The game's fun, but where's the skill?

(Fallout) #1

The only gun worth using in 90% of combat situations are the SMGs, and even then one of the better combat tactics seems to be to run around like a maniac while going full auto. This is in part due to imperfect netcode which makes somewhat jerky movement even with fairly low pings and the fact at how accurate you are while running around.

Assuming you surprise the enemy, you’ll win most situations due to how much getting hit messes up your aim and concentration and many times this involves gunning down multiple enemies. This of course is not including airstrike spamming, grenade spamming, or mine spamming.

I’m not putting down the game, it’s a fun “casual” game but I can’t see how it (or even the original RTCW for that matter) involved much of a skill curve. Too easy to get kills just by simply being in one spot or spamming, and a real lack of viability with most weapons.

I can definately see the mix of Quake and Counter-Strike, but the more I play this the more I realize how I want Quake or Counter-Strike… but not a mix. They both were good because they are fairly “pure”, and this mix ends up making a fun game that ultimately lacks a skill curve deep enough to foster large support for reasonable competitive play.

It reminds me of games like Natural Selection or the new MMO Planetside, where the skill level required is moderate but the curve is very shallow. Essentially, individual skill peters out pretty quickly and you’re down to variants of team tactics. Great, strategy. But how much can you really mix it up when it’s down to just determining attack orders or guarding positions?

It’s a fun game, but I guess it’s not one I can stand playing for more than a game or two at one time. Run, bunny hop, spam… good game! I know some folks like the lack of emphasis on individual skill, but that just ends up making this a fun game to play around with some friend at a LAN or during lunch break.

Since there’s a smallish competitive community for RTCW, what’s the reason those people play that game over something like Counter-Strike or Quake/UT TDM? As I see it, get decent aim with the SMGs and good teamwork and you’re set.

Can someone explain what I’m missing without stepping off the short bus and into the internet gutter? I just can’t understand how there’s much of a skill curve compared to some of the other games on the market.

(DG) #2

keep playing and find servers with good players, you’ll eat your words :smiley:

(Fallout) #3

I acknowledge there are better players than me. Heck, I’ve played with a bunch of them :slight_smile:

The thing is, what is there to get much better at? In Quake 3 or UT2003, it was timing powerups, map control, prediction, hitscan aim, or projectile leading. In Counter-Strike, you’ve got to learn how to deal with the very distinct damage/recoil of weapons, money management, looking for cover, predicting attacks. Then you can even break it down to fairly different skill in becoming great with the AK/Colt, pistols, mp5, AWP.

Most of the skills that I can see, seem to be less important in the game to do well. If you’re an engineer you need to know where to plant mines or tnt and when to do that, a medic needs to learn when to heal or revive, and the other classes have their little tricks.

There’s definately a requirement for skill, and some people are better than others… but beyond getting good with the SMGs, what differentiates “good” players from “great”?

In Quake or Unreal it was map control and consistant aim. In CS it was weapon handling, team map control, and a bit of luck :slight_smile:

Here, I’d just expect to see the top 10% of teams all being able to beat eachother any given day. That’s how it works with games that tend to have less depth in the skill curve (take Natural Selection or Planetside for that matter), as it doesn’t take too much to be as good as you can get.

Controlling an area or item in CS or Quake tends not to be an endless onslaught. A fight occurs, and one side loses and it moves elsewhere. Here, you’ve got what can sometimes feel like an endless onslaught so eventually skill becomes less of an issue and more about numbers or shudder spam.

(Kekojones) #4

That’s the real problem. Many people forget this is not a game of killing the enemy. Is a game of fullfilling objetives. I can’t stress this enought. If people focus on teh objetives and theior order the game becomes really really fun.

I always recommend noobs to start playign as a soldier. The soldier has less recoil and in general better weapon handling than the other classes. Actual guns are great and pretty balanced. SMGs being more effective has to do more with teh type of fighting that happens more on ET:Close Quarter Battle.

Lets forget our Quake origins…lets focus on objetives and not in killing random people…:slight_smile:

(Swad) #5

The game can certainly require skill if you’re playing on servers where people know how to play there part. I just played last night on a server where a guy was staying at the top of the scoreboard with a panzer… and he wasn’t just spamming–he was good. Likewise, I often see covert ops guys who know what they’re doing staying up there in the ranks by playing their parts well. It can definitely turn into a big spam fest at times, but it’s not totally random spam that moves a team closer to its objective. Players playing their roles, and playing them well get’s a team somewhere. To me this requires skill.

(Fallout) #6

I can understand the emphasis on objectives, but as has been the case for most games with objectives and unlimited respawn (Team fortress classic or battlefield 1942) you end up getting body spam (kamikaze!) or weapon spam (Who here doesn’t like getting spammed by four airstrikes as allies on the beach near the spawn?).

