|
victrix posted:That map is horrible - Q2 in general was a way less interesting 1v1 game than QW or Q3, but the default dm maps it included were remarkably awful. id mappers didn't have a clue at that time. Hey screw you buddy Killbox (q2dm3?) remains my favorite deathmatvh level. Killing people with lava never felt so good.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
I would have thought Q3DM6 was, by this point, the most famous 1v1 map. Especially with Quake Live now or whatever it's called.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:(Disclaimer: it's been ages since I played Q2 - or any pure DM focused FPS - and when I did I never played at a high level.) There are two rocket launchers, super shotgun and a body armor out of your control. So the enemy is going to be equipped with the best weapon in game whatever you do. Megahealth spawns 20s after it has worn off, and gives you flat +100hp, ticking down 1hp/s until you are at 100hp or less, it's really the only advantage you have besides chaingun. Railgun is not easily accessible for neither player, getting it is always a risk as you'll be swimming in and out for while, and the water splash is audible anywhere. This map is seriously the best Q2 dueling map there is, used on every league since it was introduced, Provi just plays a perfect game here so all the strategic nuances are hard to see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Essobie posted:Just about every FPS 1v1 design is flawed due to "winner's outs" where dying people come back typically way weaker than the surviving killing player is currently (no weapons, no armor, "average health"). These problems also extend to TDM. Quake 1 TDM completely revolves around memorizing where to you if you spawn in a certain area. If you don't make a move to pick up a certain powerup within x amount of seconds, you and your team are hosed. It's not fun being gunned down over and over by people that have one of the powerups in the level just because two of your teammates didn't get to one of the best items in the level as soon as they spawned in. Pro Team Fortress Classic also has a similar problem in that you have to follow a certain "script" (only Scouts and Medics attack; Heavies, Engineers and Soldiers placed at key chokepoints) if you really want to win because everyone else uses it, along with memorizing a level. If you don't, you might as well quit now because you're going to be steamrolled. quote:In full deathmatch I'd expect that to be less of a problem, since with so many people running around even a high-level player can get flanked or have a bunch of other players take a chunk out of him in quick succession, but in duel it seems like once someone has a lead, it's disproportionately hard to take that lead away from them, since they have a large health and weapon advantage (and that, in turn, makes it easier for them to exert control and keep you from becoming a threat in the first place - witness how many times Purri got whacked trying to get the railgun or minigun). FPS 1v1 seems to be more of an exercise in memorizing than actual gameplay. It's extremely punishing and seems to be built for and by people that care more about following the "winning" strategy that's hypothetically supposed to never fail (ie "pro" Super Smash Brothers players) than improvisation and other elements. It doesn't give two shits about making things fair for the loser, even though that's what makes these types of games exciting and would attract far more people than just nerds that love to memorize things. I don't mind that people enjoy it, but when it's promoted to the detriment of other game modes or as the best of a game's MP component, then it gets frustrating (see: ESports based on classic FPS games). Not all of us enjoy memorizing some video game level to the point where you could run through it even if the brain lobe responsible for higher-level thinking was shut down. closeted republican fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:FPS 1v1 seems to be more of an exercise in memorizing than actual gameplay. It's extremely punishing and seems to be built for and by people that care more about following the "winning" strategy that's hypothetically supposed to never fail (ie "pro" Super Smash Brothers players) than improvisation and other elements. It doesn't give two shits about making things fair for the loser, even though that's what makes these types of games exciting and would attract far more people than just nerds that love to memorize things. I don't mind that people enjoy it, but when it's promoted to the detriment of other game modes or as the best of a game's MP component, then it gets frustrating (see: ESports based on classic FPS games). Not all of us enjoy memorizing some video game level to the point where you could run through it even if the brain lobe responsible for higher-level thinking was shut down. It seems that there's a problem here in that pretty much any such game will benefit from memorization; a player with lightning reflexes, expertise with every weapon, and perfect aim will still lose to someone who has all of that and has memorized the entire level. How do you promote "pure skill" and adaptability over memorization? Randomly generate the