The problem with shooters in general

(ConchMan) #1

I thought that I might as well throw around a few ideas. Maybe someone will listen. Comments/Ideas are welcome.

The map is always exactly the same. After a few plays you know where all the good sniping spots are. you’ll even know which direction the enemy is going to come from and where his first few steps are likely to be as he is always coming from the same spawn. you know exactly where all the high traffic areas are and can therefore throw your grenades, plant satchels/mines, call airstrikes on spots the enemy is likely to be. You know exactly where the health and ammo cabinets are.

You learn things such as: Around “blind corner A” you can always take advantage of partial cover from enemy fire at “point B” while you advance to “point C”. You learn that if you first jump up onto “point D” a second jump will allow you to reach a second level, “point E”, that would otherwise be unreachable.

The sad thing is that some silly people actually try to pass this off as skill and strategy. The real name for this sort of thing is brute force memorization. It’s the sort of thing that always works as long as you don’t mind taking advantage of the game’s flaw. As far as I know all multiplayer shooters have this flaw. The flaw is that the map never changes at all. As long as the map never changes, no one can truly claim the ability of skill. It becomes a battle of who can pick the best spots to fight from based on previous experience.

I think the maps should change in subtle ways every time the server starts it. Why can’t the health and ammo crates be in a different place every time the map loads? It doesn’t have to move far. If the 2nd pair of health and ammo crates in Gold Rush were moved ten feet from where they were, but still in the same area, the gameplay would be different.

There should be a way to create brushes that didn’t necessarily load whenever the map loaded. They should be numerous enough and varied enough to change the mechanics of the map in an unpredictable manner. This is so that a joining player would know the general layout of the battlefield (as any good soldier should know), but he should never know intimate details of the battlefield when it is clear that (since he’s behind enemy territory) he really should not know. On the other hand the brushes should be small enough so that a joining player doesn’t have to download more than 500 KB of these “temporary” brushes every time he connects.

A better idea would be to include all possible variations to all of the maps in some master catalog of brushes that’s included when you purchase the game. When a player tries to connect, the server gives the client a code that tells the game to load certain temporary brushes off of the CD.

The objectives don’t even have to stay the same. Create a map with five objectives A, B, C, D, and E. The first time the server loads it, the victory conditions could be to complete objectives B, D, and E. The second time the server loads it, the victory conditions could be to complete A, C, and E. The downside, however, is that ppl would have to actually look to see what the objectives really are. But then again, is that really a bad thing?

Your thoughts?

(Narkar) #2

i have thought about it myself too that maps just get old and you get to know where you can grenade blindly. But it is not as bad in ET as i think is in Americas Army. Everyone there are playing by brute force memorization.

Fortunately in ET you are playing against other people, so they will also learn where you are and most of the time they can spawn again and flank you if you are in just 1 spot. Or even be a covert to assasinate you.

Unfortunately there are more noobs in ET, so sometimes you really get that singleplayer feeling that you are playing with dumb bots against dumb bots.

It doesnt get as boring when against good players.

(Spookstah) #3

I dont know if it is possible in ET, but ive worked on a map for Global Operations and we did add random spawn points, so after you die you would auto spawn on a different place in the map (about 6 random spawn points a team).

That did improve the spawnkilling problems most (all) fps games have.

(damocles) #4

Yeah that would be possible for ET, but maybe a little overkill. Usually it’s okay to have two or three spawn areas and let the players choose where they spawn from.

(thore) #5

@ conchman

and you are the guy who mapps 10 different versions of a single map
and prove the gameflow to remain evenly balanced for both teams?

racedrivers then will only win because of brute force memorization.
they just know at which point they should start to slow down, gear up,
begin steering to master a certain part of the track in perfect time. the
‘skill’ actually is to adapt your knowledge to varying circumstences.

when it rains you have to step on your brakes earlier - or for ET if ten
teammates got killed at a special place you might want to consider
taking another route if you don’t want to be the eleventh victim :bump:

mapping an environment in different alterations only would take players
some more time to get known all these versions. of a map… but they still
will learn it and then start over to use their brute force. muharhar.

