The Truth

(jazevec) #81

[QUOTE=Kendle;418812]There are gazillions of Urban Terror jump movies as well on YouTube, jumping is a big part of UrT, seeing as it’s a Quake3 mod and features not only proper Q3 style strafe-jumping but also wall-jumping and climbing, basically parkour on steroids long before Brink ever thought of the idea :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

You don’t understand. Jumping videos are still about individual skill, and Splash Damage always boast about teamplay potential in their games. But a quick reality check reveals teamwork is not valued by players nearly as much. I’m referring to the original post.

When most players play a team-based FPS games, they simply don’t shoot at half-1 players. I think the reason team-based games became the norm is because quake-style deathmatch is a cluster**** and you often can’t make 10 steps without getting fragged. Team-based games are simply more forgiving. Check how many players pick a class like Medic or Covert Op to focus on their teammates.

(V1cK_dB) #82

[QUOTE=jazevec;419065]You don’t understand. Jumping videos are still about individual skill, and Splash Damage always boast about teamplay potential in their games. But a quick reality check reveals teamwork is not valued by players nearly as much. I’m referring to the original post.

When most players play a team-based FPS games, they simply don’t shoot at half-1 players. I think the reason team-based games became the norm is because quake-style deathmatch is a cluster**** and you often can’t make 10 steps without getting fragged. Team-based games are simply more forgiving. Check how many players pick a class like Medic or Covert Op to focus on their teammates.[/QUOTE]

Teamplay is important but a game that rewards individual skill through great shooting and movement mechanics like RTCW is much more important. Which is why I think a game like Rage with RTCW like gameplay would be amazing to play even without the classes and objectives. Straight Last Man Standing. Of course a Last Man Standing w/classes would be even better.

Evenly skilled teams going up against each other in a game like that is amazing to watch and exciting to see the individual skill of each player. In games like Brink where it’s dumbed down you have situations where nobody moves or chokepoints don’t get broken because 1 player can’t make a gamechanging move due to the shooting and movement being limited.

Sure 1 player can take out a whole team in a game like that but those other players have to be really bad to let that happen. It would rarely if ever happen in a game of 2 evenly matched teams. 1v2 sure. 1v5? Not so common although possible which is what make RTCW amazing IMO and it all has to be done with great shooting and movement. Not because I had a better weapon, not because I saw you first, not for any other reason than I outshot the other team that round.

(jazevec) #83

[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;419145]Teamplay is important but a game that rewards individual skill through great shooting and movement mechanics like RTCW is much more important.
[/QUOTE]

My point exactly. At least, if the goal is to make the game fun to play for most people.

(Kendle) #84

Don’t really remember that happening in the RTCW matches I used to watch. I’ve seen some CS matches though where a great aimer can “ace” the other team, and CS does not have RTCW’s movement.

What CS does have, that RTCW doesn’t, is guns that require you to do more than just jam your finger down on MOUSE1 without considering the consequences.

(prophett) #85

I prefer this along with longer time to kill so the person to see or shoot the other person first doesn’t have as big of an advantage. I loved the old 3hs/7ish bodyshot recipe and would love to see a similar damage system in DB.

(V1cK_dB) #86

[QUOTE=Kendle;419187]Don’t really remember that happening in the RTCW matches I used to watch. I’ve seen some CS matches though where a great aimer can “ace” the other team, and CS does not have RTCW’s movement.

What CS does have, that RTCW doesn’t, is guns that require you to do more than just jam your finger down on MOUSE1 without considering the consequences.[/QUOTE]

We get it…you don’t like hitscan. You’ve moved on and evolved into the much more advanced gaming of today. I’m pretty confident the majority of people here have been wishing for an RTCW like experience for many years and and integral part of that is the shooting and movement mechanics. That includes hitscan.

I also like CS. Play it to this day. Another game that takes skill.

(V1cK_dB) #87

Me too!!!

(Kendle) #88

When did I say that? What I have an issue with is the simplistic one size fits all nature of RTCW’s gun play, not the technicalities of how hits are registered.