Definately a different way to play, and fun in many ways. I’m just saying that it requires less skill than more “pure” genre games due to the emphasis on numbers in many situations over requirement for precise aiming and lightning reflexes.

(DG) #7

if you can only see skill in terms of getting good smg aim, you havent started :stuck_out_tongue: if aim + reflex is all you care about, go play Q3 or UT2003 insta. aim is only ONE skill, objective games are much more about brains - tactics and “smart play”.

one thing many players specifically liked about rtcw was the relatively few number of weapons, because it emphasises the importance of skills in everything else. in Q3 and Ut2003 you time powerups; in rtcw you time respawns, reloads, panzer hold breaks, artillery, when to jump out and make the revive… you can even for example choose to either have a nade blow exactly where you want it or throw unprimed so everyone runs away - letting you through :smiley: killing matters far less: teams can win clanwar with <25% kill/death effic, e.g. doing a medic rush past axis spawn to plant radar 2, or sneaking the engineer under on assault while everyone pays attention to the scrap on the airfield… rtcw and et are very complex games. take youre mind off kills and remember its the objective that counts… if stopwatch is used every second counts since the longer you hold for on the defensive turn, the more time you’ll have to complete the obj on “round B” (and vice versa). again this makes tactics even more important since you can be screwed if you havent thought about the fallback plan.

the top 10% mainly get consistent results, but there are more than the occasional upsets between non-rediculously different skilled teams, due to smarter use of tacs etc. if the outcome of any game was so reliable and guaranteed, what would be the point in playing?

after a while i think you’ll find RTCW & ET as being far more demanding than Q3 and UT2003, a large part of the reason rtcw clans tend to burnout a LOT faster than the other games.

(Swad) #8

If by skill you mean motors skills requiring precise aim on the move while doing all sorts of acrobatic moves, etc., then no it isn’t ‘pure’ like UT2K3 or something like that. The skill in RTCW, while aim does play a part, is more tactical skill. That and team skills. Various player classes compliment each other very well if played together right. Any game can be as good or bad as the players. If you have a bunch of smacktards just randomly running around playing no real roll, then skill just kindof flies out the window. You have to play your part and play as a team to watch skill rear it’s head. An engineer walking past an unconstructed / damaged MG nest, a medic walking past a wounded comrade on the ground, a field ops walking past a guy requesting ammo–that’s when tactical and teamplay skill isn’t being displayed. I will agree that on a lot of servers people don’t play their roll or as a team, but with time the newbs will become veterans.

(BoltyBoy) #9

If there’s no skill involved in this game how come some players can consistently come top with Exp/ enemy kills etc - that must require skill as opposed to “getting lucky” every round ?

(wudan) #10

Sorry, if you don’t see where you need improvement, then you lack a very necessary skill.

Everyone could stand to be better, and as it’s a team game, the real skill is in working as a team.

(reks) #11

Some of the weapons need tuning to make them more useful.
IIRC the smgs have actually been tuned down in damage in ET from RTCW.

I agree that suicide players are annoying, esp. with panzer.
I also agree that arty is to easy to use. What’s the point of having a mortar soldier if you can arty every 15 seconds as LT?

But I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There’s still a lot of difference between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who doesn’t. And I still think the game is a good time.

CS is great but I personally get tired of sitting there waiting for the round to finish :(.

(Ifurita) #12

Actually, there is a fairly complex set of skills required to excel at RTCW/ET

Core gun skills. You already alluded to this, so I won’t say more

Strat Development. There is absolutely a skill involved with planning a good, phased map strategy prior to a game and then executing it once in-game. I’ve seen tons of solid strats fail because the teams couldn’t execute under fire and I’ve seen tons of matches where the team with better guns lost because the other team managed better crossfires, more seamless defense, more coordinated attacks

Map Control. A subset of strat development, but every map has it’s chokepoints and key areas to protect. Mere gunnery skills will only give you part of what you need to control a map - coordination, communications, and competent team mates are what gets you the rest

Resource management. In RTCW/ET (at low xp levels), nearly everything is in short supply. Do I drop ammo here or do I wait. Do I give this guy 2 med packs or all 4. Is the extra field ops better or should someone switch to engineer. At what point in the map does the team need to transition from engineer-heavy to medic-heavy.

Risk management. This applies more to SW mode, but there are team decisions about high-risk, high-payoff strats vs more-conservative but slower strats. Do we make a concerted push thru the front gate on Goldrush to fix tank at first push, or do we go 2-pronged, set up base of fire, and then control courtyard first?

