When exactly is this not the situation? Again (again again again) if someone gets the drop on another player and can’t capitalize on it then clearly that’s their problem, they’ve either screwed things up royally or they are severely out skilled… sounds like you purposely want to gimp someone’s ability to use their 1v1 skillset to get out of a situation. If they manage it, good for them they deserve it, if they don’t well then that’s the price of letting someone get the drop on you. People have been using superior skills in one area to make up for lack of skill in the other for years on many different subjects. If the attacker screwed it up then it’s their fault, if they are out skilled then that’s no one’s fault that’s just life. If both players are on equal footing then the player that got the drop will always win… everything else is what happens when there’s a skill curve involved in a game, and quite rightly so.
Next Movement Test Patch
You keep saying this as if it is some golden rule - it is not. If a movement system is emphasized upon too much, then superior positioning may only grant the player a (small) advantage, not a deserved one or even the kill, regardless of his aim. Think of it as CoD in reverse. One of the biggest complaints I have seen about CoD is how it is so camp friendly - the speed + damage model of the game actually encourages players to hunker down somewhere and pick off passersby or ambush players. It n example of too much emphasis on positioning.
sounds like you purposely want to gimp someone’s ability to use their 1v1 skillset to get out of a situation.
In past games, the movement system always allowed for 2 types of players - players that utilized the system well, and players that mastered it, almost (as I see it) to a point of exploiting, like trickjumpers. I would like to see a game that eliminates the latter, knowing full well that a fairly big amount of players aren’t going to have the time, skill, patience, whatever to even get there. By effectively lowering the skill ceiling of movement, you make for a more eqwually leveled playing field, and 2 (I think) more players having more fun. Now don’t think for a second that lowering it would make for a “boring n00bfest,” since lowering it =/= killing it altogether.
I really don’t see a purpose that something as essential as movement should even incorporate a skill ceiling in the first place, at least not on its own. Using it in tandem with other mechanics is where the true skill should come in - using it on its own should be straightforward and easy to master, unless the game is based around it, like Mirrors Edge.
People have been using superior skills in one area to make up for lack of skill in the other for years on many different subjects.
But this is the very thing you keep disagreeing with. I said in certain instances where a player has superior positioning and should be rewarded as such and doesn’t, your response was “oh, then it’s his fault, he wasn’t “skilled” enough,” so how exactly can he use his superior skills in one area (in this case, positioning) to make up for his lack in another, if he’s going to lose regardless? A player’s reasons for winning/losing firefights, isn’t always the case of skill, and that’s what I’m trying to point out and avoid. Sometimes a game’s design simply overall favors certain skillsets/tactics over others.
I think certain aspects of the game should require players to rely on more on certain skills at certain times. It helps to create diversity amongst playstyles, and also hopefully would help in 2 instances:
-
instances where players are excellent support players, but are dog**** on their own - this system may help in giving them a fighting chance (in certain circumstances) on their own.
-
instances where players rarely needs to look over there shoulder since their twitch skills are so impeccable, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to ever get the jump on them, regardless how hard they try.
In a team based objective game, I just think more diversity should be present in when and how players can be effective both offensively and defensively. If done right, I think what I propose wouldn’t remove the skill needed to be victorious, but rather redistribute where it is needed. I hope you are not seeing this as system where players would simply always try to ambush players as the "go to " tactic, to ensure the easy kill, since I assure you that isn’t what I want. Perhaps I just can’t describe it well enough, or it’s a technical nightmare, or whatever else, but in my head it makes sense, and is a radical but effective concept.
That all being said, I don’t care if you agree with me, disagree with me, or anything else. These are ideas I think would be interesting to see if implemented correctly.
If the attacker screwed it up then it’s their fault, if they are out skilled then that’s no one’s fault that’s just life.
these are 2 different scenarios you, but you seem to be treating them as the same thing.
