

(DonkeyDong) #92

Think his process longer then 1 second. Longevity is why I want to spend my money on games. Hence why I have not paid any money for Call of Duty anymore. That game is null and void along with many others.

Sure it’s nice to sell, and make the money of the noobs,… which is why I always preach a 2 tier game system. First, one that cators to everyone including you, so people buy games and think… wow, good times…
but then add a 2nd tier to the game, including server mods, tv mods, comp mods, to players who want to play the snot out of the game and not be capped by morons and noobs.

thank you

(SockDog) #93

[QUOTE=tokamak;386028]I’m glad you understand the difference between hard restrictions and indirect consequences. Shows we’re still on the same page even though you act like they’re the same for the convenience of your argument.

A ruleset that covers all the things you can do in the game doesn’t need to restrict anything. It only means that the game recognises what you’re doing and rewards you for it. Case in point, in W:ET and in ETQW you’re not rewarded for throwing smoke grenades even though they’re really useful. The game completely glosses over the value you bring to your team because it’s system is too rudimentary still. If the game was actually able to detect your action as well as being able to place it into the context of the rest of the match and thus able to calculate the value to the team then it is able to reward you for doing so which results in a more accurate reward distribution and thus an overall benefit of the game.

This is completely different from the game building a mission ‘throw smoke grenade near objective’ where it then places a marker on the spot and lets you press ‘f’ to throw the grenade and then rewards you accordingly.

One is implicit and the other is explicit. I’d appreciate it if you would stop intentionally confusing the two because by now you’ve demonstrated that you understand the difference very well indeed.[/QUOTE]

This is your lala land of game design though. When you get the system to the point that it can predict every action and apply a value and context to it I might tend to agree with you, until then (don’t hold your breath) the half arsed, best we can guess at, coupled with distorting rewards or deterrents is a failure for promoting innovative play that you claim to value so much. Or to look at it another way, the system you’re pining for is the praise and recognition of the people you play with, to actually want them replaced with a number is pretty fecking sad.

GL&HF not 1+1=FUN

(INF3RN0) #94

TAW occupied a vast majority of the ETQW scene and they used TA mod all the time, which includes the same convenience measures as promod. The reason why promod is underplayed is because the vanilla game doesn’t offer an easy way of gaining access to mods, as well as discouraging it altogether with ranked servers. The casual would never even know promod existed without the help of another human being. It’s not that something like promod doesn’t interest a casual, it’s that the game interface itself doesn’t give them direct access. The stuff that promod offers is incredibly appealing to anyone who plays the game for content and not for medals/ranked stats.

Then there’s the misinformation passed around about what promod actually is. I have heard it from people who have played ET games for years, but the big factor there is they never touched promod long enough to understand what it actually does. Promod isn’t just for comp players, it’s for everyone. There are quite a few people on these forums who think they know all there is to know about promod, but it only reflects how little they know in actuality. All these arguments over non-existent and plain incorrect issues is like… huuuuuh wuuuuuut u talkn bout willis?!

(tokamak) #95

I wonder how many posts it will take before it sinks in that I’m not making a judgement on the mod.

(INF3RN0) #96

After all the other threads where you shared your misinformed opinions on the exact subject? Not sure… If everyone is aware of the situation and understands it well now, then I am not entirely sure what the point of your original statement in regards to it was about… difficult to see what you were attempting to achieve there.

(ArchdemonXIII) #97

I think his point was that regardless of what a mod may add, the fact is that most casual gamers will not bother delving far enough into the game to download a mod. For most of them, the game is either fun right out of the box, or they play something else. Plenty of them won’t even know wtf a mod is. Look at Counterstrike. You could download it for free, but thousands still bought it at the box price that was more than you could buy Half-life for at that point.

Casuals also tend to not get into the nitty gritty of the systems. Take spread for example. It’s not a hard concept, but if you aren’t invested in the mechanics, and no one has explained it to you, it may not be readily apparent. A casual just knows that his shots aren’t being effective. He likely doesn’t know why. After all, the big target on his screen was over the other guy, it should be a hit, right?

For those casuals that are at least well versed enough to know about mods, I think Chris is on to something about the name. When they see pro in the title, they’ll likely assume it’s made for pros and has a correspondingly high bar of entry.

I know it’s an alien concept, but there are people that play games to have fun, and don’t define fun as challenging. That’s why the Wiii outsells the PS3 and 360 combined.

(Senethro) #98

Is this really how its going to be forever? A bunch of guys bitching about how Wolf:ET was the bestest and most popularist game ever and that SD should just remake it despite it being unproven commercially and a non-presence in the modern console dominated market?

i mean crossfire.nu has been saying that for 6 years now

if its so obvious why has noone done it? theres more devs than sd

(INF3RN0) #99

The big problem in ETQW though was that there were more “hardcore” players who were confused about what promod exactly was, rather than the game having a large player base of “casuals”. What exactly is a casual player, someone who doesn’t really play the game often and could care less about what it is really offering? I would consider a “hardcore” player someone who plays the game constantly, usually their main game, and plays the game for the actual game play. What Chris said was entirely true, and because promod was practically a requirement for the “pros” in competitive play, the hardcore pub community assumed it was different from what they were playing. The truth of the matter being that promod was there for everyone to use and dealt with common issues as well as giving more options to users. The fact of the matter is why should casuals be more significant than the dedicated player base? Shouldn’t there be something more for those who will contribute to the longevity of the game? When patch support is dropped, then it is very sensible to allow the community to continue development where the official funding was cut off. I think perhaps the term “casual” may have been melded with the group that are satisfied with the game because they are lacking too much in understanding/ability that they haven’t yet come to the same conclusions. But I am willing to bet more on that the solutions something like promod provides are in fact shared wants of the players who care about the future development of a game.

(ArchdemonXIII) #100

Man. That post was just dripping with elitism.

I’d say the biggest dividers between a hardcore player and a casual is that a casual is more focused on the feel of a game, whereas hardcore players care more about mechanics. A casual cares more about having a good time than winning. or to put it more succinctly, the hardcore player is the on that takes it deadly serious.

Take any game you can play at a bar (billiards, darts, even poker). On one end you have the guys the guys that really break it down, that can place the cue ball perfectly lined up for the next shot, hit bull’s eyes with confidence, and could ell you the odds of getting the card they need to complete a full house. That’s hardcore.

On the other end, you have the players that don’t even bother to call shots, get excited every time they happen to get a bull’s eye and don’t even bother keeping score, and the guys that sees poker as fun way to pass the time.

It’s not a matter of how much time they play, but what drives them to play. A hardcore player strives to attain victory. To the casual the game is what matters, not the result.

Personally, I’d say I fall in the middle. I earnestly try to win, but I tend to stay towards the middle tier because I find top tier play ends up being kind of boring and rigid. I’m not so obsessed with winning that I won’t try to do something with a low probability of success just for the rush of possibly pulling off the unexpected.