(montheponies) #89

Basically it comes to the fact that there are plenty of other shooters out there and no doubt we all play - i’ve racked up a fair amount in CSS, CSGO, BFBC2, BF3 - the point now is that the vast majority are formulaic with an ever increasing weapon and attachment pool to ensure that 1v1s are just a lottery.

As you mentioned earlier, i’m also pro-choice - just at the moment there isnt anyone making a game of my choice, that being the core of RTCW.

(V1cK_dB) #90

[QUOTE=montheponies;419232]Basically it comes to the fact that there are plenty of other shooters out there and no doubt we all play - i’ve racked up a fair amount in CSS, CSGO, BFBC2, BF3 - the point now is that the vast majority are formulaic with an ever increasing weapon and attachment pool to ensure that 1v1s are just a lottery.

As you mentioned earlier, i’m also pro-choice - just at the moment there isnt anyone making a game of my choice, that being the core of RTCW.[/QUOTE]

Very well said. I’m pro-choice too! I want the choice to play a game with RTCW shooting and movement with a limited amount of guns to take randomness out of the game and bring skill to the forefront. Currently I don’t have that “choice”.

(Kendle) #91

Why does limiting the amount of guns take randomness out of the game and bring skill to the forefront? Limiting the amount of random / skill-less guns might, but not the number of guns per se. I don’t want skill-less weapons either, I just want more than one skilled weapon, that’s what I meant by choice.

I think where you and I disagree is you have a very narrow definition of “skill”, and therefore a very narrow range of possible weapons that could embody that definition of skill. You want “one gun” because you think there’s only “one skill”.

To me skill is more than just being able to track an opponent with a pea-shooter. Skill is also being able to react and aim quickly, not something you really need to do in RTCW / ET because you will always survive being shot first. Skill is being able to control recoil, something that’s entirely absent from RTCW / ET (SMG’s at least). Skill is being able to weigh the cost / benefit of how and when you engage the enemy, again not something you really need to do in RTCW / ET because there are very few costs.

Note: I don’t want these other skills “instead of” the skill you most admire, or to even have a greater impact on the outcome of a gunfight, and I certainly don’t want ALL guns to require ALL skills. I’d just like to see a range of weapons, requiring a range of skills, catering to a range of different player preferences.

(maxxxxlol) #92

I think tracking someones head at speed while trying to outmaneuver his shots takes more skill than only needing to put your crosshair on a guys head for 1 second and release a quick burst.

(montheponies) #93

The heart of this is whether or not you perceive the RTCW gun/dmg model as being skillful - i’m not certain that you do with the number of ‘just press mouse 1’ and ‘no recoil’ comments. I personally believe I’ve not played a more skill based shooter, and that’s in the context of playing a reasonable amount on each of the COD, BF and CS series along with a myriad of others (tribes etc).

That, along with the movement, made RTCW special, with the aim and tracking a true skill where you would consistently lose against a better player. To use a really poor analogy - I see the shooting and movement in RTCW as akin to a sport. If I use the duelling example of Fencing you wouldn’t expect to see an Olympic sport where the two opponents turn up, one with a foil and the other with a lance (with or without a laser targetting device and underslung smoke launcher) - sure if the lancer misses the first hit he could be in trouble as the foil closes but where the hell is the balance and skill in all that?

If you can see it from that point of view, you might begin to get where we are coming from - even if you think the shooting / movement model is more akin to the sport of tiddlywinks rather than fencing.

(jazevec) #94

I like montheponies’s definition of a skillful game:

  • a skillful game is a game where a worse player consistently loses to a better one

I would expand on this by saying that games can be more or less skillful depending on how often a better player beats a worse one. If we use this metric, it’s quite clear RTCW is a very skillful game. I’ve had my ass handed to me many times when I managed to attack someone from behind. In other games I played, like Medal of Honor or CS, encounter outcome was a lot more random (less so in CS, because maps are relatively small and players don’t respawn). Similarly, against a good Q3 player, you may not be able to score a single frag. Your score might easily end up negative, because he bounces you into lava with rocket launcher. Better players DO win more often in high damage games like CS, but at the same time it wasn’t uncommon for me to kill a top player from time to time. And it didn’t feel rewarding, more like I happened to be in the right place at the right time.