level between rounds? That would be pretty cool, actually. The positive feedback problem (where winning makes it easier to win more) is a different issue and probably more easily addressed, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Easily, you spawn both players with all weapons and maximal health/armor - plenty of arena mods do exactly this for training purposes, resetting the spawns each death But then it becomes entirely about aim, dodging and map movement, with no timing or strategizing as to where you will guard/patrol/intercept/evade to lock down items Though, I'll take fighting over items any day over Halo style competitive combat where everyone has a BR and fights in a square box map, jesus christ Regardless of how good or bad that is from a 'balanced' competitive standpoint, its boooooooooooooooooring to watch I'll always prefer quake style dm games competitively, simply because lots of projectile weapons and fast crazy movement are more fun to watch than pokey movement or lots of hitscan weapons
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:It seems that there's a problem here in that pretty much any such game will benefit from memorization; a player with lightning reflexes, expertise with every weapon, and perfect aim will still lose to someone who has all of that and has memorized the entire level. Memorization is my biggest issue with pro gameplay. Things like the 1v1 duel posted earlier seem more like scripts ran by a bot instead of actual test of one's skills. At some points, it feels like you can see where the person's mind is thinking concepts like "if enemy is near yellow armor, then shoot rocket at mid door to hit them". That doesn't seem like a test of one's abilities at all. It's more of an overglorified Simon Says than a fast-paced FPS that values quick reflexes and reactions. quote:Easily, you spawn both players with all weapons and maximal health/armor - plenty of arena mods do exactly this for training purposes, resetting the spawns each death That sounds like a good idea. You can still have a Quake-style DM with rockets and bunny hopping everywhere, but it's more about actual skill and tactics, not memorization passed off as skill. I'd play it. closeted republican fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Can't you just force tournaments to use NEW MAPS that the combatants have not seen? E: This guy: ToxicFrog posted:How do you promote "pure skill" and adaptability over memorization? Randomly generate the level between rounds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Kazvall posted:Can't you just force tournaments to use NEW MAPS that the combatants have not seen? A long time ago when I was playing competitively, we played a league that did this. It was loving awesome. All the other teams hated it with a passion and the concept was scrapped. I could go on a long rant about competitive fps players, but I'll refrain :P
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
victrix posted:A long time ago when I was playing competitively, we played a league that did this. It was loving awesome. This sounds great to me. I remember playing Cal CS and loving hating having to memorize down to seconds the routes we'd have to take based on amount of team mates and enemy position. It came down to knowing where they'd be based on a set option list, than to actual skill of acquisition. I just love counting seconds, when it's not the clock. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
victrix posted:A long time ago when I was playing competitively, we played a league that did this. It was loving awesome. I'd love to hear about how lovely competitive FPS gamers are. Based on how conservative, spergy and whiny they are, an insider's look into how horrible it is playing and being with them would be great. Kazvall posted:This sounds great to me. I remember playing Cal CS and loving hating having to memorize down to seconds the routes we'd have to take based on amount of team mates and enemy position. It came down to knowing where they'd be based on a set option list, than to actual skill of acquisition. I just love counting seconds, when it's not the clock. Things like this make me think the only reason why certain maps become "pro" isn't because they're well-balanced; they're just easy to memorize. That's why dynamic levels like the Pressure in UT99 or any dynamic game mode like UT's Assault never appear in serious tournaments; you can't predict with 100% certainty what is going to happen all the time, like you can in de_dust2 or Q3DM6. closeted republican fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