[QUOTE=H0RSE;416254]You keep saying this as if it is some golden rule - it is not. If a movement system is emphasized upon too much, then superior positioning may only grant the player a (small) advantage, not a deserved one or even the kill, regardless of his aim. Think of it as CoD in reverse. One of the biggest complaints I have seen about CoD is how it is so camp friendly - the speed + damage model of the game actually encourages players to hunker down somewhere and pick off passersby or ambush players. It n example of too much emphasis on positioning.[/quit]
If you’re using CoD as you’re example then the opposite of that would be Q3 style movement with DB guns which isn’t being asked for or even going to happen. Exactly what do you think is being requested here because it sounds like you’re taking a simple request and blowing it completely out of proportion.
In past games, the movement system always allowed for 2 types of players - players that utilized the system well, and players that mastered it, almost (as I see it) to a point of exploiting, like trickjumpers. I would like to see a game that eliminates the latter, knowing full well that a fairly big amount of players aren’t going to have the time, skill, patience, whatever to even get there. By effectively lowering the skill ceiling of movement, you make for a more eqwually leveled playing field, and 2 (I think) more players having more fun. Now don’t think for a second that lowering it would make for a “boring n00bfest,” since lowering it =/= killing it altogether.
Do you honestly think that any movement mastering in previous games suddenly turned the player into a killing machine? I would hope that I was considered a more advanced mover in the previous games, but that meant for absolute zero when it came to a 1v1 scenario. In fact if anything it helped me gain exactly what you’re preaching here, a positional advantage which I then used my aiming skill to capitalize on. If the player I got the drop on killed me then he was obviously the better aimer. 99% of the advanced jumps that require time, skill and patience were rarely if ever used in an actual match… and if they were is was never as part of the combat. Lower the skill ceiling of movement too much and you’re bringing another generic f2p shooter to the table. (btw that screenshot of Loffy’s that you commented on where I was on the upper level of Whitechapel, that wasn’t a trickjump, I just discovered you could walk up the side railings on the lift)
I really don’t see a purpose that something as essential as movement should even incorporate a skill ceiling in the first place, at least not on its own. Using it in tandem with other mechanics is where the true skill should come in - using it on its own should be straightforward and easy to master, unless the game is based around it, like Mirrors Edge.
Should it? I’ve seen 0 compelling argument for this beyond ‘IMO’. Dancing left and right, predicting where an enemy is going to shoot and being able to counter that with movement + aim doesn’t require any advanced movement technique (you’re pressing 2 keys here) and is so far from trickjumping that it’s barely worth using in the same sentence.
But this is the very thing you keep disagreeing with. I said in certain instances where a player has superior positioning and should be rewarded as such and doesn’t, your response was “oh, then it’s his fault, he wasn’t “skilled” enough,” so how exactly can he use his superior skills in one area (in this case, positioning) to make up for his lack in another, if he’s going to lose regardless? A player’s reasons for winning/losing firefights, isn’t always the case of skill, and that’s what I’m trying to point out and avoid. Sometimes a game’s design simply overall favors certain skillsets/tactics over others.
The player is rewarded, he got the drop on someone and can get the 1st few bullets in before the other player can even react… what more do you want? Again I’m curious as to what you think is being asked to be added here, some fancy warp factor trick that makes the players suddenly vanish and re-appear? Get the drop from behind, finish the guy off before he can counter. If you can’t player track at ET style movement speed then I’m sorry, that’s a failing of the shooter and not the movement system. Being skilled in one area can only make up for so much of a lacking in another… if you’re that **** at aiming that you can’t capitalize on a surprise attack then no amount of positioning is going to help… but i think you know that already.
I think certain aspects of the game should require players to rely on more on certain skills at certain times. It helps to create diversity amongst playstyles, and also helps to eliminate instances where players rarely needs to look over there shoulder since their twitch skills are so impeccable, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to ever get the jump on them, regardless how hard they try.