There are layers of skills involved with RTCW/ET, and that’s one of the aspects that keeps me coming back to the game

(senator) #13

ET is IMHO superiour to simple shooters like UT or Q3, ET requires teamwork to win and a lot more than in any CTF or TDM game. In ET every mix of classes on every map requires a different approach. Just as an example the command posts as secondary objectives, they are not necessary to win the game but they surely help. Or all the nifty gun-towers and MG-nests than can be constructed. If your team consists of CovOps only your screwed :blah:
If on FuelDump 3 Axis are controlling the allied command post and have closed the 2 main doors it requires teamwork to retake the bulding. No matter how good the first playe storming the garage is, he’ll probably die because 3 vs. 1 is hardly winnable. But as soon as he’s inside his buddies can come in too and finish the distracted axis off and a medic can revive the fallen players.
this requires teamwork but I agree than quite frequently when I run into the garage to fight it out my coward allied comrades just wait outside to see how it goes :frowning: And as soon as I’m dead and the axis have healed themself they (maybe!) start coming in. But that will change (I hope) :slight_smile:

I personally think UT or Q3 are boring but I’m totally addicted to ET :clap:

(Stomith) #14

wutan said:

Sorry, if you don’t see where you need improvement, then you lack a very necessary skill.

Well said wutan - thats the most intelligent thing I have heard anyone say in a LONG time. I bow to that kind of mentality.

(Phoenix-D) #15

"The only gun worth using in 90% of combat situations are the SMGs, and even then one of the better combat tactics seems to be to run around like a maniac while going full auto. "

Wha? I for one have gotten much better results firing short bursts while prone or still; especially at longer ranges.

Sure, if you’re right in front of someone, shoot away. Even then the SMG isn’t always the best, though its the easiest. A well positioned MG42 is really nasty- its exactly like having one of those mounted machine guns anywhere you want, once you get the bipod down.

Morters are EVIL if they are well-aimed. They kill just like rockets, but fire faster and fire indirectly. I’ve never gotten the hang of the sniper rifles though…can’t tell if I’m hitting or not. Flamethrowers can be good, if you can avoid TKing and killing yourself. :slight_smile:

I wonder how many players don’t know about the morter, or the MG bipod, or throwing grenades so they explode immedinately…

(ToeD) #16

u obviously never played rtcw :moo:
if you had you would know its super tactical… and i really advice you to try it yourself. the reason its a bit low skill atm is that nobody knows the maps. lots of new people playing it. lets see how you think about it in a few months.

(Freedom[]Tickler) #17

Actually playing Americas Army made me better RTCW/ET player. In Q3 I was too used to instant respawning, Id throw my life away w/out thought.
Playing AA made me pay attention to cover, ammo in clip, kneeling before I start shooting for better aim, and staying alive. You also have to have a real sence of whats going on across the entire battlefeild, so in a way, there are entirely new kinds of skills for a FPS.
ET’s most important skill is using binds to get your teammates to work as a team. Alot of people playing ET arent familiar w/ the maps yet, they need directions where to go and what to blow.
Splash did an amazing job of making a game that revolves around cooperation.
Q3 had CTF, DM and TDM, and those styles of gameplay are very long in the tooth. Us fraggers were begging for a new style of game type, and ET is the best expression of it.
BF1942 could have been, but is hampered by a buggy engine and not so fantastic netcode.

(Vengeance) #18

Its obviously this type of game is not for you and you prefer the quake style games.

IMO i think games like quake and counterstrike require lot less skill and attract more players due to it bieng a much simpler game. This is only my opinion and the reason these type of games are not for me.

(Swad) #19

Just to be fair, I think those games do require skill–just a different type. They center more on the twitch aiming and movement. It is a skill, but it’s not much deeper than that. There aren’t squad type tactics like a lot of more ‘realism’ type shooters have. I play UT2K3 here and there and it’s really challenging and does require a lot of skill to play somethinglike insta-gib. Again, though, just a different type of skill. Personally, I prefer games that envoke a person’s tactical and teamplay skills, though–ala RTCW:ET, BF1942, etc. etc. over the vanilla type games. I prefer to be more mentally challenged and have a lot more fun with a ‘thinking man’s game.’ To each his own, but vanilla stype FPS games and tactical squad based games are in leagues of their own. Often when one appeals to one group, the other has no appeal.

(Englander) #20

Fallout i dont see why you had to make thread about this,you prefer CS or Quake and thats fine ,but i have always found Quake and games like it do not need the skill and thought process RTCW and ET requires,its all about personal choice and opinions ,if you cant find any long term game play in ET then stick to the games you like best,but please dont make silly threads about how much in your opinion this game lacks compared to the ones you like ,instead just leave and dont play it.