We can spend days arguing what should be considered skill or not - ambushing players ? Managing recoil ? Aiming and moving in an unpredictable way at the same time ? Sniper rifle headshots ? Rifle grenades ? But the rule “the game where better players have higher percentage of wins is a more skillful game” clears all doubt in my opinion.

And yes, it does mean that some of most skillful games are games with perfect information, symmetric, and… boring ? Still, an assymetric game can be “fixed” when it’s played in a stopwatch mode, and maps favor offense.

(Kendle) #95

It’s not a question of perception, it’s a matter of opinion.

For example, as I’ve mentioned, I played DOD for a long time. No DOD player would agree that RTCW / ET takes more skill, in fact they’d laugh at you if you even suggested it (I know, because when I was a DOD noob I tried, and they did!). Are they all soft in the head? No, they just have a different opinion. I’m sure if you made the same assertion on any CS forum you’d get the same reaction etc.

It’s not about proving this or that, it’s opinion. You’ve given your reasons for having yours, I’ve given mine, it’s not a lack of understanding that separates us.

Again going back to DOD (not to prove a point but to demonstrate a difference of opinion), if 2 players went head to head with the same weapon they’d applaud the guy who won for the same reasons you would, but if 2 players met with different weapons, each with it’s advantages and disadvantages, they’d applaud the guy who was best able to master the advantage whilst limiting the disadvantage. The only time the difference between the weapons becomes an issue is if the advantage of one over the other outweighs its disadvantage.

This in fact happens all the time in DOD matches where each team has AR’s and Rifles with very different mechanics routinely pitted against each other.

Yes, you could eliminate the advantage / disadvantage potential for imbalance by not having differences in the first place, but 2 weapons being different doesn’t mean they MUST be unbalanced.

As long as there’s balance, there’s skill, the real question is which would you ENJOY more, and that really is purely subjective. :slight_smile:

(montheponies) #96

Entering into semantic territory, but your opinion on something is usually formed based upon your understanding or perception of that thing - ie. your opinion on the mechanics of RTCW are based on your understanding of them.

As for two weapons being different, yet balanced, that can be true - why even RTCW had a semblance of this with the moderate slower rate of fire of the Thomson compensated by the slightly higher damage given, when compared with it’s Axis equivalent the MP40. However this is still SMG v SMG, relatively simple and not exactly the same as balancing a whole host of weapons ie. SMG v RPG v SHOTGUN v LMG v CHOPPER v TANK v AWACS

DOD sounds like the land of the gentleman :slight_smile:

True, but if two weapons are so different that they actually rely on completely different skills then where’s the fun in winning a duel? If I come up against a shotgun wielding corner camping mofo in a corridor who one-shots me in the face at point blank range I doubt I’ll be applauding anyone, least of all the developer for again adding to the plethora of games that cater for ‘everyone’ - who cares that at mid range I can tank the shotgun wielder, that gives me no sense of achievement as the choice of gun has decided the fate of both of us, not our relative skill.

(V1cK_dB) #97

[QUOTE=Kendle;419338]It’s not a question of perception, it’s a matter of opinion.

For example, as I’ve mentioned, I played DOD for a long time. No DOD player would agree that RTCW / ET takes more skill, in fact they’d laugh at you if you even suggested it (I know, because when I was a DOD noob I tried, and they did!). Are they all soft in the head? No, they just have a different opinion. I’m sure if you made the same assertion on any CS forum you’d get the same reaction etc.

It’s not about proving this or that, it’s opinion. You’ve given your reasons for having yours, I’ve given mine, it’s not a lack of understanding that separates us.

Again going back to DOD (not to prove a point but to demonstrate a difference of opinion), if 2 players went head to head with the same weapon they’d applaud the guy who won for the same reasons you would, but if 2 players met with different weapons, each with it’s advantages and disadvantages, they’d applaud the guy who was best able to master the advantage whilst limiting the disadvantage. The only time the difference between the weapons becomes an issue is if the advantage of one over the other outweighs its disadvantage.

This in fact happens all the time in DOD matches where each team has AR’s and Rifles with very different mechanics routinely pitted against each other.