You want to lower the skill ceiling of movement meaning you’re lowering the amount of skills they can rely on at certain times. Advanced movement allows players to do just that, get themselves in a better position to be at a tactical advantage. That’s where my 1 skill makes up for my lacking in another area.
In a team based objective game, I just think more diversity should be present in when and how players can be effective both offensively and defensively. If done right, I think what I propose wouldn’t remove the skill needed to be victorious, but rather redistribute where it is needed.
can you seriously ask for diversity when in the same reply you’ve also asked to limit it by gimping movement?
That all being said, I don’t care if you agree with me, disagree with me, or anything else. These are ideas I think would be interesting to see if implemented correctly.
I think you need a level headed view of what’s being asked to begin with instead of assuming it’s some over exaggerated movement mechanic that only exists in your head to suit your argument. I wouldn’t want anything beyond what RtCW, W:ET or ETQW brought and worked fine, yet suddenly this is far too much and totally detrimental to users that can’t press left and right consecutively.
If the speed was increased in all perspectives of movement I think the maps would have to be more open. We won’t come to a clear decision because we haven’t had the chance to test anything else really. Thankfully SD has said they are working on it so I think it’s safe to assume everyone agrees there should be some change and there definitely will be. No need to let this thread get a little heated :p.
I agree with Wiked, this debate is getting far too heated.
[QUOTE=Apoc;416191]I know its etqw, and im not saying i want a copy, but just watch that vid and see how many different aproaches to a fight, movement wise there are. Sometimes strafing, sometimes dramatic jumps, sometimes cruching still for accuracy, most of the time combining positioning with good aim and good movement. Thats what i want from DB, not an etqw clone, just the ability for movement to play an equal part.
[/QUOTE]
What you’re looking at there is very similar to DB and there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings on the forums as to how ETQW worked and how it compares to DB.
ETQW had:
[ul]
[li]No sprinting whilst reloading
[/li][li]No sprinting whilst strafing
[/li][li]No sprinting whilst shooting
[/li][li]Backwards speed and strafing speed were slower than regular run speed
[/li][li]You could ‘ramp jump’ though, this would send you about 30 feet done correctly, which is a bit wrong if I’m honest with you
[/li][li]Crouching was not as fast as in DB
[/li][li]Jumping wasn’t limited
[/li][li]Strafe jumping was possible but barely
[/li][/ul]
I can understand the point the ET fans among you are making, the lost of sprint bars, strafe jumping, high strafe speeds etc, there is no doubt that right now DB’s movement system combined with the map design lacks some depth when compared to ET, but compared to ETQW we’re much more similar.
You’re missing ground acceleration and higher jump height that allowed to chain CJ’s to gain speed if done correctly… add to that ramping and you could run traverse a map very quickly if you got the technique right. I believe ETQW also had a little air acceleration as well which then turned into drag round about the 720 UPS area.
I get what you are saying, DB’s movement system is more similar to ETQW then ET.
But still, allow me to say: WHAAT??? You can’t do THIS in DB: (and it’s what I want)
And are you saying ramp jumping is wrong? You are breaking my hearth!
(Looking at that video, I think my trickjumping was sloppy and off in many of the jumps. I was only able to make that jump to the forward right building because I had gained extra speed from stringing previous jumps together. It can be done in a single jump.)
Nonsense. Dancing decreases the chance of being hit period. Doesn’t matter who’s aiming at you, there’s going to be less bullets hitting you because you’re harder to hit. When you add this factor to combat then the other factors start mattering less, the relative difference between being in an excellent covered position and being completely exposed matters less because you get to compensate that disadvantage with the stutterstepping.
This is actually a perfect quote as it reveals how little you care about the situation. Screw the situation, people with superior key-bashing skills should be able to gloss over all these tactical nuances and be able to bail out of bad situations they got themselves into.
Oh no, that’s geared towards people that don’t understand it at all and all they can see is key bashing… I had to lamen it down for you but you still don’t get it. The situation has already been explained, in typical tokajak style you’ve ignored key elements and singled out one part, and in typical DA style I’m going to write your input off due to lack of understanding and tunnel vision.