A long time ago I posted on the QL forums an idea for a way that would essentially solve all the winner's outs issues I have with 1v1 Quake, and one of the id guys actually said it sounded interesting enough to do a devpick using my rules. I don't think it ever was followed through though. I certainly never got to play it! Essentially you remove all the health pickups (including mega), everyone spawns with all the weapons and 100 armor but limited ammo. You get more ammo by grabbing weapons and ammo pickups, and weapons have 20s respawns (like they did in Quake 1 and 2). So when you kill someone, they are likely going to be even with your current strength, or, if they did pretty good to knock you down on health and armor and ammo, they are going to be much stronger than you are after respawning. The lack of health pickups means every shot is actual damage that can't be "undone" by running items. Basically the end score should be an accurate representation of player skill, rather than the 20-6 routs you see on a regular basis between two players of equal skill simply because of a few bad spawns early and the remainder of the game with someone in "control". Unfortunately, the status quo of arena FPS dueling won't touch this setup with a 1024 unit pole, so we'll never see how well it would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:Memorization is my biggest issue with pro gameplay. Things like the 1v1 duel posted earlier seem more like scripts ran by a bot instead of actual test of one's skills. At some points, it feels like you can see where the person's mind is thinking concepts like "if enemy is near yellow armor, then shoot rocket at mid door to hit them". That doesn't seem like a test of one's abilities at all. It's more of an overglorified Simon Says than a fast-paced FPS that values quick reflexes and reactions. I don't see what's wrong with having a large amount of strategy and timing in the game in addition to reflexes. Why is aiming a purer skill than being able to control the map?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:I'd love to hear about how lovely competitive FPS gamers are. Based on how conservative, spergy and whiny they are, an insider's look into how horrible it is playing and being with them would be great. The problem is it invariably sparks SAGoons(tm) competitive players to come out of the woodwork and start a two page derail of lameness. Witness any discussion about Smash Brothers status as a super pro no items final destination fighting game bro and you have some vague idea of what its like. If I get drunk enough, I'll write some stories out at length sometime, but in brief: The competitive fps community is largely young adolescent males, or males barely out of their teenage years - they're hormonal, irrational, deeply insecure, and then on top of that, a lot of them are also already in the Outcast Nerd profile physically/emotionally (this used to be more true than it is these days, since pretty much everyone plays games now, jock or nerd, but it's still true). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what sort of community that spawns. Deeply competitive and skilled players looking for amazingly tough well fought battles isn't really what most of them are looking for, they either want glorious wins to prove their awesomeness, or to belong to some sort of leet self described pro scene tribe. I hated all of that poo poo from day 1, even when I was an adolescent snot myself, so I never got along with the pro scene, nor did any of my guild/clan/whatever you want to call them. Actually I take that back, we did have one guy who fit in to a T (we still give him poo poo for that to this day), he actually went on to a brief career in the behind-the-scenes event planning/management/setup stuff for the various tech companies that throw the tournaments. He plays Dota2 solo for fun now, that's like sandpaper on my nuts. I think the worst part about the situation as a whole is that, personality issues aside, there _are_ a lot of really loving fantastically talented players out there, for any given fps, but the way the community rolls, the tournament rules don't always emphasize the parts of the games that are genuinely the most fun. Late in our 'careers', it was common to hear groaning around the room when it came to be match time, because it was almost never really fun to play in a match (almost - on those rare occasions when you were up against a team/player just as good as you and the entire battle was a seesaw struggle, those games were loving amazing). We had far more hilarious moments playing on semi-private servers with great players in fuckoff mode then we ever did in matches (which, as was discussed above, were very often what looked to be one sided blowouts, even though I can tell you that from the inside, you aren't paying attention to how much you're winning, you're struggling to hold on to that edge with every bit of skill you and your team possess). On a personal note, I'll always prefer team matches/games over 1v1, the teamplay element is just so much more gratifying. Using the best aspects of each player to triumph over a team with better individual players but worse teamwork was immensely gratifying. In terms of spectating, I actually don't mind watching 1v1 games in fighting games or starcraft, but I think fps games are just plain better in teamplay, especially if you can hear the uncensored conversations that go on from the team leader/coach during a match (I don't really watch fps competitions, I never liked watching other players or replays for that matter, so I don't even know if they do that these days - I know some of my own profanity laced tirades/instructions wouldn't really be acceptable for broadcast  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