Yes, you could eliminate the advantage / disadvantage potential for imbalance by not having differences in the first place, but 2 weapons being different doesn’t mean they MUST be unbalanced.

As long as there’s balance, there’s skill, the real question is which would you ENJOY more, and that really is purely subjective. :)[/QUOTE]

No doubt that CS takes skill. I’ve never played DOD but I know OF it and I’ll take your word for it that it takes skill. I and many others on this thread are of the opinion that RTCW gameplay takes more skill. Most of us have played other popular shooters and we still feel this way. I’ve played CS, COD, Halo (I know) and Shadowrun competitively. I still think RTCW was the most skillful hands down. Although I still had fun with other shooters like CS and Shadowrun.

I still don’t understand why change a formula that worked so well with RTCW. You say games have evolved. Into what? You keep on referencing older games like DOD or CS when it comes to the “skill” debate. If games have evolved so much why must you reference old games? The reason is because games have gotten easier to play and randomness has taken over for skill. What I mean by that is more often than not when I die in a modern game it’s because of randomness. You had an OP weapon, one shotted me while camping a goofy corner waiting for me to pass by(and you ended 1-12 in the match but hey…you killed me!) you had a killstreak and killed me while looking at a gadget across the map, etc…etc. Rarely do I get killed in a real 1 v 1 situation with balanced weapons anymore. It RARELY happens. Randomness has taken over.

Comments like “games have evolved”, “pea shooter”, etc etc…make it sound like your trying to say RTCW wasn’t as skillful as you think some other games are. That’s your opinion. Maybe you should be in the DOD forums asking for a game from that dev that has those features (Gun selection) your looking for (not trying to flame…just being honest). You are in the SD forums and SD keeps on making games that people don’t want to play. We are trying to show them what they did wrong by reminding them of what truly made their games great. Why change it? They tried your advice with Brink. They failed miserably. Brink had many weapons and yes I know the Carb-9 was dominant. And you know what…that would have been just fine with the right movement and shooting…but because that was Brink’s main flaw it couldn’t overcome it.

So we are asking for a game from the developers of W:ET to make a game true to it’s roots. Meaning the shooting and movement roots. Yet you want more randomness in a game that had it down perfect? I don’t understand. I know what you mean about a few more weapons doesn’t really change it much etc etc…and maybe your right. All I would do anyway is play custom matches where we would ban certain weapons which is what most competitive match rules do …as you know. The less randomness…the better.

My concern is with the shooting and movement feeling like idTech3. If they can’t get that down then it doesn’t really matter. This game will be just like Brink…maybe a little bit better.

(stealth6) #98

Some randomness is needed to appeal to a larger audience. It’s fun to have an ET or RTCW remake for people who played those games a lot, or plan to play a lot. But if you’re the guy who can only play a few hours a week and keep getting a score of 1-12 then you’re probably not going to stick around for long.

So instead of saying why aren’t you making a remake, it was perfect. Why not come up with ways to give casuals a reason to keep playing, but limit it so it doesn’t ruin the experience of players that want to hone their skills and become a one man army. (Or in other words what small things could they change to W:ET / RTCW to give new players a shot too?)

(Dysfunkshion) #99

[QUOTE=stealth6;419428]Some randomness is needed to appeal to a larger audience. It’s fun to have an ET or RTCW remake for people who played those games a lot, or plan to play a lot. But if you’re the guy who can only play a few hours a week and keep getting a score of 1-12 then you’re probably not going to stick around for long.

So instead of saying why aren’t you making a remake, it was perfect. Why not come up with ways to give casuals a reason to keep playing, but limit it so it doesn’t ruin the experience of players that want to hone their skills and become a one man army. (Or in other words what small things could they change to W:ET / RTCW to give new players a shot too?)[/QUOTE]
I don’t see a way to cater to both audiences without hurting the other. Also, don’t forget that there will also be paying users and payments that need to be balanced. One of the few games that I know that is able to cater to Hardcore, Casual and Paying players, without creating unfair advantages/hindrances for any of these groups, is league of legends.

(stealth6) #100

Well you could for instance give large amount of XP for doing objectives. Then they might not be the best fragger, but then they feel like they’re doing their part to help. Or some kind of medic function or aura so they can aid other players.