It would really suit you if you didn’t keep throwing that same tantrum every time you find yourself cornered.
You just hate to admit that you want to lower the way situational factors determine the outcome as it gets in the way of the jitterdance aimfest you prefer. You hate admitting that because it means recognising that there’s a certain amount of depth that won’t be reached within this system. That’s what jitterdancing does, it converges all the different possible scenarios until every shootout looks like the other.
[QUOTE=Apoc;416191]I know its etqw, and im not saying i want a copy, but just watch that vid and see how many different aproaches to a fight, movement wise there are. Sometimes strafing, sometimes dramatic jumps, sometimes cruching still for accuracy, most of the time combining positioning with good aim and good movement. Thats what i want from DB, not an etqw clone, just the ability for movement to play an equal part.
//youtu.be/8OIatgw0wCI
[/QUOTE]
Great video. And even though ETQW didn’t have reloading while sprinting, I think thats one area where DB could improve over it. I always love the flow of gunplay that allows for unlimited sprint, and reloading while sprinting.
[QUOTE=tokamak;416359]It would really suit you if you didn’t keep throwing that same tantrum every time you find yourself cornered.
You just hate to admit that you want to lower the way situational factors determine the outcome as it gets in the way of the jitterdance aimfest you prefer. You hate admitting that because it means recognising that there’s a certain amount of depth that won’t be reached within this system. That’s what jitterdancing does, it converges all the different possible scenarios until every shootout looks like the other.[/QUOTE]
Cornered? Not at all, and that maybe where you think this mythical tantrum is coming from, you’ve been failing to grasp this concept for probably over a year now going by the previous in the other forum… you’re kind of just boring me now more than anything. You hate being left out so you’ll throw in any random nonsense just to be included then force the discussion your own way. I could explain it again, since the comment I’ve quoted above is complete bunk, but I think I prefer leaving you living in ignorance because that’s what you probably hate the most… not understanding something… the quote above highlights that perfectly.
[QUOTE=Runeforce;416322]I get what you are saying, DB’s movement system is more similar to ETQW then ET.
But still, allow me to say: WHAAT??? You can’t do THIS in DB: (and it’s what I want)
And are you saying ramp jumping is wrong? You are breaking my hearth!
(Looking at that video, I think my trickjumping was sloppy and off in many of the jumps. I was only able to make that jump to the forward right building because I had gained extra speed from stringing previous jumps together. It can be done in a single jump.)[/QUOTE]
To me that is a better example of good map design to allow the jumps than the movement mechanics themselves, this is definitely something we still can and want to work into DB.
I’m not saying ramp jumping is bad, again this is something I feel we could add to DB, but the extent of the boost you get from it is a little too much for a game like DB.
The important thing, from my point of view at least, is having a movement system that has a lot of skill to it but that doesn’t require difficult or complex interactions to perform. Usage should come from timing, positioning and map knowledge, rather than key combos or managing stamina etc. This should allow for depth and accessibility at the same time.
Do you honestly think that any movement mastering in previous games suddenly turned the player into a killing machine?
I’m blowing nothing out of proportion - I am simply playing it cautious in case things do start to get out of proportion. I’ve seen the same sort of think in Brink forums - again, again, and again, update after update, the community was never satisfied with the movement. It’s like They just couldn’t grasp the concept that Brink wasn’t ET, and thus, didn’t behave like ET. IF DB turns out to work better with a more defined movement system, I just don’t want to see a repeat of “it’s still too slow” over and over again.
The concern should be focused on “what would most people want,” rather than, “what would the tightly knit SD veterans want.”
Lower the skill ceiling of movement too much and you’re bringing another generic f2p shooter to the table.
Hardly. As I stated before, there are other ways to make a shooter generic of standout than simply the movement system. Having a more “ET style” movement system, just gives you a faster game, not necessarily anything else unique about it.