I never liked the fact that you had to jump around like a tard in order to be considered 'good'. I'm probably in the minority here. I also thought conc jumping in Team Fortress Classic was stupid and more or less quit once it became a popular strategy. Does this make me a bad person?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I never liked the fact that you had to jump around like a tard in order to be considered 'good'. I'm probably in the minority here. Had nothing to do with being considered good, in quake style games if your feet are planted, you're an easy splash target, and in any fps, it's an extra angle of mobility - it's really loving easy for good players to hit even highly mobile players, so anyone not using every possible mobility tool is just handicapping themselves. I giggle a little bit at people who get mad at 'fukken dropshotters' in CoD - same general principle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
mistermojo posted:I don't see what's wrong with having a large amount of strategy and timing in the game in addition to reflexes. Why is aiming a purer skill than being able to control the map? The problem is when it becomes the ONLY thing that matters. If you watch 1v1 duels, it's clearly more about controlling the map and being able to predict everything than actual skill. That seems to go against the actual idea of pro-level gaming in the first place. quote:I never liked the fact that you had to jump around like a tard in order to be considered 'good'. I'm probably in the minority here. I also thought conc jumping in Team Fortress Classic was stupid and more or less quit once it became a popular strategy. Does this make me a bad person? Conc Jumping isn't that bad in a pub game. You usually get torn to shreds if you try it in one, even if you aren't played 2fort/Well. You need a constant stream of Conc Jumpers for it to be effective, and that usually doesn't happen in pubs. quote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what sort of community that spawns. Deeply competitive and skilled players looking for amazingly tough well fought battles isn't really what most of them are looking for, they either want glorious wins to prove their awesomeness, or to belong to some sort of leet self described pro scene tribe. That makes a lot of sense. Pro gaming isn't set up to actually test your skills; it's set up to ensure feel-good blowout and glorious victories so the players can stroke their tiny ego. It explains all of the rules (ie the classic "Final Destination/Battlefield only" rule) and the emphasis on memorization instead of actual skills. Those make it easy to get one-sided victories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:The problem is when it becomes the ONLY thing that matters. If you watch 1v1 duels, it's clearly more about controlling the map and being able to predict everything than actual skill. That seems to go against the actual idea of pro-level gaming in the first place. It's not the only thing that matters. Have you watched high level duels? It's a combination of map control and aiming skill. Players change control and have comebacks all the time, and it's not like whoever gets the first frag always wins. I also don't see how it's against the idea of pro-gaming when it's much more exciting and interesting to see players outsmart each other instead of just outaiming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
The difference between good and great players is entirely mental, it's almost invisible on screen unless you know the game intimately Defining 'actual skill' is pretty vague, skilled pro players _all_ have great aim and reflexes, some better than others with certain weapons or certain situations, but they're all extremely good It's more interesting (for me) seeing how they handle situations in terms of maintaining control or regaining control A match that's 18-6 might be a hell of a lot closer than it looks, because that match could just as easily have been 6-18 if one critical mistake was made, but you might not even see what that mistake could have been if you're not really into the game in question Good commentators help this a lot, when they can give you (correct) insight into the players thought processes during a match, and why they did or didn't do a certain thing, give up a certain item, or struggle to control a certain area This is both why I like teamplay more (more areas to control, more flexibility to respond), and why it's way harder to commentate and spectate - there's a fog of war aspect to matches that are even 4v4, and it makes giving a running realtime overview of the situation really difficult
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Agreeing with the idea of aiming as the one true skill being silly - forethought, planning and mind games before the actual 'battle' starts should be equally important, someone who has planned for all situations should beat the guy who comes round the corner randomly with good aim. Assuming that both players have great aim, the first guy has more 'skill'. A higher skill ceiling is pretty much always good for competitive games, right? e: ^^ this guy said it better
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