(Kendle) #6

To me what makes the game random, and different every time, is the players. Your arguments make a great deal of sense from the perspective of a single-player FPS, but not multi-player.

(ETplayer) #7

what helps with me is… I PLAY OTHER GAMES 2 …

I play a little bit of everything so i dont get bored with 1 game…
Cuz if u play 1 game 2 much, u will get bored…

I play all sorts of games like:
Strategy,fps,rpg etc…

:drink:

(Miles Teg) #8

It would be very interesting if there was a randomly-generated map each game.

Almost certainly not feasible, and not necessarily leading to good play, but it would make a nice change.

([VF] Dutch) #9

I don’t agree. You’re making it sound like I can just walk to a certain point without fighting. Sure there are spots where you have a certain advantage, but you’ll only get the newbies like that. Skilled players (and I do consider myself as a skilled player) know how to fight, which positions to take, when to take out their nades, when not to shoot at all. There are some games where each round is excactly the same as before (AA’s one of them, awefull game), but certainly not ET or RTCW.

Btw: I’m more of a SOF2 player. I hardly play the standard maps since they’re always the same and don’t have enough variation. SOF2 has something called RMG (Random Mission/Map Generator) which spits out a completely new map every round. It’s a bit less detailed but still nice to see. 4 settings, Desert, Jungle, Hills, Snow. Useally each map has some hills, buildings, trees. Map is mirrored, so both camps look the same. Give it a try, I got addicted to it loooooong ago, best maptype ever.

(Warskull) #10

Most RTS games have set maps, in fact most games in general have set maps. This is because random maps aren’t so feasable. Good maps are beautiful and have a flow to them, random maps just won’t feel the same.

The strategy comes from apply your knowledge. You can get to Objective 1 through paths A, B, and C. The enemy is heavily guarding point A so points B or C will be easier to get through. However point C goes straight through their spawn. Thus if you take point C you run the risk of getting caught in a spawn, but you will also catch them by surprise if you pull it off.

You pick up little things about the maps as you play them, but what wins the game is how you play. Knowing the map just gets you past the running in circles confused stage.

(amazinglarry) #11

While they’re definetly some interesting ideas and I can agree in some areas, I just can’t find myself to completely agree. I think it does take actual skill and strategy when going up against another team who has their own idea of what’s the best way to be on offense on the map, or defense. The challenging and strategic part of being on the opposite team is finding the best way to counter it. The most balanced games are almost always in a rock paper scissors fashion. There’s no ONE sure way to complete an objective. I think having everything change might be a bit difficult as quite honestly, nobody knows where the hell they’re going… and especially in league games where stopwatch is around 10-15 minutes it’s tough to complete any objective if one doesn’t have an idea.

So… at least in my opinion, I don’t believe it’s a flaw that most FPS’s carry… Then again it’s only my opinion. Good ideas however, I’d like to see them implemented sometime, somewhere. See how it would work.

(Wikkit) #12

Naturally an intimate knowledge of the map is sort of a necessity for easy moving around, but that knowledge is only an edge if you’re playing against people who know the map less well than you do. When everybody knows the map equally well, then it’s skill and nothing else that will determine who the winner is.

Besides, much of the point of a FPS, especially one like W:ET or RTCW, is not to sneak around because you don’t know what’s around the next corner but rather to test your aim and mobility against other people. Of course you need to sneak sometimes and strategize, but these are just additions to the basic idea of the game. Although it is an evolved form of deathmatch starting with games like Doom, it is precisely that - deathmatch!

(Mc Gwain) #13

I don’t agree on sneaking, why they had put covert ops, then?
Sneaking is an importan part of the game, if u sneak into fuel dump or into oasis u have did in 5 mins what u have to do by sheer force in 30 mins.

btw, when ppl begin to know the map, then isn’t anymore a fact of brute memorization, is skill, imho.

have a good time :drink:

(nate.h) #14

Actually, it’s not as infesable as it sounds. I mean, for one, having randomly placed trees/bushes, etc (i.e. small cover) would help a little. That would be kind of a weak randomness.