I think you need a level headed view of what’s being asked to begin with instead of assuming it’s some over exaggerated movement mechanic that only exists in your head to suit your argument.
I’m assuming nothing. I am simply raising my concerns, in case it ever gets to the level you think I think it’s going to be.
(btw that screenshot of Loffy’s that you commented on where I was on the upper level of Whitechapel, that wasn’t a trickjump, I just discovered you could walk up the side railings on the lift)
Yes, I know this, it just reminded of trickjumpers.
The player is rewarded, he got the drop on someone and can get the 1st few bullets in before the other player can even react… what more do you want?
Well, after I went to bed last night, in typical rock star style, “it came to me in a dream.” I was able to come up with a method that sort of capitalizes on what I am talking about. It involves incorporating aspects from strategy/rpg games, like bonuses granted to the player for flanking, attacking from an elevated position, using full vs partial cover, etc. If a player has a superior position, say an elevated position, then he should get a bonus vs the appropriate players, say a bonus to hit or bonus damage. If a player flanks or ambushes you from behind, the same sort of bonus should apply. I’m not sure how to work out the defensive side of position yet, since I don’t want to turn players into outright tanks.
I would like to see how a system like this would work out. I think it could lead to players needing to be much more leery of their surroundings, and could make for players less reluctant to travel in groups - something that can add to the team aspect. I’m not saying this is necessarily the best formula for DB, but it something I’d like to see in action and built upon.
Being skilled in one area can only make up for so much of a lacking in another… if you’re that **** at aiming that you can’t capitalize on a surprise attack then no amount of positioning is going to help… but i think you know that already.
Well, in the example I just gave, positioning can help.
If you can’t player track at ET style movement speed then I’m sorry, that’s a failing of the shooter and not the movement system.
Not saying I disagree with you, but this statement is a little one-sided. It’s like saying in a racing a game, if you can’t make a 90 degree turn going 80 miles an hour, it’s the lack of skill not because your moving too fast. Yes, on one side, a more skilled player could nail that turn, yet it doesn’t change the fact that you’re still moving 80 miles an hour. You need to set a line between simply “failure of the shooter” and the skill needed to not fail.
can you seriously ask for diversity when in the same reply you’ve also asked to limit it by gimping movement?
Where you see “gimping” I see “regulating”
I wouldn’t want anything beyond what RtCW, W:ET or ETQW brought and worked fine, yet suddenly this is far too much and totally detrimental to users that can’t press left and right consecutively.
DB is aiming to be a f2p game. I just don’t want to see a movement system that was made popular in, compared to the “heavy hitters,” are niche titles, and results is basically the SD community making up most of the games population. I’m not saying anything is inherently wrong worth the ET movement systems - I for one agree with many of the changes people are asking for, I just don’t want to see a system implemented that isn’t the most fun for the most people.
I understand SD’s goal is to develop a high skill based game, but in a f2p market, making it too reliant on skill, can cost you customers.
So after all this, really all it boils down to is ‘I agree somewhat, but take is slowly and don’t over do it’?
[QUOTE=H0RSE;416374]
I understand SD’s goal is to develop a high skill based game, but in a f2p market, making it too reliant on skill, can cost you customers.[/QUOTE]
LoL and Dota 2 have done alright 
I don’t think deep and skilled gameplay inevitably means a small audience. As long as time and effort is put into teaching players well and providing them ways to play like-minded and equally skilled individuals, which we hope to do, then the audience can be huge.
In fact that depth is often what helps retain players for longer periods of time, that’s why it’s part of our philosophy that Locki explained here
That’s all it’s ever been about… If you go back and look at where this discussion began, I never once implied that the requests being made over the top - my tone was that of caution, not rejection. Everyone else appeared to get heated to my posts, and thus, I reacted accordingly.
Sounds genuinely great, will be a challenge to achieve, but if you can, will be some fantastic buildingblocks to work with.