victrix posted:A match that's 18-6 might be a hell of a lot closer than it looks, because that match could just as easily have been 6-18 if one critical mistake was made That is a major flaw in the design, regardless of how "close the match is", though. One critical mistake and a lopsided score is lopsided the other way? I don't doubt what you are saying because I've seen it happen hundreds of times (I, too, used to enjoy watching very high level play of a number of games I was only mediocre at, at best). But to me, that's what is wrong with how the mechanics work. The scoreboard should indicate relative player skill in any competition. The only 1v1 FPS DM I can think of that ever did that was Descent sans Megas*. *Which is actually what I based my little "alternate reality QuakeLive Dueling Rules" above on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Unless a league or something counts total points over a season, does the granularity of a victory really matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
field balm posted:Agreeing with the idea of aiming as the one true skill being silly - forethought, planning and mind games before the actual 'battle' starts should be equally important, someone who has planned for all situations should beat the guy who comes round the corner randomly with good aim. A higher skill ceiling is pretty much always good for competitive games, right? Mind games and planning are fine, but when it becomes the only thing that decides a game, then it's a problem. When I play FPS games online, I use tactics like that and have certain routes I like to use, but they're never the cornerstone of my strategies. I don't memorize a level to the point where I think I can predict everything based on a simple "if x, then y" list in my head, then camp an area for the entire match just because it's the "winning strategy". Part of the fun of online FPS games is the randomness of it all and the ability to improvise on the spot and still end up in a favorable position, no matter the game mode. If you're making it into Simon Says with fast-paced shooting mixed in, then you're stripped out a lot of the fun and charm of such games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
edit: nvm, double post
mistermojo fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
The thing about the score is that not giving up frags when you lose control is a skill too. It also depends on the map and how easy it is to rack up kills (for example on a small map you would want to get as many kills as possible so when you lose control the opponent has to make those kills up)closeted republican posted:Mind games and planning are fine, but when it becomes the only thing that decides a game, then it's a problem. When I play FPS games online, I use tactics like that and have certain routes I like to use, but they're never the cornerstone of my strategies. I don't memorize a level to the point where I think I can predict everything based on a simple "if x, then y" list in my head, then camp an area for the entire match just because it's the "winning strategy". Part of the fun of online FPS games is the randomness of it all and the ability to improvise on the spot and still end up in a favorable position, no matter the game mode. If you're making it into Simon Says with fast-paced shooting mixed in, then you're stripped out a lot of the fun and charm of such games. Again, what game are you talking about? Mind games and planning aren't the only things that decide a match in Quake. I have no idea what you're describing since your example makes no sense (you have to constantly patrol the map in Quake because there are several key items that are usually far apart)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
mistermojo posted:Again, what game are you talking about? Mind games and planning aren't the only things that decide a match in Quake. I have no idea what you're describing since your example makes no sense (you have to constantly patrol the map in Quake because there are several key items that are usually far apart) It's my experiences in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Essobie posted:Essentially you remove all the health pickups (including mega), everyone spawns with all the weapons and 100 armor but limited ammo. You get more ammo by grabbing weapons and ammo pickups, and weapons have 20s respawns (like they did in Quake 1 and 2). I really like that idea, much more than "everyone respawns whenever anyone dies". Kazvall posted:Can't you just force tournaments to use NEW MAPS that the combatants have not seen? I like that too, but eventually you probably run out of new good maps, and unless you're making the maps specifically for the tournament there's no way to ensure that they haven't played the maps before, either - which is why I was musing on the possibility of generating new maps on the fly. Problem would be making the map generator not poo poo. mistermojo posted:I don't see what's wrong with having a large amount of strategy and timing in the game in addition to reflexes. Why is aiming a purer skill than being able to control the map? The objection is not that aiming is "purer" than strategy, but that it makes the game all about memorizing the map and the "known optimal" strategy for controlling it and just executing that strategy like a checklist, with little to no room for improvisation