Movement Speed

(tokamak) #81

That or he tried it at pax.

(LyndonL) #82

Near future implies future tense… I’m assuming he was told something.

(Apples) #83

Cover is for pussies, just srafe-jump-rocketlauncher-combo them all!

In etqw there are many advantages staying at cover, any decent shooter can tell you that, strafing / jumping / dodging doesnt mean you have to do these things in the open you know, like strafing on a stairs can be very annoying for your enemy.

Peace

(potkettleblack) #84

i meant that in this particular situation in MW (or UT3 or most games) if one guy is in the middle of a courtyard shooting and another guy who is about 50 feet away behind a pillar shooting at him, than the guy in the middle of the courtyard, jumping, shooting, proning, bunny hopping dolphine diving WILL win the fire fight in many cases because there is very little penalty for moving like crazy and shooting at the same time. the person BEHIND cover has the disadvantage. it’s bizarre to me.

Its bizarre to you, because the game dictates the tactics that are available to you. Not the other way around.

(tokamak) #85

Yes, and he’s saying that, to his (and my) tase the game is promoting the wrong tactics. Bunnyhopping and aiming might require cognitive skills but it doesn’t require much intellect like situational awareness and getting the right positions does, so in this case it’s the arcady hand-eye coordinating player that’s being awarded over the player who thought things through.

I’ve put things a bit crass, but that’s what games like UT3 and MW tend to do. I love UT3 as I sometimes like to have such bouncy action, but it’s the games that reward being clever and strategic that tend to be more satisfying to play.

(Apples) #86

Dominating a whole duel by controling respawn and items, coordinate your action to steal a flag, all of these are also freaking situation awareness, and they already were predominant in Quake series :wink:

Just because a game is fast paced and rely much on pure “aiming” never meant you can be good by just jumping like a nub and rely on luck… See the fragmovies Kinjal n co have posted on the offtopic section, this is what I call situation awareness, like preshoting railgun when you know the guy will use jumppad etc… well, I call this hax :smiley: But I guess my point is still valid!

Peace

(potkettleblack) #87

Apples mate, I wouldnt bother explaining :wink:

(tokamak) #88

Seriously, screw that video that keeps getting brought up all the time. Yes, it’s a beautiful match, I really enjoyed it. Granted Q3 takes a lot of timing and especially at such high levels, but add one single extra player to the match and the entire thing turns into a chaotic fragfest. You’re unable to show me that kind of thoughtful gaming in games with more than three players.’
Again, any game can be calculated and organised when there’s only one opponent to keep an eye on. I am impressed with how excellent players managed to lift Q3 to such a level, however I am not impressed with the tactical value of Q3 by itself.

W:ET already had this more. Still a fast game. And still prone to be a chaotic mess at times, but I’ve had my five and six (subsequent even) panzer shots as well in my heydays. It still doesn’t compare to what Raven Shield did, what in other games can be seen as uncommon occasions of excellent play was just the norm in Rainbow 6. Now I don’t want Brink to become a Raven Shield, I want Brink to combine these different focuses featured in the above named games without compromising. I’m confident it has the ability to do so.

(DarkangelUK) #89

Are you saying there’s no team work, tactics or thoughtful gameplay in TDM or CTF at all, and its just a chaotic fragfest and the winner is who ever spams the most?

(SockDog) #90

To admit that Q3 is tactically rich is to admit his argument is full of holes.

IMO tactics can exist on many levels in many types of games. Sure you can prefer one or the other but to look down on one as inferior is pretty much admitting you have little understanding of the core game and the simulation it runs on.

Tactics really only fail when the simulation is so flawed that there is no winning tactic.

Edit: Hasn’t anyone seen Wargames? :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #91

I’m saying that whatever form of teamwork exists in those games, it’s far less prominent than in more tactical shooters like Rainbow. It will always will be that way as in Raven Shield your tactical positioning and decision making is all you have. You can’t use fancy jumps and dodges to compromise a lack in tactical insight.

But sure, sweep my entire argument away by showing a “tactically rich” Team Deathmatch in Q3. I look down on that game when comparing the tactical emphasis of games indeed.

(DarkangelUK) #92

You seem to be comparing speed to tactics, which just doesn’t make sense. Equally I don’t know how camping a room and aiming at a doorway while a team mate does the same to the other door is considered tactically rich. And as much as this seems to be an issue for you, (tho I cant comment for others) I really don’t care enough about your thoughts on the subject to go looking for a demo… you think it’s not tactical… oh well… we’ll live.

(tokamak) #93

Then again, if you don’t care about someone else’s thoughts, why even bother taking par tin the discussion? And yes, speed can be compared to tactics simply because speed allows for ways around tactical mistakes. Just reflexes can get you a long way. And maybe Gears of War is a fairer game to compare stuff with, more arcade, less simulation, still highly tactical, way more tactical than Quake.

(DarkangelUK) #94

I asked for clarification… and I said I didn’t care enough, not didn’t care at all.

I’m still confused at your thinking, I think of tactics as a coordinated strategy that limits what the opponent can do, and ultimately results in an advantage for your team. In what way is that purely relevant to speed? Coordinated strategy of map control and item timing to dominate a map, limit the enemies item pickups and ultimately gain the advantage of weapons and health and a strategic set up to hold choke points… which if you look at it, has more to it than any of the shooters with no pickups and no real need for map control except for choke points. If anything, Q3 has more to cover than those shooters than simply converging on an area and holding it. I’m not denying those shooters don’t require them, but to say Q3 has little to none is so blindly naive, I take your comment more as a personal grudge against the game rather than an educated opinion.

Oh and Happy Birthday btw :slight_smile:

(trollface) #95

Movement is way too slow.

1.5 x speed modifier patch on release day please.

(Kendle) #96

On the subject of tactics, I’ve played (competitively) RTCW, ET, DOD:S and UrT. UrT is on the face of it the simplest, I played it in both CTF and TS (Team Survivor, basically CS without the Bomb, each team has only to eliminate the other to score a round win).

Of those which do you suppose I found the most difficult in terms of team play and tactics required? RTCW? ET? with their classes and objectives? DOD:S which is all about area control, or UrT in TS mode which is pretty much just team deathmatch but with total team eliminations counting rather than frags?

Yes, you guessed it, UrT TS.

By far the hardest game I’ve played, by far the most thought and concentration I’ve ever had to employ in a competitive match environment. No classes, no objectives, but by God you can’t make a mistake, you can’t not cover your team mates, you can’t not anticapte your opponents movements, you can’t not try to calculate the odds of one set play against another and think ahead at all times.

Once upon a time I was an objective snob. When I played RTCW and had never played anything else I scoffed at TDM or CTF or any game that didn’t have classes or objectives.

Suffice to say I’ve had my eyes opened since then :wink:

(raib) #97

It works the other way around too: because the other guy moves so fast, not even godly reflexes will save you from them positioning themselves so that you receive as much damage as possible. It requires just as much foresight and map knowledge to not get into those situations to begin with. Also, because of them being harder to hit, there are less positions where you can deal any relevant damage from. Advantages such as height, wide angles, maybe narrow doorways if you’re planning to fight with a rocket launcher, all these become more valuable. Furthermore, because of how fast they can get around the map, you need to have your routes well thought out in advance because you simply won’t have time to improvise or correct mistakes.

u bad?