If you’ve ever played Neverwinter Nights, and played around with the toolset editor, you know the ability for tiled engines using 3D data to make really good looking maps. It seems perfectly resonable that, using methods that do exist already, you could generate a series of at least decent maps from a set of pre-designed parts which fit together in a certain fashion. You could even explicitly specify certain features (“a room like -this- with -this- trigger in it”), and have the generator fill in the gaps.

The second is probably not possible within the scope of ET, but has been an idea I have been thinking about for a while. It would be interesting to play clan games and see how different teams scout out the terrain, as well as just battle through by rote memorization.

(Wikkit) #15

Cheers

:beer:

(Loffy) #16

Hi
To talk about knowledge and skills, and how to measure these abstract concepts, you need to define them.
Do you see memorization a a part of the concept of knowledge for example?
// L.

(Borsuk) #17

Absolutely true !

I think the maps should change in subtle ways every time the server starts it.

Right. Some randomization would reveal skilled and smart players, who can learn.
I was even making some maps with semi-random weapon spawning and such… back in times of Quake2. And guess what ? No one even bothered to check new maps, thanks to q2dm1 idiocy.

This is so that a joining player would know the general layout of the battlefield (as any good soldier should know), but he should never know intimate details of the battlefield when it is clear that (since he’s behind enemy territory) he really should not know.

Another good thought. I doubt such feature will be introduced in commercial games soon (because all they want is your money, not your long-term satisfaction). So it’s up to mod makers.

The objectives don’t even have to stay the same. Create a map with five objectives A, B, C, D, and E. The first time the server loads it, the victory conditions could be to complete objectives B, D, and E. The second time the server loads it, the victory conditions could be to complete A, C, and E. The downside, however, is that ppl would have to actually look to see what the objectives really are. But then again, is that really a bad thing?

Interesting, but newbie unfriendly idea. Objectives would have to be displayed using BIG BOLD TEXT at each map start… so every english(?) speaking newbie knows his place.

Your thoughts?

I am suprised that someone shares my opinions about this matter. I played various multiplayer-only fps games and all of them suffer from what you described. Moreover, your words apply even to non-fps games. For instance Starcraft and Warcraft3 are all about memorizing what works and what doesn’t.

The problem is that there are people who think they are sexy because they can play efficiently and never ever learn anything new.

Half Life mod - Natural Selection - features random alien hive placement. There are 3 hive spots total, and initial alien spawn is determined randomly. No big balance problems, so I guess it IS possible to create partially random and fully fun map.

(Kendle) #18

Just a thought then, why do people continue to play sports, such as Football? The “pitch” on which it’s played never changes. It remains the same shape and layout as it’s always had, the goalposts never move, yet people continue to play it and even more people continue to pay money to watch it.

Surely it’s the players, the “human” factor, that makes no one game ever the same as a previous one?

Just a thought. :drink:

(damocles) #19

The irony of this discussion is that everyone seems unable to see both sides of the argument. The con argument is that maps should change because people can learn them inside out and use this to formulate advanced tactics or to predict where opponents may come from.

Yeah, but flip it around and you see that the other team can also learn the maps inside out and learn where people are likely to be waiting in ambush!

If you really find that people are owning you because they know the map and use it to thier advantage, then that’s your lack of knowledge of the map at fault, not the map or style of play.

A randomly generated MP map would be madness. Do you remember the first time you played Railgun? Did you go exactly where you were supposed to every time? It takes time to learn maps and those that spend the time learning the map and the associated advanced tactics reap the rewards. Those that don’t write threads to complain about it.

(Loffy) #20

“When we play tennis, we both play with the same ball, but one of us places it better.” (Pascal.)
Yes, even if the map is the same, and all have memorized it to the same extent, there will always be someone who is better at any given time.

However, the idea with a map that changes it’s design between each round, is an interesting one.
// Loffy