and on-the-fly strategizing. Both players know the map and know that "given situation X, the optimal action is Y", so the match focuses on who knows and can execute that checklist best. In contrast, if you play with maps no-one has seen before, it removes this sort of ahead-of-time strategizing and memorization and instead emphasizes the ability to learn the map quickly and devise new strategies on the fly. Both still require skill at moving and aiming and fast reflexes and whatnot, but test different skills otherwise, and the latter is more likely to see different players try different strategies rather than competing to see who can execute the one "perfect" strategy better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:The objection is not that aiming is "purer" than strategy, but that it makes the game all about memorizing the map and the "known optimal" strategy for controlling it and just executing that strategy like a checklist, with little to no room for improvisation and on-the-fly strategizing. Both players know the map and know that "given situation X, the optimal action is Y", so the match focuses on who knows and can execute that checklist best. This is exactly what I've been saying. Executing the "winning" strategy over and over is boring and makes matches about rote memorization and being able to execute the winning strategy faster/better than the other guy, not actual tactics and strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Want to actually understand how duelling works? Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58 No 'actual tactics or strategy' here, nothing but memorisation and execution of the nefarious 'optimal strategy' that all quake players know for q3dm6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Ha, I was just about to come post that same link. I hope you're being sarcastic. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:The objection is not that aiming is "purer" than strategy, but that it makes the game all about memorizing the map and the "known optimal" strategy for controlling it and just executing that strategy like a checklist, with little to no room for improvisation and on-the-fly strategizing. Both players know the map and know that "given situation X, the optimal action is Y", so the match focuses on who knows and can execute that checklist best. Well I see what you're saying, but what kind of strategy are you thinking of? Map control is dictated by major items (usually red armor and megahealth), but even if you just have a bunch of health bubbles and yellow armors, it's still just a matter of learning the map and item layout. It's not feasible to have people create brand new map pools for each tournament and to have those maps end up being good and balanced. I also think you're oversimplifying the duel, it's not a matter of doing X when Y and there being only a small number of strategies, things change over the course of the match depending on what happens. Obviously everything happens within some framework, but that can be said about any game and I don't know why that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
In my opinion, duels were a lot more fun to watch before strafe jumping became a thing. Here's the famous Red Annihilation 1997 match between Thresh and Entropy where Thresh won John Carmack's souped up Ferrari. While the level of play is far below what we see today (Thresh carefully lining up jumps is quaint), the sound fakes (opening doors and then going the other way, purposely avoiding fortuitous items so as to stay quiet) add a layer that makes the matches more exciting to watch for me. There's a level of subterfuge and mindgames that are lost when everyone is bunny hopping around the map like madmen, and it puts even more focus on rote memorization of item timers and map control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
A solution could be to have a chaotic map, scripted so that it reshapes itself more or less randomly. Have some corridors close while other opens, put a cage around some item spawn point but free access to another, throw a bridge here, put a wall there, flood some area, shuffle teleport destinations, etc. Let this kind of stuff happen continuously so the map changes every few seconds and players are forced to rediscover it in its current configuration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:35
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:A solution could be to have a chaotic map, scripted so that it reshapes itself more or less randomly. Have some corridors close while other opens, put a cage around some item spawn point but free access to another, throw a bridge here, put a wall there, flood some area, shuffle teleport destinations, etc. Let this kind of stuff happen continuously so the map changes every few seconds and players are forced to rediscover it in its current configuration. That would be a really interesting map. I think a mutator for UT99 nailed it best when it gave the user control over which items spawned where. You could keep the original item spawn nodes, but have the mutator (intelligently) spawn random items at each node, or throw the fixed nodes away and have the mutator pick random places to spawn items on the fly. It could correctly pair weapons and ammo so you weren't getting a complete mish-mash of items, too, and worked with all maps. There were imperfections with it, of course, like climbing the cliche sniper hill to find...a goo gun. Or going into the kill-zone where a megahealth is to find...a +5 health vial. Definitely kept you on your toes, though. Cream-of-Plenty fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
"Map knowledge isn't a real skill, FPS should be about shooting" - some idiot. Flat map, no walls, lightning gun fight to the death...come at me bro, most hardcore gaming experience ever! Map knowledge is fundamentally important in addition to micro/macro, so I guess that whole genre is similiarly broken.  My main issue with Quake Live is that you need way too much additional health/armor to chase someone who's running around the map to kill the clock. That doesn't mean 1v1s are intrinsically broken, it just means the physics/weapons/maps are lackluster in one particular game (the only game of its kind with somewhat of a playerbase, mind). The remedies mentioned in this thread make no sense: Removing health pickups will just result in less fighting and more spam/potshotting, randomizing item placement will result in powerful items being located in easily defendable positions half the time and the guy that gets the first few frags becoming unstoppable. The easiest thing to fix would be better maps. A good map for dueling to me is small and roughly divided into 2 parts: One half with the more powerful items but a high risk of getting ambushed, the other half is more defendable but has weaker items. Phrantic in Quake 4 is my favorite in this regard. Small enough that there are constant engagements, but with a balanced layout to make comebacks feasible. While pro-gamers might not all be the anti-social, hateful creatures some posters would lead you to believe, they do hate change and would rather play the same old bad maps ad infinium because they have a head start on those. I think 2GD has a pretty good idea of what needs to be done for the old school FPS genre to survive and I'm looking forward to the "Reborn" game he's working on...id software have like 3 people left working on Quake Live and there's too much broken for a comeback (no proper skill-based matching system, not enough players these days for it to work anyway, Blood Run being played 50% of the time). http://www.twitch.tv/thegdstudio/b/326106062 they start talking about Reborn at around the 2 hour mark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Paul Pot posted:My main issue with Quake Live is that you need way too much additional health/armor to chase someone who's running around the map to kill the clock. That doesn't mean 1v1s are intrinsically broken, it just means the physics/weapons/maps are lackluster in one particular game (the only game of its kind with somewhat of a playerbase, mind). The remedies mentioned in this thread make no sense: Removing health pickups will just result in less fighting and more spam/potshotting.... Not having health pickups might result in more spam and potshotting, but if you also limit the ammo (one of the other things mentioned in my little mod idea), that becomes less attractive of a tactic. Not to mention, timelimit is a stupid thing to have in 1v1 to begin with, and the only reason it needs to exist there is because you can get more health after taking damage. I guess I should have included my loathing of timelimit and what it does to the game in my other post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Its all just theory, but why wouldn't you spam/potshot and then get into a lighting gun fight as soon as you've got the better stack? Because there are no pickups, calculating health is super easy and the weaker opponent will know that he has to run away and fire defensive rockets/rails to get back into the game. Doesn't sound very exciting to me. I feel like it would help make duels more accessible/fun if timing on the major items (RA, Mega) was displayed. Advanced players can still distinguish themselves by perfectly timing the yellow armors & health bubbles, but at least there won't be this feeling of the game passing you by completely for the first few weeks of playing, which is enough to scare away 90% of the people that aren't ultra-competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
Is there any sort of add-on I can combine with Duke Plus to make the 'new guns' sprites instead of 3D models? I like the mod but those models are very disorienting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Reive posted:Is there any sort of add-on I can combine with Duke Plus to make the 'new guns' sprites instead of 3D models? I'm not on my computer with eduke on at the moment, but I'm pretty certain there's an option in the ingame menus to turn 3d-models off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Rather Dashing posted:I'm not on my computer with eduke on at the moment, but I'm pretty certain there's an option in the ingame menus to turn 3d-models off. There is, but Duke Plus doesn't have sprites for the new weapons, only models. It's pretty stupid, especially considering the HRP models look like dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 03:26
|
|
